marylandnaturegirl

On CNN's crossfire it was reported today that Ralph Nader has hinted that he would not run if Dean or Kucinich were nominated.


Ralph has been notorious as we all know for unkept promises, so only time will tell.

niggle

There's a difference between hinting and promising, but if Dean or Kuchinich are nomianted and are as good as they look now, then I'll definitely consider stepping away from the Green Party as well. But no promises.

Krieger

Dean or Kucinich are not going to win the Democratic Party's primary, and I'll never vote for a Democrat candidate for president anyway.

I don't care who the Green Party runs for president, they will have my vote in 2004.

niggle

I never liked the concept of voting for a particuliar party no matter what, it's a large part of what turned me off of the Democratic Party. They expect you to vote for them regardless of how lousy their candidate is. They think they are entitled to my vote under the "It's just a vote for Bush" garbage. It was exactly that pushed me from Gore to Nader in 2000. And I'd do it again.

Krieger

Well, idealy, I would vote for either the Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party or the Workers World Party candidate for president. But they are never on the ballot in my state. So it is either the Greens or no voting at all for me. I could never vote for the two big business parties.

Bill

Kucinich doesn't have a realistic chance, but its way too early to write Dean off.

== Bill (one of those meetup.com Dean supporters )

Hot Karl

not to start this debate, but people are willing to throw away their vote, and risk another 4 years of shrubery?

come on, the lesser of two evils. WAY LESS.

Krieger

Obviously the Democratic Party would never let a fossil of the New Deal days, like Kucinich, win its primary. The social function of Kucinich is to make sure left-wing activists continue to support the Democratic Party (to be its slaves). Once Kucinich loses, his supporters will be told to "support the lesser evil", "vote for Joseph Lieberman (or John Kerry) to prevent four more years of Bush", etc. However, many left-wingers are tired of being ordered around by a party that doesn't give a shit about them. More and more people are becoming active in the Green and Socialist parties - to present a real alternative to the same old Democrat-Republican political establishment.

Now, I don't think the revolution will be won in an election (the American electoral system itself is too corrupt), but left-wing organization outside of the Democratic Party is crucial if we ever want to see any significant change in this country.

Rhaedas

The only argument I see in voting for the Green party is to get Federal funding for the next election. That was Nader's big push in 2000, that if he got like 5% of the votes or something, in 2004 the Green party would get more money, and have more impact. They came a bit shy of that % in 2000.

This election, while I think it'd be interesting to get three parties with funding next time around, I think the votes are needed to make sure the Democrats knock Bush out of office. I don't get the impression that a Green voter is coming from the Republican side.

As it is, the Green party will not win the election, and if their votes would have ensured a Democratic win, but Bush gets four more years... :banghead:

I'm hoping that Bush continues his spiral of lies, conspiracies, and stupidity, waking up the public, and making his loss guaranteed. But if it ends up close again, every vote counts. And hopefully every vote is counted.

clark

From A Nader Voter Sings the Bush Blues in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

How I'd love for every Nader supporter to tattoo this article, backwards, on their foreheads so they could read it every morning as they're brushing their teeth .

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark