babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Green Party campaign for U.S. President, 2012

87 replies [Last post]

Comments

DaveW
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2008

I agree;

Obama re-election depends essentially on the rate of new-job creation, which has been good since October 2011, but slowed down in most recent monthly report; a few months "lull" and all bets are off

a major new Mideast conflagration would not help, either

 

 


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

More contenders:

Socialist Equality Party

http://socialequality.com

 

Obama will likely be back having bought his way there by bankrolling the banksters


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

The Republicans are toxic and Romney is a terrible candidate.  Not only is he Mr. 1%, but he has a tendency to say ridiculous things.  And let's see who he picks for a running mate.  Could be worse than Palin.

Obama will seem like far and away the more reasonable choice.

The bigger the voice of Occupy and the Green Party, the more we will get out of Obama during the campaign.  This may not translate into gains during his next term (although it may, in some domains) but it will at the very least move the Overton window left.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

I hope you're right about that.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

Romney looks terrible just going up against Rick Santorum and Newt Gringrich (and they both had to pull their punches).  Imagine how he's going to look going up against Obama.  Romney will say with a straight face that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be president and he will be laughed at.

The bigger question is will the Dems keep the Senate, and can they win back the house.  And in both chambers, the Greens could actually have a shot at holding the balance of power.  If the Greens could win two senate seats or 6 house seats that would be HUGE.

I think there is value in the Greens running a presidential candidate IF they can get the message out.  I think Roseanne is especially well equipped to do that in the way that most conventional green policy wonks are not.  If you can't get the message out it really diminishes the the utility of running.

Jill Stein (or Ralph Nader, for that matter) would make much better candidates for Senate then President.

I really hate to say it, but, Elizabeth May showed the way.  The USian Green Party (running the socialist candidate) should be following the example of the most successful Green Party in North America.  Focus on regional seats with advantageous demographics.  Especially since at least one of the chambers is going to end up very close.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhUDkmFD_4

Here's Roseanne confronting a politician.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

wage zombie wrote:

The Republicans are toxic and Romney is a terrible candidate.  Not only is he Mr. 1%, but he has a tendency to say ridiculous things.  And let's see who he picks for a running mate.  Could be worse than Palin.

Obama will seem like far and away the more reasonable choice.

The bigger the voice of Occupy and the Green Party, the more we will get out of Obama during the campaign.  This may not translate into gains during his next term (although it may, in some domains) but it will at the very least move the Overton window left.

There's always going to be a Republican bogey-man running so that you lot can point in terror and say "thank god for the Democrats". That's how Obomba got elected, and that's why good candidates for president will never be elected.

And occasionally, some of those Republican bogey-men will actually be elected, the sky will not fall, and anybody paying close attention will realize that things are not all that different from when there's a Democrat in the White House.

And don't kid yourself that Obomba's campaign is going to be affected in any way by the Occupy movement or the Green Party. The 1% are not backing Romney, as you suggest. They are backing Obomba, just as they did in 2008.

 

 


Freedom 55
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2010

Ken Burch wrote:

The fact that radicalism didn't grow anywhere under Nixon in the early Seventies

 

I don't know about that. Based on what I've read and heard, my understanding is that the '70s was one of the high points of U.S. militancy. The '70s had the Women's movement(s), the anti-war movement, labour militancy, the American Indian Movement, the Black Panther Party, Brown Berets, the Young Lords Organization, queer liberation movements, the environmental movement. The level of organizing that was going on back then forced the Nixon administration - against all its natural inclinations - to be the most progressive administration of the post-war era, at least in terms of domestic policy.

 

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would you think it would be any different under Romney? Why would it not be just as bad for organizing and resistance under him as it was under Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush?

 

I don't think it's the Republicans that are the biggest obstacle to a more progressive or radical U.S. Rather, it's the complacancy and demobilization that sets in when a Democrat is in the White House.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Boom Boom wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Is there any issue of substance on which Obama has acted differently than the Republicians?

Obamacare? The Repugs seem determined to kill it.

Obamacare is almost as good as the health care introduced by Romney when he was Governor.  Romney is pledging to kill it if elected President.  I suspect that his friends in the insurance business will change his mind once elected.  The Obama "reform" bill forces poor people to buy overpriced insurance that is subject to high co-pays and all the insurance industries scams to deny coverage based on things like pre-existing conditions.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Ken Burch wrote:

The fact that radicalism didn't grow anywhere under Nixon in the early Seventies, or under Reagan in the Eighties or  under Bush the Younger bears me out.

You've got the whole thing backwards. There was far more radical activity and organizing under Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2 than there has been under Obomba. The anti-war movement has collapsed; the liberal left has gone into hibernation and Obomba has had a free ride from all those leftists who said they were going to "hold his feet to the fire", etc.

Chris Floyd wrote:

Nothing illustrates this better than the sorry, shameful, cringing state of the "progressive left" in the age of Obama. As Arthur Silber warned us a long time ago -- far in advance of the 2008 election -- the ascent of Obama to power has effectively neutered the entire edifice of progressive "dissent" against the truly monstrous crimes of the power structure....

Yet despite Obama's admirably frank presentation of himself as willing, eager tool of the bloodstained, brutal power structure that progressives decried so strenuously during the Bush years, these same progressives clambered onto Obama's bandwagon, declaring his election to be a moral imperative that all must support, or else be damned as an enemy of truth and light. They drank in his vague and vacuous rhetoric -- which in its soaring words about unity, peace, justice, equality, the future, etc., did not differ by a single iota from the disgorgings of meaningless gas we have always heard from the high and mighty. And when he reached the top of the power structure, and set about replicating, defending, entrenching and expanding the crimes of his predecessors, "progressives" fell silent, or carped a bit around the margins of this issue or that, or stuck out their tongues at Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, or, in a great many cases, simply pivoted on a dime and began praising and justifying Obama's savvy "continuity" with policies they had considered intolerable abominations just months before.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

M. Spector wrote:

There's always going to be a Republican bogey-man running so that you lot can point in terror and say "thank god for the Democrats". That's how Obomba got elected, and that's why good candidates for president will never be elected.

And occasionally, some of those Republican bogey-men will actually be elected, the sky will not fall, and anybody paying close attention will realize that things are not all that different from when there's a Democrat in the White House.

And don't kid yourself that Obomba's campaign is going to be affected in any way by the Occupy movement or the Green Party. The 1% are not backing Romney, as you suggest. They are backing Obomba, just as they did in 2008.

So really the whole thing is pointless isn't it?

As long as we're being honest, let's admit what we both know...that the MSM will ignore Jill Stein into obliviion, she won't get even 1% of the vote, and the green party candidacy will produce nothing of measurable value.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

M. Spector wrote:

You've got the whole thing backwards. There was far more radical activity and organizing under Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2 than there has been under Obomba. The anti-war movement has collapsed; the liberal left has gone into hibernation and Obomba has had a free ride from all those leftists who said they were going to "hold his feet to the fire", etc.

We had nothing like Occupy under Bush.

After eight years of Clinton we had Eddie Vedder singing the times are a changin for the Ralph Nader campaign in Madison Square Garden.

I wasn't there so can't confirm it but it sounds like there was much more radicalism under LBJ than Nixon as well.

You're the one who has it backwards.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

I remember there being radicalism in Nixon's first term, but it died as soon as he was re-elected.  And the same thing happened under Reagan.  Under Bush the only radicalism that happened was as a result of Katrina...and the same thing would have happened if ANY U.S. administration had responded that badly.


What I'm saying is that the activism in those times ended up just dying-and it died because the Repubican presidential victories helped convince most of the activists that the fight was lost.  Why would anyone think it wouldn't die in a new Republican ascendancy?  How would you fight the sense of overall futility that would creep up on people?

Probably Obama does have it locked up,  And the Greens are going to run and so will Anderson.  Whatever.

My real point was that there wasn't any real evidence the Greens actually built anything lasting as a result of their presidential campaigns.  The party didn't grow and the movement didn't grow.  It didn't have the effect the Debs campaign had of helping create the consciousness that later produced the New Deal, either.  Nothing whatsoever remains to remind the country that Nader even ever ran.

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

M. Spector wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The fact that radicalism didn't grow anywhere under Nixon in the early Seventies, or under Reagan in the Eighties or  under Bush the Younger bears me out.

You've got the whole thing backwards. There was far more radical activity and organizing under Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2 than there has been under Obomba. The anti-war movement has collapsed; the liberal left has gone into hibernation and Obomba has had a free ride from all those leftists who said they were going to "hold his feet to the fire", etc.

It's all about who finances their presidential candidacies. Obama's real constituents are Wall Street bankers and the military machine.

They have one property party in the U.S., and it has two right wings same as Canada long-time. The only difference is that Canada is a subserviant colonial outpost and U.S.A. our imperial master.

The American republic was overthrown in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act. Military dictatorship ever since.


Freedom 55
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2010

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would anyone think it wouldn't die in a new Republican ascendancy?  How would you fight the sense of overall futility that would creep up on people?

 

I'm not sure what's going on currently that you feel would be at risk of being lost under Romney. The Occupy movement is the only large-scale progressive thing I can think of at the moment, and I think that movement is fueled more by a sense of desperation than a sense of .


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

wage zombie wrote:

So really the whole thing is pointless isn't it?

As long as we're being honest, let's admit what we both know...that the MSM will ignore Jill Stein into obliviion, she won't get even 1% of the vote, and the green party candidacy will produce nothing of measurable value.

If people thought like that sixty years ago we wouldn't have the NDP today.

On the contrary, Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr's campaign will reach thousands of people who are looking for alternatives to the Republicrats and expose them to political ideas that could be the seeds of far-reaching political change in the future. 

Changing the political culture of the United States will require a titanic struggle. That struggle has to begin somewhere, and it has to begin soon.

 


Freedom 55
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2010

M. Spector wrote:

the liberal left has gone into hibernation and Obomba has had a free ride from all those leftists who said they were going to "hold his feet to the fire", etc.

 

A timely column that illustrates this point nicely: The liberal betrayal of Bradley Manning

Charles Davis wrote:

More than three years into the presidency of Barack Obama, it’s almost a cliché now to ask: What if George W. Bush did it? From dramatically escalating the war in Afghanistan to institutionalizing the practice of indefinite imprisonment, Obama has dashed hopes he would offer a change from the Bush’s national security policies – but he hasn’t faced a whole lot of resistance from liberals who once decried those policies as an affront to American values.

Like those on the right who now crow about fascism but spent the Bush years gleefully declaring left-wing celebrities “enemies of the state,” many of those on the liberal-left treat issues of war and civil liberties as useful merely for partisan purposes. When a Democrat’s in power those issues become inconvenient. And usually ignored.

Former dean of the Yale Law School Harold Koh, for instance, used to rail against the imperial presidency, speaking of the horror of torture and “indefinite detention without trial.” Now a legal adviser for the Obama State Department, he recently declared that “justice” can be delivered with or with out a trial. Indeed, “Drones also deliver.” Don’t expect much more than a yawn from Democratic pundits, though, much less any calls for impeachment. It’s an election year, after all. And what, would you rather Mitt Romney be the guy drone-striking Pakistani tribesmen?

“Obama and the Democrats being in power in Washington defangs a lot of liberal criticism,” Chase Madar, a civil rights attorney in New York, told me in an interview. Indeed, but with a few exceptions – Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, The Nation – those who would be inclined to defend Manning were Bush still in office are the ones either condemning him or condoning his treatment, which has included spending the better part of a year in torturous solitary confinement, an all too common feature of American prisons. Even his progressive defenders, remaining loyal to the Democratic Party, tend to downplay Obama’s role in the Bradley Manning affair; his authorizing the abuse of an American hero is certainly no means not to vote for him again.

“The whole civil libertarian message only really seems to catch fire among liberals when there’s a Republican in the White House,” says Madar. When there’s not a bumbling Texan to inveigh against, all the sudden issues that were morally black and white become complex, and liberal media starts finding nuance where there wasn’t any before.


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

M. Spector wrote:

There's always going to be a Republican bogey-man running so that you lot can point in terror and say "thank god for the Democrats". That's how Obomba got elected, and that's why good candidates for president will never be elected.

Now the Democrates are Republican dupes? Just fucking wow dude, you're diving the submarine pretty deep. What's the crush depth on that thing?


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

wage zombie wrote:

The Republicans are toxic and Romney is a terrible candidate.  Not only is he Mr. 1%, but he has a tendency to say ridiculous things.  And let's see who he picks for a running mate.  Could be worse than Palin.

Obama will seem like far and away the more reasonable choice.

M. Spector wrote:

There's always going to be a Republican bogey-man running so that you lot can point in terror and say "thank god for the Democrats". That's how Obomba got elected, and that's why good candidates for president will never be elected.

You misunderstand me.  I am certainly not making any kind of Republican bogeyman argument, nor would I ever blame third party spoilers for any mainstream candidate's lack of appeal.

Obama will win in a cakewalk because the Republicans don't have a candidate.  Or any way of talking about issues that will have appeal beyond their minority of supporters.

Romney's an empty suit, and the Republicans are toxic.


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Noam Chomsky endorses Jill Stein

Noam Chomsky wrote:
Dear friends, I hope you’ll take the opportunity of the March 6th Green-Rainbow primary to cast a vote for resurgent democracy. A democracy that thrives outside of the Democratic and Republican Parties that are sponsored by and subservient to corporate America. And I hope you will consider joining me in supporting Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein – both with your vote and with a contribution to her campaign for people, peace and the planet.As you know, popular anger at the political and economic institutions, and the subordination of the former to the latter, has reached historic heights. And for sound reasons. There could hardly be a better time to open up the political debate to the just anger and frustrations of citizens who are watching the country move towards what might be irreversible decline while a tiny sector of concentrated wealth and power implements policies of benefit to them and opposed by the general population, whom they are casting adrift.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Noam Chomsky endorses Jill Stein

Does this mean he won't be voting ("without illusions") for Obama again?


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

And even though the Dems reportedly harbour 80 COMMIES IN THE CONGRESS!!?? (and vid)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/allen-west-democrats-communist-...

"As many as 80 House Democrats are communists according to Rep Allen West (R-Fla). West warned constituents at a Tuesday Town Hall event that he's 'heard' that dozens of his Democratic colleagues in the House are members of the Communist Party, the Palm Beach Post reported. There are currently 190 House Democrats..Some members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus confirmed that they are not, in fact, members of the Communist Party.."

this obviously ISN'T the case with the NDP..

this probably doesn't belong in this thread but couldn't think where else - maybe a new thread called Political Comic Relief? Pardon my drift..


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Expect to see more of these types of articles from the Nation and the left-liberal media in the US, and how this is the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY etc. 

Why the Supreme Court matters 

 


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

"I think the liberal intelligentsia has got to ask itself a tough question..For 25 years they have let their party run away from them. For 25 years they've let their party become a captive of corporate interests. And now they want to block the American people from having more choices and voices, especially young people who are looking for idealism, who are looking for a clean campaign, who are looking for the real issues in this country instead of the sham and the rhetoric that masquerades for political campaigning...We just can't sit back like The Nation magazine and betray its own traditions, and the liberal intelligentsia, and once again settle for the least worst and watch both parties get worse every four years and then the liberals who come back to us and complain about "Oh, those Democrats are caving into these corporations, they're letting the Republicans run roughshod over them." - Ralph Nader, 2004


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

wage zombie wrote:

So really the whole thing is pointless isn't it?

As long as we're being honest, let's admit what we both know...that the MSM will ignore Jill Stein into obliviion, she won't get even 1% of the vote, and the green party candidacy will produce nothing of measurable value.

M. Spector wrote:

If people thought like that sixty years ago we wouldn't have the NDP today.

So what?  Didn't you just coin the phrase Neo Dipperal (you really need the double p on dipperal imo) in another thread?

Quote:

On the contrary, Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr's campaign will reach thousands of people who are looking for alternatives to the Republicrats and expose them to political ideas that could be the seeds of far-reaching political change in the future.

Wow, so Jill Stein and the Green Party will reach thousands (thousands!) of people in a country of 330 million, and therefore, 60 years from now the USA Green Party will be sufficiently co-opted and endorsed by Wall Street, and they'll enact green austerity with lower taxes.

Right?  I mean, if we're gonna be honest


Freedom 55
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2010

wage zombie wrote:

Didn't you just coin the phrase Neo Dipperal (you really need the double p on dipperal imo) in another thread?

 

I believe it was Slumberjack.


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004
M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

wage zombie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

On the contrary, Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr's campaign will reach thousands of people who are looking for alternatives to the Republicrats and expose them to political ideas that could be the seeds of far-reaching political change in the future.

Wow, so Jill Stein and the Green Party will reach thousands (thousands!) of people in a country of 330 million, and therefore, 60 years from now the USA Green Party will be sufficiently co-opted and endorsed by Wall Street, and they'll enact green austerity with lower taxes.

Right?  I mean, if we're gonna be honest

If you were honest you'd recognize that voting for the Democrats is a dead end for US social democrats, just as voting for the Liberals and Conservatives was a dead end for Canadian social democrats 60 years ago. That's why the NDP was needed, to break out of that political duopoly.

People laughed at the CCF/NDP back then just as you laugh at the US Green Party today. Your "so what?" comment is typical of that political myopia.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. I have no time for those who aren't even willing to take that first step.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

The problem is the Electoral College.  Until we get rid of that, politics in the U.S. will be exclsively two-party. 

You've mentioned the rise of the NDP...but the NDP could not have emerged under the U.S. electoral system as it is currently constituted...or at least not through presidential campaigns.  The parliamentary system, unlike the U.S. model(and even with the grave flaws imposed by FPTP, accomodates the rise of alternative parties.  You can build alternatives without having to create one that instantly gets majority or strong-plurality support.

This is why the years after 2000 did NOT see a sharp increase in support for the Greens, or any increase at all.  I wish that were different, but it's not.  And saying that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Nader elected Bush(I agree that he didn't...Gore blew the 2000 election on his own and Kerry most likely did the same in 2004...but tbe Nader and McKinney campaigns also didn't elect any Greens or create any lasting resistance culture or even anyplace that could be considerd a "liberated zone").

That's why I've argued that electoral reform needs to come first.  Yet the importance of electoral reform is dismissed by a lot of people.

I wish Ms. Stein and/or Roseanne success in raising the issues that need to get raised.  And if anybody could crash an Obama/Romney debate and not get thrown out, it WOULD be Roseanne.

 


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

M. Spector wrote:

On the contrary, Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr's campaign will reach thousands of people who are looking for alternatives to the Republicrats and expose them to political ideas that could be the seeds of far-reaching political change in the future.

wage zombie wrote:

Wow, so Jill Stein and the Green Party will reach thousands (thousands!) of people in a country of 330 million, and therefore, 60 years from now the USA Green Party will be sufficiently co-opted and endorsed by Wall Street, and they'll enact green austerity with lower taxes.

Right?  I mean, if we're gonna be honest

M. Spector wrote:

If you were honest you'd recognize that voting for the Democrats is a dead end for US social democrats, just as voting for the Liberals and Conservatives was a dead end for Canadian social democrats 60 years ago. That's why the NDP was needed, to break out of that political duopoly.

People laughed at the CCF/NDP back then just as you laugh at the US Green Party today. Your "so what?" comment is typical of that political myopia.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. I have no time for those who aren't even willing to take that first step.

If you are honest you'd recognize that in one thread over you're telling us that voting for NDP is a dead end for Canadian social democrats too.  And yet here you are hyping up the USGP in the hopes that they might one day become another NDP.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments