<$BlogRSDUrl$>
Greens = Republicans
For years I've been extremely critical of leftists supporting Green party candidates for office - or any other 3rd parties, for that matter. I'm usually met with (guilty?) anger by these folks, who refuse to take responsibility for Al Gore's defeat in 2000, among other sins. I usually respond by giving them a lecture on how our political system penalizes anyone stupid enough to vote for a third party. My wife usually points at the useless fool and shouts "Republican!"
I'm beginning to think Brazen Hussy's approach is the correct one.
There is now evidence that the Republican party is giving Green party candidates financial support so that they can qualify for the ballot. Now ask yourself, why would they do this unless left-wing third parties helped Republican candidates? The simple answer is that they wouldn't, of course.
The candidate's defense? I'll just quote him:
"I have friends in all political parties. It's just that my Republican friends are more confident about standing with me than my Democratic friends. And as a group, my Republican friends are a little better off," he said in a telephone interview.Of course he has Republican friends. Because he is one.
11 Comments:
-
TPM tracked down all the donors even, and discovered that of the $66k he received, all but something like $50 were donated by Republicans. Guess how much he donated to his own campaign? Yup.
By
sheepish, at 10:09 AM
-
So that makes him an almost wholly-owned subsidiary of GOP Inc., doesn't it.
By
F&%#ing 3rd party dupes. Arbitrista, at 1:47 PM
-
I must disagree with this argument based on its flawed premise. What you are basically saying is that third parties are bad because they take votes away from the Democrats. This presumes that a third party voter would have voted for one of the two major parties without the presence of a third party, and that is almost always not the case. For a third party voter, it's either third party vote, or no vote. This is because third parties almost always attract principled types (whether they are liberal principles or conservative principles) who cannot stand voting for any sort of compromise position.
By
Besides, the Green Party is not to blame for Gore's 2000 defeat because (as Brazen Hussy knows) Gore was not defeated. Gore won the 2000 election, but Bush stole it from him through fraudulent actions that have been well-documented. You have unfortunately accepted the idea of Gore's defeat because you have accepted the Republican Party's character-assisination of him. Marriah, at 3:35 PM
-
Polls have rather conclusively shown that a significant majority of Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race. Say what you like about principled stands or stolen elections, it's rather unambiguous that Gore would have been president in 2000 had Nader not been in the running.
By sheepish, at 5:18 PM
-
First of all, I am well aware that Gore won the nationwide popular vote and likely won in Florida. But Greens are always justifying their actions in that campaign by saying that it "shouldn't have been close." Well if Greens had bothered to vote for a candidate who agreed with them 99.99% of the time on 99.9% of the issues, then it wouldn't have been close. Gore would have won 51-48.
By
Second, research on the Nader vote demonstrates that 60% of his supporters would have shown up to the polls, nearly all of whom would have supported Gore. That margin would have made the Florida vote so lopsided as to make Gore's success unquestionable. More importantly, it also would have given him New Hampshire, rendering the vote in Florida irrelevant anyway.
In a single member district plurality winner system, it is sheer idiocy to vote for a 3rd party. One is effectively voting for one's least preferred outcome, which by any standard is irrational.
So my position remains. Greens and other leftist 3rd party voters are useful tools for the Republican party. Arbitrista, at 5:19 PM
-
aaaaaaaack! I knew Ross Perot was actually a Republican in disguise!
By
I'm one of those people who believes we need a third party - don't throw rotten tomatoes at me. Why? Well, the 2 choices we've had over the last 20 years just didn't fit my bill. Penguin, at 7:37 PM
-
(Hurling tomatoes)
By
Well what exactly aren't you happy about with the 2 major parties. They are coalitions of different interests, of course. No single-issue group would ever be able to command anything like a majority. And I certainly can understand being critical about the current leadership of the Democratic party. But if you care about the environment, social justice, and a sane foreign policy, it strikes me that there is an obvious party to support. On the other hand, if you like oligarchic imperialist big business, swine, I can name another party perfect for you. Arbitrista, at 9:29 PM
-
Hey penguin, I hope you took that comment in the right way. Now that I look at it again it seems a little assholish.
By Arbitrista, at 9:50 PM
-
Publius, well, to be honest, I was concerned at first and thought I better not comment again. I do get your point, though.
By
I think it comes down more to candidate than party for me. Don't get me wrong, Swine are not to my liking. However, I think Democrats are playing it too safe lately, trying to be to the left and in the middle and a hair in the right.
I do agree that, the way the country is now, voting for a third party (at least on the National scale) is a vote for the Swine. But the Dems need someone with brass cocones to take on the current regime.
But, what do I know. I'm catching your tomatoes for my luncheon salad. Penguin, at 9:20 AM
-
Thanks, Penguin. I agree about candidates with a bit more spine. And I appreciate that you didn't get backed up about my first post. Sometimes when I get in political arguments I get a little too aggressive.
By Arbitrista, at 2:50 PM
-
Ah, now I understand why Brazen married you! :)
By Penguin, at 8:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home
:: permalink
