crab juice

What a load. You got this impression of Green Party voters where?

I'm sure it makes people who consider themselves more liberal than Democrats feel really good to see these things. Does anybody think that the votes in 2000 were counted fairly? Gore should have gotten Florida, he did win, but he got it stolen from him. That's the problem we should be talking about IMHO, not Nader "stealing" votes from Gore but Dubby's stealing the election (or having it handed to him by the Supreme Court). That could just be me, though.

pz

Although...look what happened in my state of Minnesota. People expressed genuine fervor, derision for the scumbags in those other parties, and deep dedication to old-fashioned Democratic principles at Wellstone's funeral, and what did it get them? Pundits weeping and wailing. The media running out to interview Republicans who gleefully expressed their shock. And an empty, hollow, despicable political opportunist got elected.

Godless Sodomite

No, it's not just you. I'm amazed that the Supreme Court debacle was forgotten so quickly by most of the country; and too many of those of us who are still scratching our heads over the election results are too eager to blame Nader (and me for voting for him). Gore won the election, yet Dubya is the President.

If the problem is that Gore didn't win by a wide enough margin so that Dubya couldn't have been handed the office by the SC, then that is also Gore's fault. I'm at the point where I either vote third party, or I stay home. Gore would have had to do a lot more than he did to get me to vote for him--he didn't even try to get the progressive vote, though he did make a last-ditch effort to pretend to be interested in our issues but I didn't buy it. Did the Democratic Party really think that progressives would vote for a ticket with Lieberman on it? I am no longer voting Democrat just because they aren't Republicans. My choice wasn't between Gore and Nader--it was between Nader and staying home.

-Jerry

callmejay

Hey, does anybody have a source for saying Lieberman is anti-athiest? (Just curious.)

wildernesse

A political rally based on a true progressive's untimely death attended by Washingtonians is not my idea of grass roots organization and debating the issues. That's the kind of political activity we need--ordinary people being active and informed, not the national "stars" carrying on for the cameras. How many of those who expressed support for the "old fashioned" Democratic principles actually walk the walk? Hypocrisy and rhetoric are not inspiring or visionary.

--tibac

Toto

Lieberman, during the last campaign, said that there is no freedom from religion, and you need a belief in God to be moral. He was immediately corrected by some Democratic heavy hitters, and he issued a correction, saying you don't need to believe in God to be moral, but it helps.

This is a far cry from G W H Bush, who said that atheists could not be good Americans.

Lieberman is not good on CS separation. He is behind a lot of the faith based funding moves in Congress, although he seems to think that they can be crafted to avoid some of the worse aspects. And he has to know that Bush's faith based rules will allow Christian social service providers to discriminate openly against Jews, as some of them have.

But if he were president, he would be unlikely to appoint judges in the Scalia mold, who are completely hostile to the idea of church state separation and likely to saddle the the country with bad constitutional law for the next generation. Therefore, anyone who faced a choice at election time between Bush and Lieberman WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE IF THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR LIEBERMAN.

wildernesse

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

Exactly. Gore was not getting my vote--period.

--tibac

Shake

This is from the original article:I'm sure the gay community is going to really try to find out "how Christ can rescue the homosexual." :banghead: These are the same people, no doubt, who feel that homosexuality can be "cured" since they obviously feel it's a disease! I used to be more homophobic, and still am a bit uncomfortable around gay men sometimes (it'll take me some time), but I know they're people and have rights like anyone else. Even atheists!

Retsyn

Lieberman: "Declaring that belief in God is the basis of morality and of the nation, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman called today for a greater role for religion in American public life.


http://loper.org/~george/archives/2000/Aug/36.html

How familiar. Once again, it's about what's wrong with Democrats, not the people who suffer under a Republican administration. I'm not surprised, it's easy for Greens to ignore those people.

Do you think that somehow the Dems are going to be more progressive because of the 2000 election? I've got news for you, kid: there's a lot more voters in the middle that there are at the extremes. (It's called a normal curve, look it up.) The only thing Nader has done is make the Dems more conservative.

But who cares? Greens can always just move to Canada if things get too bad. Too bad the people they claim to want to help can't.

Grad Student Humanist

I agree with much of what you have to say.

I'm white, have a post-graduate degree, a job and the resources to leave the country if the GOP implements their theocracy. Other than legislating their morality into law and eroding my rights, there isn't much that the conservatives and religionists can do to hurt me. I don't depend on welfare, or Medicaid, or food stamps. I am not discriminated against by society (well, until they find out I reject their religious values). In fact, many of the GOP's economic proposals would likely allow me to make more money on my investments and pay less taxes on my income.

However, in addition to opposing the GOP because they are intent on de-secularizing American society, I oppose them because there are millions of people in this country who depend on the social programs offered by the governmnet in order to survive. These people won't have the means to flee the country if it gets too rough for them. And if the GOP has its way, soon they will have to depend solely on religious charities for humanitarian aid. Thus, I cannot vote in such a manner as to facilitate the GOP retaining control of the government.

It's all well and good to maintain idealogical purity, and refuse to vote for the Democrats because they aren't liberal enough, but in the long run all you do is facilitate the consolidation of power in the hands of the religious right. I understand that some are angry that they don't have a more liberal alternative, but until the demographics shift and very liberal ideas are more mainstream, the Greens and the other liberal alternatives are not going to be elected. Right now the swing is in the other direction and I hold out no hope that the left will regain power in the next election (Nov 2004).

And if you think it's difficult to promote a progressive agenda in America now, just wait ten years when all of the conservative judges that Bush appoints start implementing their agenda. Like I said, I consider myself lucky that by then I'll have the resources to leave the country to wallow in the religious and reactionary mire.