[Sosfbay-discuss] Cameron's Post on Handling the "Spoiler" Question

[Andrea Dorey]

I love the audacity of Fred's suggestion!  Failing that, however...

I think identifying the two third parties with their name-recognition  
candidates as a "progressive block" and, as often as possible, have  
them shaking hands "across the aisle" as do the major parties in DC  
when they (first one party, then the other) casually tank any  
progressive bills.

Meanwhile, the democrats continue to claim that they could pass these  
bills if they just had "one more democrat"— so your vote in this  
election is even more critical than ever!!

It sure sounds like the same old whine designed to keep people from  
voting for the candidate they really want and making them feel guilty  
if they do.
Andrea

On Feb 29, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Fred Duperrault wrote:

> On  Feb 29, 2008, at 1:24 pm, fredd at freeshell.org wrote:
>
> It is entertaining to read and hear most of the mainstream minds  
> rant and rave over the audacity of the announcement of the Nader- 
> Gonzales independent run for the presidency, during the $?Billion  
> "thoroughbred horse race" now limited to three elite U.S. Senators  
> backed by the corporate - military - governmental complex.
>
> It baffles the Green Party that will most likely nominate Cynthia  
> McKinney, a convert from the Democratic Party that treated her as a  
> pariah figure. Cynthia has been a real boost to the Green Party.  
> Now, how should the Green Party adapt to the situation in which  
> former Green Candidate Nader and a Green with great potential, Matt  
> Gonzales, are teamed to compete for the Green  and the other  
> progressive voting blocks' support?  What can Cynthia and the  
> Greens do to share some of the dregs of attention that Nader and  
> Gonzales will get after the "thoroughbreds" consume 99% of the  
> coverage?
>
> A suggestion:   When Cynthia is nominated, she should announce that  
> she has chosen Ralph Nader as her V.P. running mate and will  
> consider Matt Gonzales as one of her top Green consultants. Whether  
> or not it would be technically possible, it would be a way to get  
> attention, to disarm the dividers of the Green "spoilers," and to  
> develop some unity through humor and the outrageousness of it all.
>
> It would be great fun to hold progressive forums where the Green  
> Party Candidate for President and her independent "Running Mate"  
> would face off on the issues.
>
> How else are the "politically marginal candidates of the  
> progressive left" going to stir up some interest and get a peek  
> from the arrogant
> "fourth estate," now better known as the corporate conglomerates'  
> "real estate.?"
>
> "Nader for Vice President!"
>
> At risk,
>
> Fred D.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:02 PM, alexcathy at aol.com wrote:
>
>> Wow!
>>
>> Cameron, that's brilliant.  you really should polish that a  
>> little  bit and submit it for publication someplace where millions  
>> of  people can read it.
>
> I, too, have asked this genius to share this information factually so
> we can use it when we get hit over the head for EVER voting for
> Nader, as he were the devil incarnate.
>
> I always ask these bullies, who stand over me snarling, why they
> think they own my vote.  I quit voting long before Nader stepped in.
> My very first vote was Republican (Nixon).  So there.  (I've come a
> long way, baby!)
>
> The closest to a scientific explanation I've ever seen was in the
> documentary, "An Unreasonable Man."
> And somewhere, earlier, I also heard that more Democrats voted for
> Bush than people voted for Nader (in the 2000 election?).
>
>> I, myself, struggle constantly with my desire to call for "Jihad"   
>> against the Democratic Party Machine Bosses in Los Angeles.  I  
>> hate  the Democrats.  I can't stop thinking about the things  
>> they've done  to sell-out, betray, marginalize, and ridicule  
>> people I know who  have worked 10, 20, 30, and even 40 years for  
>> peace, civil rights,  women's rights, labor rights, and  
>> environmentalism.  Then, to add  insult to injury, every time we  
>> turn around along comes another  rich, well-connected charming  
>> "liberal" with a law degree from  Harvard or Yale and so-called  
>> "progressives" swoon.
>>
>> Having said all that, Cameron, I know in my head you are right.
>>
>> We should be "Green and cuddly."  You catch more flies with honey   
>> than vinegar.
>>
>> I think we should have a workshop on this at a plenary.  I am   
>> serious.  We should practice a little "role play" on what to say   
>> and how to act when somebody puts the "spoiler" argument.  We   
>> should also have a workshop on what to say and what not to say in  
>> a  press release.
>
> I probably need to get a bit of training in diplomacy—my worst
> subject.  Too Irish, I guess.
>
>> Thus, for example, I've been told if you want to get an op-ed in  
>> a  newspaper you must never, ever, insult the editors in your op- 
>> ed.   Oh!  That is so hard for me.  I hate the MSM almost as much  
>> as the  Democratic Party bosses!   The "Op-Ed" page is supposed to  
>> be for   views that disagree with the newspaper's editorials.  But  
>> the  subtle truth is, they only print "Op-Eds" that genuflect to  
>> the  paper's wisdom in some way.  When the Los Angeles Times  
>> posted my  blog it was because I *AGREED* with their editorial  
>> about the need  for reform.  I just said the Democrats and the  
>> Republicans were  incapable of doing it.
>>
>> It's a very subtle thing.  You gotta be firm... but you gotta be   
>> nice (notice how they are all saying what a "nice guy" William F.   
>> Buckley was and never mind that the guy was an outright fascist.    
>> Buckley was "witty" and "polite" with a degree from Yale).
>>
>>
>> Alex Walker
>>
>>
>> -----Begin Original Message-----
>> From: Cameron L. Spitzer <cls at greens.org>
>> To: gpca-ccwg at cagreens.org
>> Sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:22 pm
>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-CCWG] What is future of the GP, What Nader   
>> runing for? gpca-ccwg Digest, Vol 30, Issue 23
>>
>> Bob Marsh wrote:
>>> Do not give any ground or sympathy to Demopublicans who
>>> are infected.  Attack them (verbally only) whenever you hear
>>> this crap.   Tell them you wish we had "spoiled" the election
>>> because then they might pay attention to our demands!
>> Please don't.  Don't utter a single word which might be taken
>> as admitting there is any such thing as "spoiling."  Ever.
>>
>> These days, when I meet one of these die-hard Dems,
>> and they accuse the Greens or Nader of " spoiling," I pretend
>> I have never heard the accusation before and ask them to
>> explain it to me.  Then I interrupt them at each false
>> assumption in their argument.  Nobody has ever been able
>> to explain The Spoiler Effect to me without making at least
>> one false assumption.  Of course they don't learn
>> anything from the exchange, faith being impervious to mere
>> facts and reason, but it gives them the message
>> that I am not buying one bit of their crap, and they go away.
>> If they want to talk politics with me, fine, but I'm not
>> joining them in Toontown to do it.
>>
>> .  .  .
>>
>> -----End Original Message-----
>>
>>
>> Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
>> _______________________________________________
>> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
>> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss