![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It must indeed be the season.
Nebraska Democratic notable Vince Powers is already cranking on Steve Larrick and the Nebraska Greens over on the Nebraska Democrat’s “Blog for Nebraska”. Powers is a Democrat National Committee member who recently nominated former right-wing Republican Kate Witek for State Auditor at the Nebraska Democratic convention and has taken on the job of defending her to other Democrats, the public and legally.
(The anti-Larrick, anti-Green post is near the bottom of the page. Amazing what you find on Google these days.)
Nebraska Democrat Party’s “Blog for Nebraska”
Democratic Official Says Witek Nomination Reflected Party’s Openness
Let us now bow our heads and thank the Nebraska Democrats for allowing for a contested Republican primary by other means. Democracy is surely alive and well and living in Nebraska.
I’m still waiting for the Democrats to put Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in their platform. Don’t hold your breath on that in Nebraska. Hell, most of them don’t even know what it is as far as I can tell from personal conversations. They sure have the knee jerk “spoiler” cheer down though.
According to the Democrat powers-that-be it is apparently better to have the Greens as demon people rather than as legitimate competitors. After all, people might start getting bad habits if they could vote Green without the fear factor.
Bob Mulholland a California Democrat strategist in California typifies this kind of mindset, in my opinion.
From Greenhorns - Green Party - Sierra Magazine:
“California Democrats have not taken kindly to this rival for the attentions of environmental voters. ‘The Greens are our enemies,’ declared state Democratic Party political director Bob Mulholland last October. ‘They’re no different from the Republicans.’ In San Francisco, the Democrats sent out paid registration teams to dog Green Party volunteers and discourage would-be members. Mulholland attempted to hire away one of the Greens’ top organizers and wrote to thousands of newly registered Green Party members urging them to reconsider.”
I've been told by a long time California Green that the last stunt evidently caused so much political backlash that it provided enough added momentum to get the Greens ballot status in California. They haven’t lost it since. Karma?
Two more references on Mulholland... just for fun...
The Greens This Election - Letter to the Editor - Berkeley Daily Planet
“It is curious to me that a campaign manager for the Democratic Governor is so fervently opposed to IRV, that he would rather see the Democratic Party implode than let 5 percent of the people express themselves freely. Mulholland should realize that there is an axiom in nature, ‘survival of the most cooperative.“‘
Green Herring - The American Prospect
“When asked about any pressures the Green candidacies were putting on Democrats, Bob Mulholland, a campaign advisor at Democratic headquarters in California, blared, ‘Look, they’re irrelevant. Why is everyone writing articles about them? They’re only relevant to reporters. The issue here is education! Do you have any other questions?“‘
The whole Nader made Gore lose theory is interesting alternative history. Alternative history is of course history that didn’t happen. You can make up all kinds of scenarios, some more plausible than others, given that definition.
For example, you could have Nader not running, and W not spending tons of time and money in California - his second largest state buy, as I recall - which netted Bush a massive 12% loss for his trouble. Of course the fact that Nader was polling double digits earlier in the race might just have had something to do with that strategy. If Bush could win California, the party would be over. Bush win California? When pigs fly.
Nader’s Bid Complicates Gore’s Task - Washington Post
“While running at 4 percent to 5 percent in most national polls, Nader, with his hard-line environmental message, draws support at 9 to 10 percent in California...”
Monday Morning Quarterbacking in 2 States - Brennan Center
“The Bush campaign and the RNC dedicated $11.5 million in pursuit of the 54 electoral votes in the nation’s largest state, with independent groups adding another $31,000 in spending on ads for Gov. Bush. Without spending a single dollar on television in California, Vice President Gore carried the state by 12 percentage points, 54 to 42%.
‘George W. Bush spent almost as much on the long shot to win California as he did in Florida,’ said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, president of the Brennan Center. ‘Whoever emerges as president, pundits, political scientists, and Monday morning quarterbacks will be asking one question for years to come: Was Bush’s $11 million gambit for California a bold move or an act of sheer lunacy?’”
As I recall, W’s dad wrote off California during a time when it was even less Democratically biased. Gore spent essentially no time or money in California.
So for alternative history you get the fun situation where W takes all that time and money wasted in California and puts it into all the close states and nails them down. Maybe he nails all of them down and wins in a landslide not a bitterly contested race.
But this alternative history gets even better.
On top of a landslide for W, Sen. Maria Cantwell loses because of no Nader crossover votes in Washington state and perhaps Sen. Debbie Stabenow in Michigan also loses (although that’s more of a stretch).
Will Nader Matter at All? - The Nation
“And savvy Democrats, such as former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, have always recognized that Nader voters helped US Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, and US Representative Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, win tight races in 2000. Cantwell’s victory put Democrats in position to seize control of the Senate in 2001, after Vermont’s Jim Jeffords left the GOP fold.”
Either way, the Democrats lose the Senate along with losing the White House in a mandate. Jim Jeffords flip to independent has no real effect if it happens at all in that new situation.
So you have ALL those years with the GOP in charge of both houses and a mandate to govern. Pretty nice, eh?
Alternative histories. Lots of fun indeed.
Another fun alternative history is that Gore goes down and makes a speech in Florida to all the ticked off Everglades environmentalists and gets them on his side instead of driving them over to the Nader alternative. Another tidbit not often talked about by the Democrats for some reason.
To the White House, by Way of the Everglades - Washington Post
“Norris McDonald, a District of Columbia activist, said he warned Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile that Gore was losing environmentalists to Nader over such issues as Homestead. ‘She said they should go [expletive] themselves,’ McDonald recalled.”
Frankly, I’m surprised that Democrats, in particular conservative ones in positions of power, who say the Greens must run as liberal Democrats don’t take their own advice and become Republicans so they can moderate that party some. No that would be wrong.
Finally, regarding the Greens running as spoilers for the Democrats, the only place where IRV got any support from Democrats was down in New Mexico where a Green candidate for governor took a lot of votes and the Republican won. The Democrats had control of both houses and IRV passed in one but failed in the other. Many of the Greens couldn’t take the heat for being spoilers and so folded their tents with some becoming Democrats. And so went the immediate prospects for IRV in New Mexico.
Editorial: Transform Local Politics - Progressive Populist
“Democrats are pursuing a constitutional amendment allowing IRV in New Mexico, where Greens and Democrats have split the ”liberal“ vote in recent years, giving Republicans plurality wins in several races. The New Mexico State Senate approved a constitutional amendment in 1998, but the proposition failed to clear the House.”
It’s stuff like this where only playing scorched earth hardball by the Greens seems to get us all headed towards a reasonable electoral system where the choice between a Witek and Foley are not the only ones allowed. This is especially the case in the states otherwise dominated by Democrats, like New Mexico, where they actually have the power to make the change.
Regarding Republicans supporting Greens, I wonder how much GOP money has gone into the coffers of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. And how much criticism of that has been done by the Democratic leadership. That would be an enlightening comparison.
William F. Buckley was famously a supporter of Lieberman back when he first ran against that evil liberal Republican, Lowell Weicker. Until the primary was over, lots of big shots were good buds with moderate Joe. Some still may be in private.
At Least He’s Loyal - The American Prospect
“After all, he [Lieberman] practically owes Buckley his Senate seat. Running in 1988 against moderate incumbent Republican Lowell Weicker, Lieberman did not hesitate to launch attacks from the right. ‘You’re closer to Fidel Castro than to Ronald Reagan,’ Lieberman charged during one televised debate, citing Weicker’s support for normalizing trade relations with Cuba. Buckley formed a PAC (‘Buckleys for Lieberman’) that ran anti-Weicker ads, instituted a weekly ‘Weicker Watch’ column in National Review, and branded the incumbent ‘the No. 1 horse’s ass in the Senate."
Speaking of Lieberman let's do one more fun alternative history. Are the Greens also responsible for Gore picking Lieberman as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 over, say, Sen. Bob Graham from Florida. That would be Bob "Never Lost an Election in Florida" Graham. Ah, the things that might have been. At least they were able to hold Connecticut.
Just thought some of you Greens might find this all of some interest in responding to some of these situations with your otherwise friends, the Democrats. No sense in putting up with the boilerplate nonsense from them.
Nebraska Democratic notable Vince Powers is already cranking on Steve Larrick and the Nebraska Greens over on the Nebraska Democrat’s “Blog for Nebraska”. Powers is a Democrat National Committee member who recently nominated former right-wing Republican Kate Witek for State Auditor at the Nebraska Democratic convention and has taken on the job of defending her to other Democrats, the public and legally.
(The anti-Larrick, anti-Green post is near the bottom of the page. Amazing what you find on Google these days.)
Nebraska Democrat Party’s “Blog for Nebraska”
Democratic Official Says Witek Nomination Reflected Party’s Openness
Let us now bow our heads and thank the Nebraska Democrats for allowing for a contested Republican primary by other means. Democracy is surely alive and well and living in Nebraska.
I’m still waiting for the Democrats to put Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in their platform. Don’t hold your breath on that in Nebraska. Hell, most of them don’t even know what it is as far as I can tell from personal conversations. They sure have the knee jerk “spoiler” cheer down though.
According to the Democrat powers-that-be it is apparently better to have the Greens as demon people rather than as legitimate competitors. After all, people might start getting bad habits if they could vote Green without the fear factor.
Bob Mulholland a California Democrat strategist in California typifies this kind of mindset, in my opinion.
From Greenhorns - Green Party - Sierra Magazine:
“California Democrats have not taken kindly to this rival for the attentions of environmental voters. ‘The Greens are our enemies,’ declared state Democratic Party political director Bob Mulholland last October. ‘They’re no different from the Republicans.’ In San Francisco, the Democrats sent out paid registration teams to dog Green Party volunteers and discourage would-be members. Mulholland attempted to hire away one of the Greens’ top organizers and wrote to thousands of newly registered Green Party members urging them to reconsider.”
I've been told by a long time California Green that the last stunt evidently caused so much political backlash that it provided enough added momentum to get the Greens ballot status in California. They haven’t lost it since. Karma?
Two more references on Mulholland... just for fun...
The Greens This Election - Letter to the Editor - Berkeley Daily Planet
“It is curious to me that a campaign manager for the Democratic Governor is so fervently opposed to IRV, that he would rather see the Democratic Party implode than let 5 percent of the people express themselves freely. Mulholland should realize that there is an axiom in nature, ‘survival of the most cooperative.“‘
Green Herring - The American Prospect
“When asked about any pressures the Green candidacies were putting on Democrats, Bob Mulholland, a campaign advisor at Democratic headquarters in California, blared, ‘Look, they’re irrelevant. Why is everyone writing articles about them? They’re only relevant to reporters. The issue here is education! Do you have any other questions?“‘
The whole Nader made Gore lose theory is interesting alternative history. Alternative history is of course history that didn’t happen. You can make up all kinds of scenarios, some more plausible than others, given that definition.
For example, you could have Nader not running, and W not spending tons of time and money in California - his second largest state buy, as I recall - which netted Bush a massive 12% loss for his trouble. Of course the fact that Nader was polling double digits earlier in the race might just have had something to do with that strategy. If Bush could win California, the party would be over. Bush win California? When pigs fly.
Nader’s Bid Complicates Gore’s Task - Washington Post
“While running at 4 percent to 5 percent in most national polls, Nader, with his hard-line environmental message, draws support at 9 to 10 percent in California...”
Monday Morning Quarterbacking in 2 States - Brennan Center
“The Bush campaign and the RNC dedicated $11.5 million in pursuit of the 54 electoral votes in the nation’s largest state, with independent groups adding another $31,000 in spending on ads for Gov. Bush. Without spending a single dollar on television in California, Vice President Gore carried the state by 12 percentage points, 54 to 42%.
‘George W. Bush spent almost as much on the long shot to win California as he did in Florida,’ said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, president of the Brennan Center. ‘Whoever emerges as president, pundits, political scientists, and Monday morning quarterbacks will be asking one question for years to come: Was Bush’s $11 million gambit for California a bold move or an act of sheer lunacy?’”
As I recall, W’s dad wrote off California during a time when it was even less Democratically biased. Gore spent essentially no time or money in California.
So for alternative history you get the fun situation where W takes all that time and money wasted in California and puts it into all the close states and nails them down. Maybe he nails all of them down and wins in a landslide not a bitterly contested race.
But this alternative history gets even better.
On top of a landslide for W, Sen. Maria Cantwell loses because of no Nader crossover votes in Washington state and perhaps Sen. Debbie Stabenow in Michigan also loses (although that’s more of a stretch).
Will Nader Matter at All? - The Nation
“And savvy Democrats, such as former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, have always recognized that Nader voters helped US Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, and US Representative Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, win tight races in 2000. Cantwell’s victory put Democrats in position to seize control of the Senate in 2001, after Vermont’s Jim Jeffords left the GOP fold.”
Either way, the Democrats lose the Senate along with losing the White House in a mandate. Jim Jeffords flip to independent has no real effect if it happens at all in that new situation.
So you have ALL those years with the GOP in charge of both houses and a mandate to govern. Pretty nice, eh?
Alternative histories. Lots of fun indeed.
Another fun alternative history is that Gore goes down and makes a speech in Florida to all the ticked off Everglades environmentalists and gets them on his side instead of driving them over to the Nader alternative. Another tidbit not often talked about by the Democrats for some reason.
To the White House, by Way of the Everglades - Washington Post
“Norris McDonald, a District of Columbia activist, said he warned Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile that Gore was losing environmentalists to Nader over such issues as Homestead. ‘She said they should go [expletive] themselves,’ McDonald recalled.”
Frankly, I’m surprised that Democrats, in particular conservative ones in positions of power, who say the Greens must run as liberal Democrats don’t take their own advice and become Republicans so they can moderate that party some. No that would be wrong.
Finally, regarding the Greens running as spoilers for the Democrats, the only place where IRV got any support from Democrats was down in New Mexico where a Green candidate for governor took a lot of votes and the Republican won. The Democrats had control of both houses and IRV passed in one but failed in the other. Many of the Greens couldn’t take the heat for being spoilers and so folded their tents with some becoming Democrats. And so went the immediate prospects for IRV in New Mexico.
Editorial: Transform Local Politics - Progressive Populist
“Democrats are pursuing a constitutional amendment allowing IRV in New Mexico, where Greens and Democrats have split the ”liberal“ vote in recent years, giving Republicans plurality wins in several races. The New Mexico State Senate approved a constitutional amendment in 1998, but the proposition failed to clear the House.”
It’s stuff like this where only playing scorched earth hardball by the Greens seems to get us all headed towards a reasonable electoral system where the choice between a Witek and Foley are not the only ones allowed. This is especially the case in the states otherwise dominated by Democrats, like New Mexico, where they actually have the power to make the change.
Regarding Republicans supporting Greens, I wonder how much GOP money has gone into the coffers of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. And how much criticism of that has been done by the Democratic leadership. That would be an enlightening comparison.
William F. Buckley was famously a supporter of Lieberman back when he first ran against that evil liberal Republican, Lowell Weicker. Until the primary was over, lots of big shots were good buds with moderate Joe. Some still may be in private.
At Least He’s Loyal - The American Prospect
“After all, he [Lieberman] practically owes Buckley his Senate seat. Running in 1988 against moderate incumbent Republican Lowell Weicker, Lieberman did not hesitate to launch attacks from the right. ‘You’re closer to Fidel Castro than to Ronald Reagan,’ Lieberman charged during one televised debate, citing Weicker’s support for normalizing trade relations with Cuba. Buckley formed a PAC (‘Buckleys for Lieberman’) that ran anti-Weicker ads, instituted a weekly ‘Weicker Watch’ column in National Review, and branded the incumbent ‘the No. 1 horse’s ass in the Senate."
Speaking of Lieberman let's do one more fun alternative history. Are the Greens also responsible for Gore picking Lieberman as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 over, say, Sen. Bob Graham from Florida. That would be Bob "Never Lost an Election in Florida" Graham. Ah, the things that might have been. At least they were able to hold Connecticut.
Just thought some of you Greens might find this all of some interest in responding to some of these situations with your otherwise friends, the Democrats. No sense in putting up with the boilerplate nonsense from them.
