It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Green Party Tells Nader to Get Lost

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The Green Party held its presidential convention in Milwaukee on Saturday. The result, delegates decided to choose David Cobb over Ralph Nader, the party's candidate in the 2000 election. David Cobb had recently chosen the politician Peter Camejo as his running mate, but the Green Party decided to nominate Pat LaMarche instead. Nader still has the endorsement of the Reform Party and received praise from the Green Party Presidential nominee.
 


Source CNN

In choosing Cobb, the Greens picked a candidate who spent the last eight years visiting 40 states, working at the grass-roots level to build ties between environmental and labor movements.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Last election, Nader was able to receive 2.7% of the popular vote, with a total of 2,883,000 votes. With Nader losing the Green Party nomination, he will have to run as an independent and lose the vote of many, strong Green Party supporters. He may not even make it on the ballot in some of the 22 states, which had granted a Green Party ballot place due to Nader's performance in 2000. Cobb has not been represented as much in main-stream media and will rely mostly on the 500,000 strong Green Party and through his grassroots campaign.

The Green Party's decision could ultimately turn the tide of the 2004 election, in which Nader has been seen as a major threat to the Democratic Presidential Nominee, John Kerry.

Other Sources
Green Party Website
Cobb, LaMarche Press Statements
Vote Cobb 2004 Web Site
Nader a threat to Kerry

[edit on 28-6-2004 by Jamuhn]

[edit on 28-6-2004 by Zion Mainframe]




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The final nail in Nader's coffin was telling people to come to his rallies, but vote for Kerry. Green can hardly have a candidate that ENDORSES Kerry, can they?


I mean Nader is all about trying to run the Democratic Party from the outside, and Green wants to be a real party. Good for Green to see through his game.

Though why Reform endorses Nader is beyond me. It's the Conservative party of Perot and Ventura types. Unless it's one of those bizarre pro-Bush statements. Vote Nader to elect Bush but let him know you're not happy about it????

Bah. I find the politics of all these third party characters twice as disturbing as the big bad two. They're as dirty as anyone, if not dirtier.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I mean, do they seriously believe that they will ever come up to par with the major parties? It's like, maybe if they keep gaining votes every year, then eventually they can even think about winning it, but that would be like a 100 years! As of now, all they do is take away from the 2 parties likely to win the nomination. But yea, I definitely think the Green party made this a strategic move in an attempt to get Kerry in office. By cutting off the support of their most notable candidate Nader and allowing a lesser-known to take his place, many votes going to Nader will be displaced between the Green Party and the Deomcratic Party. I'd be surprised to see Nader even make it on the ballot in a lot of states.

I still think this election will see the highest voter turnout ever!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Bah. I find the politics of all these third party characters twice as disturbing as the big bad two. They're as dirty as anyone, if not dirtier.


What? lets not forgett why it has to be like that. If third partys were allowed to take part in such things as nationaly televised debates, they would be able to run as viable alternatives. The big 2 refuse to take part in the debates if a third party is represented. They claim it is "too confusing to the voters".

Also, do you know the Libertarian Party spends MILLIONS every election just for the privilage to be on the ballot in all 50 states? And yes, they do get on the ballot in all 50 every election. The big 2, however, get their platforms out at tax payer expence, because they recieved at least 10% of the vote in the preivious election. The third partys arent simply taking away votes, they are trying to reach the coveted 10% mark to get federaly matching funds in the next election. If they were able to meet that mark, they would run a viable person for office.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The Libertarians I actually respect Cavscout, because they really do work and attempt to effect change from a platform (not just change for the sake of change).

I still don't know what the deal is with people like Perot and Nader though, other than ego.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think Perot actualy believed he stood a chance, although he really did mess things up pretty good.
Nader, i think, is just knida out there and thinks people love him and expect him to run. I really think him and the green party getting all those votes was a one time thing.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout


What? lets not forgett why it has to be like that. If third partys were allowed to take part in such things as nationaly televised debates, they would be able to run as viable alternatives. The big 2 refuse to take part in the debates if a third party is represented. They claim it is "too confusing to the voters".



Sorry, but 3rd parties will never be viable alternatives, they will always only be what they are now - spoilers.

You seem to not realize there is a base of people out there who know nothing, do not educate themselves, just tried and true vote their party line. You will never overcome this. Work an election sometime and find out for yourself.

If anyone really wants to effect change they will have to learn to do it within the confines of the established guidelines (partylines). The outside agitators cut off their noses to spite their faces. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the reality.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The attempt at a president would be futile at least in the near future. But I think the other parties should attempt to focus more on getting more state representatives into Congress. That is the way they could seriously affect change in the government.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The attempt at a president would be futile at least in the near future. But I think the other parties should attempt to focus more on getting more state representatives into Congress. That is the way they could seriously affect change in the government.


Well no, you need to start in your own backyard. You need to start at the local level and work your way up. But even then.....

When the Independance Party (Perot) started I was politically involved locally. I had already learned my lesson that you needed to be part of the major party system to get the votes. This party had a good strong beginning with great ideals and was exciting people at an unprecedented level. I knew they would make permanent ballot status in my state. Got just a handful of people to officially switch parties and get involved to have some clout at the local level (in my County they passed the Conservative's in votes cast by the next election). This was really a way for people who cared, who wanted change to do something real. But already, by then there was corruption and infighting at the state level, & the county level, which was filtering down. It's just useless! And in the end no one cares. They are happy or they are not (the majority). If they feel fine, they will keep the current administration, if they don't they will vote in the challenger. Or then there is the rest of them, who just say nothing is good enough and so I will vote the third party, but those voters rarely get involved at a level that will make a difference. Those are just the people who whine all the time.

Hey - my opinion and I'm entitled to it.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The Libertarian Party ran 1,642 candidates in the 2002 elections, the largest slate of third-party candidates since before World War II. We contested 219 U.S. House seats, 21 U.S. Senate seats and ran 24 gubernatorial candidates. Our candidates for governor received 763,392 votes, almost twice as many as our previous best showing. We made history when our House candidates received over 1 million votes for the second time, a feat achieved previously only by the Democrats and Republicans.

In the off-year election of 2003, 46 Libertarians were elected to local office -- and nearly half of those victories came in higher-level races such as city and county council. The LP now has over 600 officeholders, which is more than all other third parties combined.

Currently the party is gearing up for the November 2004 elections, in which we expect to field more than 1,000 candidates for federal, state and local office.
pilfered shamelessly from www.lp.org...



How can you just shrug this off? the party has only been around since the 1970s, and you can see the fast growth it is enjoying. In nearly every major election of the century, the voters have picked out of the known platforms the one that limited government the most. The problem is getting to a point where we dont have to spend millions just to get on the ballot so that money can be used to get the platform out, and getting on the nationaly televised debates.

lets not forget that there was a time a little more than 100 years ago when the replucan party wasn't a viable choise to cast your vote at



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Yea, that was my point, that you can't just jump in the presidential race and expect to win. You have to build support at the state level first and work your way up...It's futile to run for president right now for third parties, unless it is to engrain in the public mind that these parties are still around.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join