hard to say, and I don't think it is necessarily nefarious, just not worth the time to accurately report them. I mean, with all the votes cast for the main two candidates, is it worth the time to count the few thousand that wrote in? probably not. I mean, my ballot gets put through an automated reader and is probably left in a stack unless there is a recount done by hand. Writing in Paul would have felt good to me, but the machine would have never tracked it and it would only have been seen if someone went through each and every ballot on election night
frig ... they reported 503 for some guy ... why wouldn't paul supporters vote for johnson? ... i'm sure there are at least 5 million of ya across the country ...
i wrote in paul, because I didnt want johnson, he didnt mean anything to me. I wasnt voting for the best runner up. I was voting for who I wanted to be president. I wanted paul. Why should I have to change my vote. Theres no way the majority of ron paul supporters voted romney. I'd bet most either didnt vote, or some voted for Johnson or other 3rd parties. And I dont think im the only person who wrote in Paul. Yes i too was bemoaning the fact that my state supposedly doesnt even count write in ballots, its only registered as a write in, the exact nature of it, that I voted for Paul specifically, supposedly wont or didnt count. So yeah, I was furious and am furious about that. But I didnt want to change my vote. Paul was the only guy with integrity running. And thats why I voted for him. I voted against war, against the patriot act. Against torture. Against the drug war.
i wrote in paul, because I didnt want johnson, he didnt mean anything to me. I wasnt voting for the best runner up. I was voting for who I wanted to be president. I wanted paul. Why should I have to change my vote. Theres no way the majority of ron paul supporters voted romney. I'd bet most either didnt vote, or some voted for Johnson or other 3rd parties. And I dont think im the only person who wrote in Paul. Yes i too was bemoaning the fact that my state supposedly doesnt even count write in ballots, its only registered as a write in, the exact nature of it, that I voted for Paul specifically, supposedly wont or didnt count. So yeah, I was furious and am furious about that. But I didnt want to change my vote. Paul was the only guy with integrity running. And thats why I voted for him. I voted against war, against the patriot act. Against torture. Against the drug war.
well jill stein is against war and torture and the war on drugs ... i would even say that it is more credible to vote for stein based on those issues than paul ... but i digress ...
the reason one votes for johnson is to get these 3rd party candidates in the 5% range so they can be represented in future elections/debates ...
if seeing ron paul as a presidential candidate was important - he should have ran as the libertarian candidate or as an independent ...
also look at the total vote count, what is it 116 or 117 million people voted. Out of 300 plus million people? That isnt even half the country. So Obama won, by getting 50 percent of less than 50 percent. Thats certainly not a mandate or an affirmation of his policies, and its like I said before, the majority of the country didnt vote, not because they are stupid, but rather they saw the election as a complete farce.
i wrote in paul, because I didnt want johnson, he didnt mean anything to me. I wasnt voting for the best runner up. I was voting for who I wanted to be president. I wanted paul. Why should I have to change my vote. Theres no way the majority of ron paul supporters voted romney. I'd bet most either didnt vote, or some voted for Johnson or other 3rd parties. And I dont think im the only person who wrote in Paul. Yes i too was bemoaning the fact that my state supposedly doesnt even count write in ballots, its only registered as a write in, the exact nature of it, that I voted for Paul specifically, supposedly wont or didnt count. So yeah, I was furious and am furious about that. But I didnt want to change my vote. Paul was the only guy with integrity running. And thats why I voted for him. I voted against war, against the patriot act. Against torture. Against the drug war.
well jill stein is against war and torture and the war on drugs ... i would even say that it is more credible to vote for stein based on those issues than paul ... but i digress ...
the reason one votes for johnson is to get these 3rd party candidates in the 5% range so they can be represented in future elections/debates ...
if seeing ron paul as a presidential candidate was important - he should have ran as the libertarian candidate or as an independent ...
Everyone votes their conscience. or should. Ive voted in the last 3 presidential elections. I voted nader twice, and Paul once. I wouldnt take back any of those votes. Ive never and will never vote based on who will win, and who could win. I vote on the best man for the job. And I vote based on issues that are of value to me. Jill Stein seems great, but ive had problems with the greens since 2004, when they were telling voters during the election to vote kerry as opposed to green in battleground states because it would be too close to call. The purpose of a third party, of the greens, is to push back and force the major parties to discuss important issues, not to cowtow and tell us to lock step support a major party candidate. Third parties are essentially what the Democrats should be, our voice. And johnson sounds interesting, but I was most interested in ron paul. He captured my imagination and spoke the most sense. Seems silly to be supportive of the guy, feel like he's the only sane person running and then at the last moment, switch the vote to another guy. Fair play to those who did that, but thats not me. Not how I operate.
Im all for getting the 5 percent for third party candidates. Nothing would thrill me more. I remember that was the goal that Nader failed to achieve in 2000. But it was 7 percent back then I think. Anyways, I totally agree. But my vote for Paul wasnt a negation of that. I just voted for a different guy. My whole MO and opinion for years, has been the debates should be open to ANY candidate, and that third party candidates should be taken seriously by the media and everyone else.
Im all for getting the 5 percent for third party candidates. Nothing would thrill me more. I remember that was the goal that Nader failed to achieve in 2000. But it was 7 percent back then I think. Anyways, I totally agree. But my vote for Paul wasnt a negation of that. I just voted for a different guy. My whole MO and opinion for years, has been the debates should be open to ANY candidate, and that third party candidates should be taken seriously by the media and everyone else.
ya ... i respect your MO and opinion ... i was just wondering if getting johnson to 5% was a worthwhile goal especially because paul wouldn't even register ...
I've said this before but it is the honest truth: The vote I cast for Ralph Nader in 2000 was the worst vote I ever cast.
care to explain why?
Just seeing this now.
I voted for Nader because I believed about Bush and Gore what many believe about Obama and Romney: That there is no difference between the two, and that the country will be the exact same no matter which wins. I was dead wrong about that in 2000, and I completely underestimated how dangerous to the country the Bush presidency was going to be. Gore was not perfect, far from it, but he was clearly the better choice. I do wish I had voted for him.
it was a long shot, but he would have done more for the country by transforming the current nonsensical wizard party that is the GOP than he could have possible done third party. He would have been ignored by the press again, he would have been kept out of debates, and people would still call him crazy
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it was a long shot, but he would have done more for the country by transforming the current nonsensical wizard party that is the GOP than he could have possible done third party. He would have been ignored by the press again, he would have been kept out of debates, and people would still call him crazy
I agree. I've only read a few articles about Gary Johnson during this election cycle and can't recall seeing him mentioned on a TV report.
At least Ron Paul was able to get his message out during the debates and the media was forced to semi-recognize him for a few months.
also look at the total vote count, what is it 116 or 117 million people voted. Out of 300 plus million people? That isnt even half the country. So Obama won, by getting 50 percent of less than 50 percent. Thats certainly not a mandate or an affirmation of his policies, and its like I said before, the majority of the country didnt vote, not because they are stupid, but rather they saw the election as a complete farce.
So, 117 million out of 230 million voted. Still pathetic.
And, I think most people who did not vote are idiots. either that, or they are lazy. Do some believe it is a farce? Sure, but this is a stance that I don't agree with
Here's what i think...
I think the only way a Third Party candidate will ever get a chance of winning is by this:
1. Uniting the fractured Independent Political Parties into ONE unified Third Party (after Hell opens it's first ski resort)
2. A Third Party making substantial gains in Congressional districts.
3. The Thrid Party in the House votes as a bloc, forcing the two major parties to consider the Third Party's issues and requests during congressional voting.
4. Once the Third Party begins to move into into the Senate, it cannot be ignored.
5. This allows for the possibility of a Third Party Presidential Candidate that actually has a chance of winning.
...
Of cource... nothing can take place until step 1 is completed... so, in other words, you have 2 parties to choose from. As usual.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I've said this before but it is the honest truth: The vote I cast for Ralph Nader in 2000 was the worst vote I ever cast.
care to explain why?
Just seeing this now.
I voted for Nader because I believed about Bush and Gore what many believe about Obama and Romney: That there is no difference between the two, and that the country will be the exact same no matter which wins. I was dead wrong about that in 2000, and I completely underestimated how dangerous to the country the Bush presidency was going to be. Gore was not perfect, far from it, but he was clearly the better choice. I do wish I had voted for him.
ive had this conversation with a million people who have said the same thing. Gore was different than Bush. And I vehemently disagree. If you actually go back, and see what both were running on, they agreed on more things than they disagreed. And the real issues, which at that time was NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the like, wasnt even discussed.
Gore, was boring, stiff, a robot. It wasnt until 2004, and he had licked his wounds from losing the election, that he changed. The environment, his pet issue, wasnt the main focus of his 2000 campaign, it wasnt until again, he had time to deal with his loss, that he started explicitly speaking out against the war, Bush, and demanding a sane environmental policy.
Clintons viewpoint on Iraq and Bin Laden was the same thing. Clinton often times references the fact he tried to get Bin laden while he was in office, but the Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater and all that were too much of a distraction and he couldnt get anything done. Which certainly seems true.
But I think the main issues, Gore believed democracy could be brought over to Iraq and Afghanistan with bullets and bombs, he has the same tired view of Israel, he and Hillary felt it was neccesary to spend time banning and censoring violent video games, movies and music. Check out his response, to a sincere, and thoughtful letter from a mos def fan. The student correctly suggested not all hip hop was mysognistic, and violent and that some of it, Mos Def being one of them, actually tries to educate, elucidate, and empower his fans. It was obvious Gore never listened to Mos Def, even in light of the letter, and sent off some prefabricated typical politican nonsense.
I also dont think Gore would have gotten into office and immediately done anything about the environment. In fact, his views on the environment actually were radicalized. His view on NAFTA and the WTO was the same as Bush's and every other mainstream politican. Both were pro war. Both didnt really speak about the issues people cared about in 2000. The 150 million people who flat out didnt vote in 2000, didnt vote, because there wasnt a difference between Gore and Bush.
Until you start to question the legitimacy of the 2 party corporate state, we arent going to get anywhere in dealing with issues that REALLY matter.
Here's what i think...
I think the only way a Third Party candidate will ever get a chance of winning is by this:
1. Uniting the fractured Independent Political Parties into ONE unified Third Party (after Hell opens it's first ski resort)
2. A Third Party making substantial gains in Congressional districts.
3. The Thrid Party in the House votes as a bloc, forcing the two major parties to consider the Third Party's issues and requests during congressional voting.
4. Once the Third Party begins to move into into the Senate, it cannot be ignored.
5. This allows for the possibility of a Third Party Presidential Candidate that actually has a chance of winning.
...
Of cource... nothing can take place until step 1 is completed... so, in other words, you have 2 parties to choose from. As usual.
i think alot more can be done other than that. I think first would be some sort of mass civil disobedience at debates, and disruptions until any candidate can debate, not just those in the 2 party's. Another would be changing the voting rules and laws, and regulations, so that if you do vote 3rd party, your vote is counted. I wrote in Ron Paul, and my state doesnt count specific write in votes. Its just put into the system as a nondescript write in vote. So essentially my vote wasnt counted.
And i think starting one huge Third Party movement, like a 99 percent party, or a poor peoples party would be great. But their are major divisions between the various factions of third parties. The main example is maybe the most visible 3rd party after Indepedents, is the Greens. And they've, in the last few years, told voters to vote for a major party candidate in swing and battleground states. So whats the point of even having a Green party, if they tell voters to do that? So bridging that gap and figuring out how to convince even third parties that third parties are necessary and essential is something that needs to be done.
Finally, I think part of a third party movement, would be refusing to cow tow to the 2 party buisness system, and voting ONLY third party. Because if you do vote for one of the major candidates you are legitimizing the very system you seek to undermine and get rid of. I hear people talk all the time about the currupt 2 party system, but then they vote Democrat or Republican. Thats not going to do anything if you do that
it was a long shot, but he would have done more for the country by transforming the current nonsensical wizard party that is the GOP than he could have possible done third party. He would have been ignored by the press again, he would have been kept out of debates, and people would still call him crazy
I agree. I've only read a few articles about Gary Johnson during this election cycle and can't recall seeing him mentioned on a TV report.
At least Ron Paul was able to get his message out during the debates and the media was forced to semi-recognize him for a few months.
No he wasnt. The mods in the debate, and the media at large ignored him. Same thing with Kucinich. The other candidates on stage openly mocked both those guys. Its was a big joke to everyone.
Ron Paul had support because people regonized him as the only principled candidate running, and because of grassroots support. It wasnt because they saw him on the debates and became aware of him
Ron Paul had a following that took 4+ years to build. A loyal, grassroots following. Finally hit the mainstream and got a lot of people's attention. A lot of Republicans I know who feel disenfranchised by the "Financial Conservatism" and war-hawking of the current party were on board. Hell, I would have voted for the guy.
He runs Libertarian and I think he easily clears 5% of that vote, and possibly puts a 3rd party on the map.
Him going away and leaving nothing but his minions creating some youtube moments at the Conventions sold everything short. He didnt 'change the party from within' at all. I see no significant fingerprints on their platform.
I really suspect he may have cut a deal for his son's future by not running.
Ron Paul had a following that took 4+ years to build. A loyal, grassroots following. Finally hit the mainstream and got a lot of people's attention. A lot of Republicans I know who feel disenfranchised by the "Financial Conservatism" and war-hawking of the current party were on board. Hell, I would have voted for the guy.
He runs Libertarian and I think he easily clears 5% of that vote, and possibly puts a 3rd party on the map.
Him going away and leaving nothing but his minions creating some youtube moments at the Conventions sold everything short. He didnt 'change the party from within' at all. I see no significant fingerprints on their platform.
I really suspect he may have cut a deal for his son's future by not running.
Im not really understanding what the point of this is.
Anyways, I dont think his goal was to change the party from the inside. He has pretty much nothing in common with Republicans, and nothing in common with Democrats. I consider him a 3rd party candidate, and I certainly dont think he was running to get the Republicans to be more like him. He was running because he felt called to, and that the issues he talked about werent being discussed BY ANYONE.
I did vote for him. And I voted for him because he was without peer. To hear someone at a mainstream debate say something like "we need to legalize all drugs and end the drug war" and "we need to pull troops out of the middle east and deal with countries with diplomacy and friendship". It was just perfect, and so right on.
I dont think his son had anything to do with it. They disagree on alot of issues. I certainly dont view Ron Paul as a tea partier. He DID run, so i dont know how that is considered sparing his son.
I voted for Nader because I believed about Bush and Gore what many believe about Obama and Romney: That there is no difference between the two, and that the country will be the exact same no matter which wins. I was dead wrong about that in 2000, and I completely underestimated how dangerous to the country the Bush presidency was going to be. Gore was not perfect, far from it, but he was clearly the better choice. I do wish I had voted for him.
ive had this conversation with a million people who have said the same thing. Gore was different than Bush. And I vehemently disagree. If you actually go back, and see what both were running on, they agreed on more things than they disagreed. And the real issues, which at that time was NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the like, wasnt even discussed.
Gore, was boring, stiff, a robot. It wasnt until 2004, and he had licked his wounds from losing the election, that he changed. The environment, his pet issue, wasnt the main focus of his 2000 campaign, it wasnt until again, he had time to deal with his loss, that he started explicitly speaking out against the war, Bush, and demanding a sane environmental policy.
Clintons viewpoint on Iraq and Bin Laden was the same thing. Clinton often times references the fact he tried to get Bin laden while he was in office, but the Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater and all that were too much of a distraction and he couldnt get anything done. Which certainly seems true.
But I think the main issues, Gore believed democracy could be brought over to Iraq and Afghanistan with bullets and bombs, he has the same tired view of Israel, he and Hillary felt it was neccesary to spend time banning and censoring violent video games, movies and music. Check out his response, to a sincere, and thoughtful letter from a mos def fan. The student correctly suggested not all hip hop was mysognistic, and violent and that some of it, Mos Def being one of them, actually tries to educate, elucidate, and empower his fans. It was obvious Gore never listened to Mos Def, even in light of the letter, and sent off some prefabricated typical politican nonsense.
I also dont think Gore would have gotten into office and immediately done anything about the environment. In fact, his views on the environment actually were radicalized. His view on NAFTA and the WTO was the same as Bush's and every other mainstream politican. Both were pro war. Both didnt really speak about the issues people cared about in 2000. The 150 million people who flat out didnt vote in 2000, didnt vote, because there wasnt a difference between Gore and Bush.
Until you start to question the legitimacy of the 2 party corporate state, we arent going to get anywhere in dealing with issues that REALLY matter.
There is not even the slightest chance that a Gore administration would have falsified evidence to invade Iraq.
Would Gore have appointed a crony like Mike Brown to head FEMA? My bet is no.
Based on those two decisions alone I maintain that Gore would have been better for this country than Bush. Not sure why it matters that he was "boring, stiff, a robot."
I'm sure you realize that there are people who dislike Pearl Jam because they are mainstream. I've had people try to talk down my Pearl Jam love while insisting they only like local or underground stuff.
I voted for Nader because I believed about Bush and Gore what many believe about Obama and Romney: That there is no difference between the two, and that the country will be the exact same no matter which wins. I was dead wrong about that in 2000, and I completely underestimated how dangerous to the country the Bush presidency was going to be. Gore was not perfect, far from it, but he was clearly the better choice. I do wish I had voted for him.
ive had this conversation with a million people who have said the same thing. Gore was different than Bush. And I vehemently disagree. If you actually go back, and see what both were running on, they agreed on more things than they disagreed. And the real issues, which at that time was NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the like, wasnt even discussed.
Gore, was boring, stiff, a robot. It wasnt until 2004, and he had licked his wounds from losing the election, that he changed. The environment, his pet issue, wasnt the main focus of his 2000 campaign, it wasnt until again, he had time to deal with his loss, that he started explicitly speaking out against the war, Bush, and demanding a sane environmental policy.
Clintons viewpoint on Iraq and Bin Laden was the same thing. Clinton often times references the fact he tried to get Bin laden while he was in office, but the Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater and all that were too much of a distraction and he couldnt get anything done. Which certainly seems true.
But I think the main issues, Gore believed democracy could be brought over to Iraq and Afghanistan with bullets and bombs, he has the same tired view of Israel, he and Hillary felt it was neccesary to spend time banning and censoring violent video games, movies and music. Check out his response, to a sincere, and thoughtful letter from a mos def fan. The student correctly suggested not all hip hop was mysognistic, and violent and that some of it, Mos Def being one of them, actually tries to educate, elucidate, and empower his fans. It was obvious Gore never listened to Mos Def, even in light of the letter, and sent off some prefabricated typical politican nonsense.
I also dont think Gore would have gotten into office and immediately done anything about the environment. In fact, his views on the environment actually were radicalized. His view on NAFTA and the WTO was the same as Bush's and every other mainstream politican. Both were pro war. Both didnt really speak about the issues people cared about in 2000. The 150 million people who flat out didnt vote in 2000, didnt vote, because there wasnt a difference between Gore and Bush.
Until you start to question the legitimacy of the 2 party corporate state, we arent going to get anywhere in dealing with issues that REALLY matter.
There is not even the slightest chance that a Gore administration would have falsified evidence to invade Iraq.
Would Gore have appointed a crony like Mike Brown to head FEMA? My bet is no.
Based on those two decisions alone I maintain that Gore would have been better for this country than Bush. Not sure why it matters that he was "boring, stiff, a robot."
The gore of the 90's and 2000 was and is demostrably different. I remember a fiery antiBush and antiwar speech he gave in 2004. He never gave those types of speeches during the 2000 campaign. he just didnt.
We can see what he and Clinton believed about Iraq and the Taliban and AlQueda. Theyve talked about it then and since. And they clearly felt military agression was the answer to terrorism.
The differences between parties, the 2 main parties are largely strategic. Kerry and Gore might have handled Iraq and Afghanistan differently, but the main idealogy, that terrorism is a problem, that it can be eradicated and ended and wiped out, and that the way to do this is with violence, militarism,and global hegemonic moves, thats something thats indistinguishable from Bush. Bush and Gore were completely in sync about that. Gore may not have falsiefied evidence, but he clearly wasnt a Kucinich democrat. At his core, at least in 2000, he believed in militarism, global domination, american exceptionalism, the WTO and NAFTA etc... I dont know what candidate you saw in 2000, but the Al Gore, I saw, and most people saw, was a mealy mouthed, wimpy, boring robot of a candidate, which the dems always choose (see Kerry). Its a simple fact Gore and Bush agreed on nearly every major issue. I didnt see Gore out there leading the fight on any number of issues in 2000.
Gore changed. And he didnt change in 2000. he was robotic and boring, and talked about inane things without passion. He changed, and suddenly became more fiery, public, more passionate, and started talked seriously and in new ways about the environment(his presentation of the dangers of climate change in the 90's and in 2006/2007 are radically different).
Gores record and stand on issues in 2000 are easily viewed, either via speeches, or his own written word.
My main point is, he changed, between 2000 and 2004. Oddly, and bizaarely, it took Bush taking the oval office, and Bush's war crimes to bring out a passionate Al Gore. I doubt he would have become THAT had he taken the white house
And Im all for being antiwar, and I remember being happy Gore came out against the war in 2004. But, I think if you ask him now, in 2012, he'd still say Terrorism is a problem and that we need to look at South Korea and Pakistan and Syria. Maybe he wouldnt commit 50,000 troops to the operation, but ultimately, nearly everyone in both parties, agrees with the false and mistaken premise, that terrorism can be ended via foreign military presence. Would Gore in 2012 torture, and lie, all that? Probably not, but I bet he'd do what Obama is doing, sending drones into other countries, and I would probably bet he even agrees with Obama on Afghanistan, that its a cause worth pursuing.
These are the issues. And candidates delibrately muddy the waters. And dont make clear their positions. Thats how politicians operate.
But, I think the previling "wisdom" in DC, by both parties is that Bush screwed up, but the solution for these people isnt to pull all troops out and rethink our relationship with Israel. Its just to next time go through the UN and Congress to authorize the war instead of going it alone. Its not using Gitmo, but going into other countries and killing their leaders. Its going in with 100,000 troops instead of 20,000. Its fighting a more precise and well executed war.
All of this is to say, the prevailing wisdom by most party followers is that the basic fundamental issue of "is war worthwhile and ok", isnt even discussed. Its just tactical disagreements. Id send it more troops. No i would send in less etc...
Im interested in questioning the fundamental principles of war, and militarism. Changing leaders and tactics doesnt interest me
thats why ron paul was so unique. Someone saying they are sending planes into our buildings because we support israel and because we are bombing them. And that we deal with terrorism by using diplomacy and friendship and using words. And that we should get all troops out of foreign countries.
These are basic ideas, but they question basic things people accept as normal and ok. militarism, war, expansionism
we wouldnt have been better off, had gore or bush bombed saudi arabia or pakistan instead.
I encourage everybody who voted for a 3rd party this year to do what I did in 2005, after having voted for the Green Party ticket in 2000 and 2004... go to a state convention.
They'll be happy to see you, believe me. Because when I went, there was barely anyone there. There were maybe 40 people at the height of the two-day convention, and even though my subconscious immediately thought "this is rather... pathetic", I attended both days of the convention... well, I was kinda stuck there because it was at a 4-H Club camp in north central Mass, about an hour away from where I lived at the time... I had my girlfriend and her 4 year old daughter with me... there was free daycare (though it was just one woman who had 5 of her own kids) and I dunno... the vibe was a little weird, but everyone seemed friendly... so we stayed... I think it was just for the sake of intrigue.
After getting to know one guy who was their Communications Director, we felt pretty comfortable... he actually had seen Pearl Jam on their '91 college tour so he got points for that... The camp itself was nice... we had our own cabin. We attended various seminars which were led by elderly professor-types... one was very verbose... comically so... my favorite was this white haired woman who had a very gentle but purposeful voice.
Since there was no election in 2005, the main purpose of the convention was to choose new party leaders. When a few of them found out I had experience in communications, they encouraged me to run for Communication Director. Pretty odd that this would be asked of someone they just met right?
Here's the thing... the current Comm Director (the cool PJ fan) had served for a year and basically had no interest in serving again. The only other member of the party that wanted the position was this guy named David who wasn't very liked by the rest of the party.... David was one of the first people I had met there... and he had this sign that said "SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE". He had a very dour demeanor. My girlfriend and I were both a little freaked out by him, but like I said, everyone else seemed cool. And when members of the party pleaded with me to run against him, I kinda felt like I had to. The current Comm Director even told me I could quit if I didn't like the job... they just didn't want David to be elected by default.
So anyway I easily won the election to be their new Comm Director. I lasted about 2 months.
David remained on the Communications committee. Everyone on the committee was difficult to work with. I organized one meeting which didn't go well at all. I had a bumper sticker on my notebook which read "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS/IMPEACH OUR PRESIDENT". When David saw my bumper sticker, he said to me "Why do you support those murderers?" I just laughed nervously... and no one really reprimanded him. I just wanted to get the fuck away from those people. We talked about updating the website, but not much work was really done.
Every week there was a phone meeting with "Com Com" which was the committee of committees... so the meetings were for the heads of every committee. A few times we met at a Denny's in central Mass.
I met Jill Stein once. Easily the most level headed of the group. She didn't seem too involved in party affairs.
But do I think Jill Stein would be a good President? No. No at all. She's kinda flakey.
I did vote for her for Governor in 2002. That was before I knew how insane and pathetic the Green Party was. That was also before I came to my senses.... because looking back at it now, I should've known.
The Green Party in Mass is actually called the Green-Rainbow Party... it was the Massachusetts Green Party until it merged with the Rainbow Coalition Party in 2002. Some Green-Rainbows didn't like the name... one said it was kinda like "Strawberry-Neapolitan"... I've always thought it was stupid idea to adopt that name.
The Green Party candidate for Governor in 2006 was a woman named Grace Ross... one the worst people I have ever known. She pretty much ruled the party when I was there. There were only about 15 core members, so it wasn't difficult for her to boss her way to the top. She insulted me a few times when I didn't agree with her.
Eventually I had enough of those freaks. I'm surprised it took me two months when I think back on it.
But like I said, I encourage everyone interested in a third party to actually participate in that party and find out what it's really like.
My main point is, he changed, between 2000 and 2004. Oddly, and bizaarely, it took Bush taking the oval office, and Bush's war crimes to bring out a passionate Al Gore. I doubt he would have become THAT had he taken the white house
I don't disagree with this, and the poor showing of Al Gore the candidate did play a large part in my choosing Nader over him in 2000. However, I still believe that he was a better choice that year than was George Bush and my vote for Nader was a mistake. Given the chance top do it over I would do it differently.
I encourage everybody who voted for a 3rd party this year to do what I did in 2005, after having voted for the Green Party ticket in 2000 and 2004... go to a state convention.
They'll be happy to see you, believe me. Because when I went, there was barely anyone there. There were maybe 40 people at the height of the two-day convention, and even though my subconscious immediately thought "this is rather... pathetic", I attended both days of the convention... well, I was kinda stuck there because it was at a 4-H Club camp in north central Mass, about an hour away from where I lived at the time... I had my girlfriend and her 4 year old daughter with me... there was free daycare (though it was just one woman who had 5 of her own kids) and I dunno... the vibe was a little weird, but everyone seemed friendly... so we stayed... I think it was just for the sake of intrigue.
After getting to know one guy who was their Communications Director, we felt pretty comfortable... he actually had seen Pearl Jam on their '91 college tour so he got points for that... The camp itself was nice... we had our own cabin. We attended various seminars which were led by elderly professor-types... one was very verbose... comically so... my favorite was this white haired woman who had a very gentle but purposeful voice.
Since there was no election in 2005, the main purpose of the convention was to choose new party leaders. When a few of them found out I had experience in communications, they encouraged me to run for Communication Director. Pretty odd that this would be asked of someone they just met right?
Here's the thing... the current Comm Director (the cool PJ fan) had served for a year and basically had no interest in serving again. The only other member of the party that wanted the position was this guy named David who wasn't very liked by the rest of the party.... David was one of the first people I had met there... and he had this sign that said "SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE". He had a very dour demeanor. My girlfriend and I were both a little freaked out by him, but like I said, everyone else seemed cool. And when members of the party pleaded with me to run against him, I kinda felt like I had to. The current Comm Director even told me I could quit if I didn't like the job... they just didn't want David to be elected by default.
So anyway I easily won the election to be their new Comm Director. I lasted about 2 months.
David remained on the Communications committee. Everyone on the committee was difficult to work with. I organized one meeting which didn't go well at all. I had a bumper sticker on my notebook which read "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS/IMPEACH OUR PRESIDENT". When David saw my bumper sticker, he said to me "Why do you support those murderers?" I just laughed nervously... and no one really reprimanded him. I just wanted to get the fuck away from those people. We talked about updating the website, but not much work was really done.
Every week there was a phone meeting with "Com Com" which was the committee of committees... so the meetings were for the heads of every committee. A few times we met at a Denny's in central Mass.
I met Jill Stein once. Easily the most level headed of the group. She didn't seem too involved in party affairs.
But do I think Jill Stein would be a good President? No. No at all. She's kinda flakey.
I did vote for her for Governor in 2002. That was before I knew how insane and pathetic the Green Party was. That was also before I came to my senses.... because looking back at it now, I should've known.
The Green Party in Mass is actually called the Green-Rainbow Party... it was the Massachusetts Green Party until it merged with the Rainbow Coalition Party in 2002. Some Green-Rainbows didn't like the name... one said it was kinda like "Strawberry-Neapolitan"... I've always thought it was stupid idea to adopt that name.
The Green Party candidate for Governor in 2006 was a woman named Grace Ross... one the worst people I have ever known. She pretty much ruled the party when I was there. There were only about 15 core members, so it wasn't difficult for her to boss her way to the top. She insulted me a few times when I didn't agree with her.
Eventually I had enough of those freaks. I'm surprised it took me two months when I think back on it.
But like I said, I encourage everyone interested in a third party to actually participate in that party and find out what it's really like.
this pretty much sums it up ... i don't think anyone can argue that partisanship hasn't killed the process and that there is a need for electoral reform ... having said that - it is easy to criticize the establishment and really, unless people are going to make themselves active in change ... you are pretty much subject to this two-party corruption ... and most people just aren't going to care enough to be active ... it's one thing to vote 3rd party ... it's another to help raise the awareness and viability of that party ...
I encourage everybody who voted for a 3rd party this year to do what I did in 2005, after having voted for the Green Party ticket in 2000 and 2004... go to a state convention.
They'll be happy to see you, believe me. Because when I went, there was barely anyone there. There were maybe 40 people at the height of the two-day convention, and even though my subconscious immediately thought "this is rather... pathetic", I attended both days of the convention... well, I was kinda stuck there because it was at a 4-H Club camp in north central Mass, about an hour away from where I lived at the time... I had my girlfriend and her 4 year old daughter with me... there was free daycare (though it was just one woman who had 5 of her own kids) and I dunno... the vibe was a little weird, but everyone seemed friendly... so we stayed... I think it was just for the sake of intrigue.
After getting to know one guy who was their Communications Director, we felt pretty comfortable... he actually had seen Pearl Jam on their '91 college tour so he got points for that... The camp itself was nice... we had our own cabin. We attended various seminars which were led by elderly professor-types... one was very verbose... comically so... my favorite was this white haired woman who had a very gentle but purposeful voice.
Since there was no election in 2005, the main purpose of the convention was to choose new party leaders. When a few of them found out I had experience in communications, they encouraged me to run for Communication Director. Pretty odd that this would be asked of someone they just met right?
Here's the thing... the current Comm Director (the cool PJ fan) had served for a year and basically had no interest in serving again. The only other member of the party that wanted the position was this guy named David who wasn't very liked by the rest of the party.... David was one of the first people I had met there... and he had this sign that said "SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE". He had a very dour demeanor. My girlfriend and I were both a little freaked out by him, but like I said, everyone else seemed cool. And when members of the party pleaded with me to run against him, I kinda felt like I had to. The current Comm Director even told me I could quit if I didn't like the job... they just didn't want David to be elected by default.
So anyway I easily won the election to be their new Comm Director. I lasted about 2 months.
David remained on the Communications committee. Everyone on the committee was difficult to work with. I organized one meeting which didn't go well at all. I had a bumper sticker on my notebook which read "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS/IMPEACH OUR PRESIDENT". When David saw my bumper sticker, he said to me "Why do you support those murderers?" I just laughed nervously... and no one really reprimanded him. I just wanted to get the fuck away from those people. We talked about updating the website, but not much work was really done.
Every week there was a phone meeting with "Com Com" which was the committee of committees... so the meetings were for the heads of every committee. A few times we met at a Denny's in central Mass.
I met Jill Stein once. Easily the most level headed of the group. She didn't seem too involved in party affairs.
But do I think Jill Stein would be a good President? No. No at all. She's kinda flakey.
I did vote for her for Governor in 2002. That was before I knew how insane and pathetic the Green Party was. That was also before I came to my senses.... because looking back at it now, I should've known.
The Green Party in Mass is actually called the Green-Rainbow Party... it was the Massachusetts Green Party until it merged with the Rainbow Coalition Party in 2002. Some Green-Rainbows didn't like the name... one said it was kinda like "Strawberry-Neapolitan"... I've always thought it was stupid idea to adopt that name.
The Green Party candidate for Governor in 2006 was a woman named Grace Ross... one the worst people I have ever known. She pretty much ruled the party when I was there. There were only about 15 core members, so it wasn't difficult for her to boss her way to the top. She insulted me a few times when I didn't agree with her.
Eventually I had enough of those freaks. I'm surprised it took me two months when I think back on it.
But like I said, I encourage everyone interested in a third party to actually participate in that party and find out what it's really like.
this pretty much sums it up ... i don't think anyone can argue that partisanship hasn't killed the process and that there is a need for electoral reform ... having said that - it is easy to criticize the establishment and really, unless people are going to make themselves active in change ... you are pretty much subject to this two-party corruption ... and most people just aren't going to care enough to be active ... it's one thing to vote 3rd party ... it's another to help raise the awareness and viability of that party ...
i agree, but that starts with voting. ive been politically aware since 1999, and in that time, ive seen several candidates that caught my attention. nader, kucinich, gravel, and paul. In every single instance, ive heard others say "i love kucinich, or Nader, but they cant win, so you are throwing your vote away" or "Nader is a spoiler". So in that paradigm, voting for a third party candidate is a revolutionary and activist action. Certainly, raising awareness and other actions are necessary, but until people start voting for third parties, this idealogy and nonsense with continue.
And i vehemently disagree about reform. Its why i dont identify as a liberal. Liberals want to reform things. Pass a few laws. Legislate a few things. They dont question the entire system or way of things.
The electoral system wouldnt be better if we just reformed it a little here and there. Its broken. The idea of democracy is a complete joke, and money rules politics. That stuff isnt fixed by a president declaring it so, or by laws being passed. It just isnt.
The fact of the matter is, if people voted for nader, or kucinich or paul, they'd win. But people have been conditioned and engrained in the 2 partt system. anything outside that is suspect. the 2 party system holds enormous influence. Most people vote for candidates they hate. Yet, they question whether a third party candidate can win and label him a spoiler. Thats the indoctrination of it all
this pretty much sums it up ... i don't think anyone can argue that partisanship hasn't killed the process and that there is a need for electoral reform ... having said that - it is easy to criticize the establishment and really, unless people are going to make themselves active in change ... you are pretty much subject to this two-party corruption ... and most people just aren't going to care enough to be active ... it's one thing to vote 3rd party ... it's another to help raise the awareness and viability of that party ...
yes, and I tried my best to help build the Green Party. i semi-regret calling them "freaks" but the truth is they were a strange combination of some of the best and worst people i've ever met. and sadly, the really good people were hopelessly lost in their own idealism.
political change, i've realized, can only happen in small steps... because the people at large aren't capable of more than that. The Green Party wants it all right away... and hell, we are pretty much doomed if we don't take big steps to curtail our environment destruction... but most people aren't willing to change their ways even just a little... the all-or-none approach will never work.
so until a really organized third party emerges, i do think it's a waste of time to support any such party with your money or your time or your vote. also, it has to be a centrist party because Greens and Libertarians aren't ever going to win at the national level. we need a centrist party that will reform the system to give ideological parties fair representation.... by creating a parliamentary system.
yes, and I tried my best to help build the Green Party. i semi-regret calling them "freaks" but the truth is they were a strange combination of some of the best and worst people i've ever met. and sadly, the really good people were hopelessly lost in their own idealism.
political change, i've realized, can only happen in small steps... because the people at large aren't capable of more than that. The Green Party wants it all right away... and hell, we are pretty much doomed if we don't take big steps to curtail our environment destruction... but most people aren't willing to change their ways even just a little... the all-or-none approach will never work.
so until a really organized third party emerges, i do think it's a waste of time to support any such party with your money or your time or your vote. also, it has to be a centrist party because Greens and Libertarians aren't ever going to win at the national level. we need a centrist party that will reform the system to give ideological parties fair representation.... by creating a parliamentary system.
although not ready for prime time - the green party here is much more organized and together ... the local candidate lives across the street from me ... and in a world where money dictates everything - they are doing a pretty good job with limited funds ... they have 1 seat in our parliament ... and hopefully, they can get to another one ... small incremental steps ...
The Green party needs to adhere to an important creed in environmentalism: "Think Globally, Act Locally."
The Greens Party in Germany holds seats in Baden-Wurttemberg; running for President gains attention and is important, but the Party should focus on gaining seats in local/state governments, and on the national level in the House.
Comments
i wrote in paul, because I didnt want johnson, he didnt mean anything to me. I wasnt voting for the best runner up. I was voting for who I wanted to be president. I wanted paul. Why should I have to change my vote. Theres no way the majority of ron paul supporters voted romney. I'd bet most either didnt vote, or some voted for Johnson or other 3rd parties. And I dont think im the only person who wrote in Paul. Yes i too was bemoaning the fact that my state supposedly doesnt even count write in ballots, its only registered as a write in, the exact nature of it, that I voted for Paul specifically, supposedly wont or didnt count. So yeah, I was furious and am furious about that. But I didnt want to change my vote. Paul was the only guy with integrity running. And thats why I voted for him. I voted against war, against the patriot act. Against torture. Against the drug war.
well jill stein is against war and torture and the war on drugs ... i would even say that it is more credible to vote for stein based on those issues than paul ... but i digress ...
the reason one votes for johnson is to get these 3rd party candidates in the 5% range so they can be represented in future elections/debates ...
if seeing ron paul as a presidential candidate was important - he should have ran as the libertarian candidate or as an independent ...
Everyone votes their conscience. or should. Ive voted in the last 3 presidential elections. I voted nader twice, and Paul once. I wouldnt take back any of those votes. Ive never and will never vote based on who will win, and who could win. I vote on the best man for the job. And I vote based on issues that are of value to me. Jill Stein seems great, but ive had problems with the greens since 2004, when they were telling voters during the election to vote kerry as opposed to green in battleground states because it would be too close to call. The purpose of a third party, of the greens, is to push back and force the major parties to discuss important issues, not to cowtow and tell us to lock step support a major party candidate. Third parties are essentially what the Democrats should be, our voice. And johnson sounds interesting, but I was most interested in ron paul. He captured my imagination and spoke the most sense. Seems silly to be supportive of the guy, feel like he's the only sane person running and then at the last moment, switch the vote to another guy. Fair play to those who did that, but thats not me. Not how I operate.
Im all for getting the 5 percent for third party candidates. Nothing would thrill me more. I remember that was the goal that Nader failed to achieve in 2000. But it was 7 percent back then I think. Anyways, I totally agree. But my vote for Paul wasnt a negation of that. I just voted for a different guy. My whole MO and opinion for years, has been the debates should be open to ANY candidate, and that third party candidates should be taken seriously by the media and everyone else.
ya ... i respect your MO and opinion ... i was just wondering if getting johnson to 5% was a worthwhile goal especially because paul wouldn't even register ...
Just seeing this now.
I voted for Nader because I believed about Bush and Gore what many believe about Obama and Romney: That there is no difference between the two, and that the country will be the exact same no matter which wins. I was dead wrong about that in 2000, and I completely underestimated how dangerous to the country the Bush presidency was going to be. Gore was not perfect, far from it, but he was clearly the better choice. I do wish I had voted for him.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
How, by running on the GOP ticket?
it was a long shot, but he would have done more for the country by transforming the current nonsensical wizard party that is the GOP than he could have possible done third party. He would have been ignored by the press again, he would have been kept out of debates, and people would still call him crazy
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
At least Ron Paul was able to get his message out during the debates and the media was forced to semi-recognize him for a few months.
Are you forgetting that the voting age is 18?
People under 18 make up 23% of the population, which would be roughly 68 million.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
So, 117 million out of 230 million voted. Still pathetic.
And, I think most people who did not vote are idiots. either that, or they are lazy. Do some believe it is a farce? Sure, but this is a stance that I don't agree with
I think the only way a Third Party candidate will ever get a chance of winning is by this:
1. Uniting the fractured Independent Political Parties into ONE unified Third Party (after Hell opens it's first ski resort)
2. A Third Party making substantial gains in Congressional districts.
3. The Thrid Party in the House votes as a bloc, forcing the two major parties to consider the Third Party's issues and requests during congressional voting.
4. Once the Third Party begins to move into into the Senate, it cannot be ignored.
5. This allows for the possibility of a Third Party Presidential Candidate that actually has a chance of winning.
...
Of cource... nothing can take place until step 1 is completed... so, in other words, you have 2 parties to choose from. As usual.
Hail, Hail!!!
ive had this conversation with a million people who have said the same thing. Gore was different than Bush. And I vehemently disagree. If you actually go back, and see what both were running on, they agreed on more things than they disagreed. And the real issues, which at that time was NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the like, wasnt even discussed.
Gore, was boring, stiff, a robot. It wasnt until 2004, and he had licked his wounds from losing the election, that he changed. The environment, his pet issue, wasnt the main focus of his 2000 campaign, it wasnt until again, he had time to deal with his loss, that he started explicitly speaking out against the war, Bush, and demanding a sane environmental policy.
Clintons viewpoint on Iraq and Bin Laden was the same thing. Clinton often times references the fact he tried to get Bin laden while he was in office, but the Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater and all that were too much of a distraction and he couldnt get anything done. Which certainly seems true.
But I think the main issues, Gore believed democracy could be brought over to Iraq and Afghanistan with bullets and bombs, he has the same tired view of Israel, he and Hillary felt it was neccesary to spend time banning and censoring violent video games, movies and music. Check out his response, to a sincere, and thoughtful letter from a mos def fan. The student correctly suggested not all hip hop was mysognistic, and violent and that some of it, Mos Def being one of them, actually tries to educate, elucidate, and empower his fans. It was obvious Gore never listened to Mos Def, even in light of the letter, and sent off some prefabricated typical politican nonsense.
I also dont think Gore would have gotten into office and immediately done anything about the environment. In fact, his views on the environment actually were radicalized. His view on NAFTA and the WTO was the same as Bush's and every other mainstream politican. Both were pro war. Both didnt really speak about the issues people cared about in 2000. The 150 million people who flat out didnt vote in 2000, didnt vote, because there wasnt a difference between Gore and Bush.
Until you start to question the legitimacy of the 2 party corporate state, we arent going to get anywhere in dealing with issues that REALLY matter.
i think alot more can be done other than that. I think first would be some sort of mass civil disobedience at debates, and disruptions until any candidate can debate, not just those in the 2 party's. Another would be changing the voting rules and laws, and regulations, so that if you do vote 3rd party, your vote is counted. I wrote in Ron Paul, and my state doesnt count specific write in votes. Its just put into the system as a nondescript write in vote. So essentially my vote wasnt counted.
And i think starting one huge Third Party movement, like a 99 percent party, or a poor peoples party would be great. But their are major divisions between the various factions of third parties. The main example is maybe the most visible 3rd party after Indepedents, is the Greens. And they've, in the last few years, told voters to vote for a major party candidate in swing and battleground states. So whats the point of even having a Green party, if they tell voters to do that? So bridging that gap and figuring out how to convince even third parties that third parties are necessary and essential is something that needs to be done.
Finally, I think part of a third party movement, would be refusing to cow tow to the 2 party buisness system, and voting ONLY third party. Because if you do vote for one of the major candidates you are legitimizing the very system you seek to undermine and get rid of. I hear people talk all the time about the currupt 2 party system, but then they vote Democrat or Republican. Thats not going to do anything if you do that
No he wasnt. The mods in the debate, and the media at large ignored him. Same thing with Kucinich. The other candidates on stage openly mocked both those guys. Its was a big joke to everyone.
Ron Paul had support because people regonized him as the only principled candidate running, and because of grassroots support. It wasnt because they saw him on the debates and became aware of him
He runs Libertarian and I think he easily clears 5% of that vote, and possibly puts a 3rd party on the map.
Him going away and leaving nothing but his minions creating some youtube moments at the Conventions sold everything short. He didnt 'change the party from within' at all. I see no significant fingerprints on their platform.
I really suspect he may have cut a deal for his son's future by not running.
Im not really understanding what the point of this is.
Anyways, I dont think his goal was to change the party from the inside. He has pretty much nothing in common with Republicans, and nothing in common with Democrats. I consider him a 3rd party candidate, and I certainly dont think he was running to get the Republicans to be more like him. He was running because he felt called to, and that the issues he talked about werent being discussed BY ANYONE.
I did vote for him. And I voted for him because he was without peer. To hear someone at a mainstream debate say something like "we need to legalize all drugs and end the drug war" and "we need to pull troops out of the middle east and deal with countries with diplomacy and friendship". It was just perfect, and so right on.
I dont think his son had anything to do with it. They disagree on alot of issues. I certainly dont view Ron Paul as a tea partier. He DID run, so i dont know how that is considered sparing his son.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
If he would have ran, hit the 5%, he could have landed a seat at the 2016 debates and really pressed the issues.
I was rooting for him, knew a lot of friends who wanted to vote for him, was seeing signs on lawns, etc. Then it all just went away.
I like Johnson, but Paul could have done real damage if he ran for the Lib Party. He had name recognition and some legitimate mainstream traction.
There is not even the slightest chance that a Gore administration would have falsified evidence to invade Iraq.
Would Gore have appointed a crony like Mike Brown to head FEMA? My bet is no.
Based on those two decisions alone I maintain that Gore would have been better for this country than Bush. Not sure why it matters that he was "boring, stiff, a robot."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Seriously?
I'm sure you realize that there are people who dislike Pearl Jam because they are mainstream. I've had people try to talk down my Pearl Jam love while insisting they only like local or underground stuff.
Is there a difference?
The gore of the 90's and 2000 was and is demostrably different. I remember a fiery antiBush and antiwar speech he gave in 2004. He never gave those types of speeches during the 2000 campaign. he just didnt.
We can see what he and Clinton believed about Iraq and the Taliban and AlQueda. Theyve talked about it then and since. And they clearly felt military agression was the answer to terrorism.
The differences between parties, the 2 main parties are largely strategic. Kerry and Gore might have handled Iraq and Afghanistan differently, but the main idealogy, that terrorism is a problem, that it can be eradicated and ended and wiped out, and that the way to do this is with violence, militarism,and global hegemonic moves, thats something thats indistinguishable from Bush. Bush and Gore were completely in sync about that. Gore may not have falsiefied evidence, but he clearly wasnt a Kucinich democrat. At his core, at least in 2000, he believed in militarism, global domination, american exceptionalism, the WTO and NAFTA etc... I dont know what candidate you saw in 2000, but the Al Gore, I saw, and most people saw, was a mealy mouthed, wimpy, boring robot of a candidate, which the dems always choose (see Kerry). Its a simple fact Gore and Bush agreed on nearly every major issue. I didnt see Gore out there leading the fight on any number of issues in 2000.
Gore changed. And he didnt change in 2000. he was robotic and boring, and talked about inane things without passion. He changed, and suddenly became more fiery, public, more passionate, and started talked seriously and in new ways about the environment(his presentation of the dangers of climate change in the 90's and in 2006/2007 are radically different).
Gores record and stand on issues in 2000 are easily viewed, either via speeches, or his own written word.
My main point is, he changed, between 2000 and 2004. Oddly, and bizaarely, it took Bush taking the oval office, and Bush's war crimes to bring out a passionate Al Gore. I doubt he would have become THAT had he taken the white house
These are the issues. And candidates delibrately muddy the waters. And dont make clear their positions. Thats how politicians operate.
But, I think the previling "wisdom" in DC, by both parties is that Bush screwed up, but the solution for these people isnt to pull all troops out and rethink our relationship with Israel. Its just to next time go through the UN and Congress to authorize the war instead of going it alone. Its not using Gitmo, but going into other countries and killing their leaders. Its going in with 100,000 troops instead of 20,000. Its fighting a more precise and well executed war.
All of this is to say, the prevailing wisdom by most party followers is that the basic fundamental issue of "is war worthwhile and ok", isnt even discussed. Its just tactical disagreements. Id send it more troops. No i would send in less etc...
Im interested in questioning the fundamental principles of war, and militarism. Changing leaders and tactics doesnt interest me
These are basic ideas, but they question basic things people accept as normal and ok. militarism, war, expansionism
we wouldnt have been better off, had gore or bush bombed saudi arabia or pakistan instead.
We shouldnt have gone over there AT ALL.
They'll be happy to see you, believe me. Because when I went, there was barely anyone there. There were maybe 40 people at the height of the two-day convention, and even though my subconscious immediately thought "this is rather... pathetic", I attended both days of the convention... well, I was kinda stuck there because it was at a 4-H Club camp in north central Mass, about an hour away from where I lived at the time... I had my girlfriend and her 4 year old daughter with me... there was free daycare (though it was just one woman who had 5 of her own kids) and I dunno... the vibe was a little weird, but everyone seemed friendly... so we stayed... I think it was just for the sake of intrigue.
After getting to know one guy who was their Communications Director, we felt pretty comfortable... he actually had seen Pearl Jam on their '91 college tour so he got points for that... The camp itself was nice... we had our own cabin. We attended various seminars which were led by elderly professor-types... one was very verbose... comically so... my favorite was this white haired woman who had a very gentle but purposeful voice.
Since there was no election in 2005, the main purpose of the convention was to choose new party leaders. When a few of them found out I had experience in communications, they encouraged me to run for Communication Director. Pretty odd that this would be asked of someone they just met right?
Here's the thing... the current Comm Director (the cool PJ fan) had served for a year and basically had no interest in serving again. The only other member of the party that wanted the position was this guy named David who wasn't very liked by the rest of the party.... David was one of the first people I had met there... and he had this sign that said "SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE". He had a very dour demeanor. My girlfriend and I were both a little freaked out by him, but like I said, everyone else seemed cool. And when members of the party pleaded with me to run against him, I kinda felt like I had to. The current Comm Director even told me I could quit if I didn't like the job... they just didn't want David to be elected by default.
So anyway I easily won the election to be their new Comm Director. I lasted about 2 months.
David remained on the Communications committee. Everyone on the committee was difficult to work with. I organized one meeting which didn't go well at all. I had a bumper sticker on my notebook which read "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS/IMPEACH OUR PRESIDENT". When David saw my bumper sticker, he said to me "Why do you support those murderers?" I just laughed nervously... and no one really reprimanded him. I just wanted to get the fuck away from those people. We talked about updating the website, but not much work was really done.
Every week there was a phone meeting with "Com Com" which was the committee of committees... so the meetings were for the heads of every committee. A few times we met at a Denny's in central Mass.
I met Jill Stein once. Easily the most level headed of the group. She didn't seem too involved in party affairs.
But do I think Jill Stein would be a good President? No. No at all. She's kinda flakey.
I did vote for her for Governor in 2002. That was before I knew how insane and pathetic the Green Party was. That was also before I came to my senses.... because looking back at it now, I should've known.
The Green Party in Mass is actually called the Green-Rainbow Party... it was the Massachusetts Green Party until it merged with the Rainbow Coalition Party in 2002. Some Green-Rainbows didn't like the name... one said it was kinda like "Strawberry-Neapolitan"... I've always thought it was stupid idea to adopt that name.
The Green Party candidate for Governor in 2006 was a woman named Grace Ross... one the worst people I have ever known. She pretty much ruled the party when I was there. There were only about 15 core members, so it wasn't difficult for her to boss her way to the top. She insulted me a few times when I didn't agree with her.
Eventually I had enough of those freaks. I'm surprised it took me two months when I think back on it.
But like I said, I encourage everyone interested in a third party to actually participate in that party and find out what it's really like.
I don't disagree with this, and the poor showing of Al Gore the candidate did play a large part in my choosing Nader over him in 2000. However, I still believe that he was a better choice that year than was George Bush and my vote for Nader was a mistake. Given the chance top do it over I would do it differently.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
this pretty much sums it up ... i don't think anyone can argue that partisanship hasn't killed the process and that there is a need for electoral reform ... having said that - it is easy to criticize the establishment and really, unless people are going to make themselves active in change ... you are pretty much subject to this two-party corruption ... and most people just aren't going to care enough to be active ... it's one thing to vote 3rd party ... it's another to help raise the awareness and viability of that party ...
i agree, but that starts with voting. ive been politically aware since 1999, and in that time, ive seen several candidates that caught my attention. nader, kucinich, gravel, and paul. In every single instance, ive heard others say "i love kucinich, or Nader, but they cant win, so you are throwing your vote away" or "Nader is a spoiler". So in that paradigm, voting for a third party candidate is a revolutionary and activist action. Certainly, raising awareness and other actions are necessary, but until people start voting for third parties, this idealogy and nonsense with continue.
And i vehemently disagree about reform. Its why i dont identify as a liberal. Liberals want to reform things. Pass a few laws. Legislate a few things. They dont question the entire system or way of things.
The electoral system wouldnt be better if we just reformed it a little here and there. Its broken. The idea of democracy is a complete joke, and money rules politics. That stuff isnt fixed by a president declaring it so, or by laws being passed. It just isnt.
The fact of the matter is, if people voted for nader, or kucinich or paul, they'd win. But people have been conditioned and engrained in the 2 partt system. anything outside that is suspect. the 2 party system holds enormous influence. Most people vote for candidates they hate. Yet, they question whether a third party candidate can win and label him a spoiler. Thats the indoctrination of it all
yes, and I tried my best to help build the Green Party. i semi-regret calling them "freaks" but the truth is they were a strange combination of some of the best and worst people i've ever met. and sadly, the really good people were hopelessly lost in their own idealism.
political change, i've realized, can only happen in small steps... because the people at large aren't capable of more than that. The Green Party wants it all right away... and hell, we are pretty much doomed if we don't take big steps to curtail our environment destruction... but most people aren't willing to change their ways even just a little... the all-or-none approach will never work.
so until a really organized third party emerges, i do think it's a waste of time to support any such party with your money or your time or your vote. also, it has to be a centrist party because Greens and Libertarians aren't ever going to win at the national level. we need a centrist party that will reform the system to give ideological parties fair representation.... by creating a parliamentary system.
although not ready for prime time - the green party here is much more organized and together ... the local candidate lives across the street from me ... and in a world where money dictates everything - they are doing a pretty good job with limited funds ... they have 1 seat in our parliament ... and hopefully, they can get to another one ... small incremental steps ...
The Greens Party in Germany holds seats in Baden-Wurttemberg; running for President gains attention and is important, but the Party should focus on gaining seats in local/state governments, and on the national level in the House.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2 ... ling-power