Me And Julia - I (Revised)

Here are excerpts from the dustup (so-called, really Julia barking at shadows), at Lisa English's blog.

...I still think this debate is weighed too heavily against Nader. The onus and spotlight is too much on Nader and the Greens, and not on the Democrats, their failures, why they won't support the one sure thing that lost them the election (electoral reform), and why beyond that they've lost credibility with independent-minded voters.

Nader DID NOT lose the election for the Democrats. That's cherry picking. The Democrats lost the election on their own, and they may do the same if they don't actually stand up with some spine and principle.

Right now, it seems that many of the Democrats in the ranks, though not the candidates like Dean, Kerry, Clark, etc., seem to think that the only success necessary in politics the next cycle is beating Bush. Who's the reactionary party now?

And that's not real change or progess, as measured from 2000. If people are fed up, which they are, THAT'S the time to throw something ambitious and novel at them! Don't you get it?

Once you're back in the White House, all comfortable that Bush is gone, and getting ramrodded unfairly in the media again by Right wing slush money, what will you actually accomplish? What will be your mandate?

Will you champion anything once back in the winner's circle, or is that good enough? What makes you think you'll come up with an action plan people will get behind AFTER you've already won?

Posted by freelixir at November 11, 2003 04:34 PM


...


I agree with Freelixir, and Richard and Natalie make good points too.

It's very simple. You want the votes of Greens for the Democratic candidate, you earn them. By giving Greens something positive they can vote for, policies they can support.

You don't do it by trying to scare them with the threat of Bush.

I see too many Democratic partisans bashing Nader, bashing Greens, denigrating real progressives in the Democratic party like Kucinich and Sharpton, and then they expect Greens to vote Democratic.

Folks, that ain't gonna work. You may have some short term success in 2004, but in the long term it will only bring the Democratic party down.

And I say this as someone who is likely to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Until the Democratic party treats Greens with respect, it has no right to expect their votes.

Posted by Al-Muhajabah at November 12, 2003 12:51 PM



I'd really like to see some discussion of why it's acceptable to assume that when Democrats argue against a Nader run it's because they're "expecting" Green votes, rather than because they want them.

It's a trope, and I don't think it's an adequately supported trope.

Posted by julia at November 12, 2003 02:27 PM



Julia, it's because of what Al-Muhajabah just said, you never pretend to earn their support. You just hang the threat of the enemy, i.e. Bush, over their head while haranguing them for the enemy being in charge in the first place (and also while conveniently ignoring the large number of Democrats who voted for Bush).

That's politics at its basest. Like I've said all along, offer electoral reform and no independent in their right mind would not jump on your Democratic bandwagon this year.

It's that simple. No threats necessary.

Just don't give the BS that it's too radical or not possible. Look at what the neocons are doing. That's radical.

Posted by freelixir at November 12, 2003 03:04 PM



freelixir, I've run into you before.

you are a troll.

I don't debate trolls.

Posted by julia at November 12, 2003 08:35 PM


***

(I'm wondering where Julia has run into me before. I've never even heard of her before she met me in this thread and then subsequently banned me. so if you're wondering about the four-letter word...)

By the way, that's how reality goes down in the blogosphere. Julia just can't cope with counter-argument. Who the hell is this woman?