The future of the Green Party:

Green Party

Yep, once it is drilled it can't be undrilled. Forgot to mention strip mining in southern Utah.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 12, 2000

Answers

Yep, once it is drilled it can't be undrilled.

Funny, those are the exact words the father of my virginal girlfriend used before letting me take her on our first date.

Best wishes back atcha.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 12, 2000.

Green toast?

Hmmm, that will be good with my green eggs and ham!

-- (doctor@suess.who), November 12, 2000.

From the article:

"The party has a future in local races. But as a national presence, especially since such parties reflect the power of one man's personality, the party is toast."

Tip O'Neill said:

"All politics is local."

If the Green party can gather enough local strength, then it will have a national presence. End of case. No party is built from the top down. Not only does it stand to reason, but it is also shown from experience. Perot showed this. John Anderson showed this. The only way to build is from the grassroots up.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 12, 2000.

In this case, the roots appear to be suffering from a serious case of Rhizoctonia infection. Bring out the fungicide. :^)

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 12, 2000.

Here's a nutshell summary of the article:

"If Bush ends up winning this thing, he will do just awful things to our country. What has killed the Green Party is, those who voted green are realizing they and they alone are responsible for this horrible state of affairs."

I doubt Balter's is a very good analysis.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 12, 2000.

Flint:

Howzitgoin. We can agree to disagree. Not even a good summary of the article. I don't agree with all of it, but, at the local level, it is what I see.

Me, I don't care. I have to work with a number of Reps and Senators and they are all Republicans. So for me, personally and in a selfish sense, the election was good.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 12, 2000.

Balter's article is largely a bunch liberal guilt-tripping bull. What the Dem partisans refuse to acknowledge is the effect of the Clinton scandal on the voting. Polls I saw said that 20-25% of Bush voters indicated this was THE issue in their minds. Unfair,perhaps but still a large factor.

So out of Bush's 48mil votes,10 million come off of this issue. Trying to be fair(and accurate)say that maybe 3-4mil of these votes go to Gore,in the absence of this issue. Seems like these votes could have easily tipped 2 or more of the border-midwest "swing" states(that Clinton carried in 1996)thus making the Fla results a moot point or at least far less important. But rather than acknowledging the scandal,they play the Nader blame game. Easy convenient scapegoat.

The Gore people have no one to blame but themselves for a lackluster campaign,a good deal of dbl talk from Mr. G and a significant ignorance of a basic political truth. That is,ignoring one of the largest issues ,pretending that it doesn't exist,doesn't win you elections.

-- h (dryfarmer@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

"What the Dem partisans refuse to acknowledge is the effect of the Clinton scandal on the voting. Polls I saw said that 20-25% of Bush voters indicated this was THE issue in their minds."

Um, I don't quite know how to break this to you, or to the "20-25% of Bush voters" who apparently weren't aware (despite allegedly reading the ballot), but Clinton Wasn't Running.

(In addition, this "Dem partisan" has been saying for WEEKS that a good amount of GWB "supporters" weren't so much supporting GWB as they were against Clinton.)

(Who, once again, wasn't running.)

I realize there is no test prior to someone registering to vote and then to actually voting.....but I'm starting to think that the ability to name at least the two major candidates should be a requirement.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 12, 2000.

Patricia, you said "-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

"What the Dem partisans refuse to acknowledge is the effect of the Clinton scandal on the voting. Polls I saw said that 20-25% of Bush voters indicated this was THE issue in their minds."

Um, I don't quite know how to break this to you, or to the "20-25% of Bush voters" who apparently weren't aware (despite allegedly reading the ballot), but Clinton Wasn't Running.

(In addition, this "Dem partisan" has been saying for WEEKS that a good amount of GWB "supporters" weren't so much supporting GWB as they were against Clinton.)

(Who, once again, wasn't running.)

I realize there is no test prior to someone registering to vote and then to actually voting.....but I'm starting to think that the ability to name at least the two major candidates should be a requirement." . Well, Gore was the VP UNDER CLINTON FOR 8 YEARS!!! ALL OF CLINTON'S CRIMES ARE ALSO GORE'S!!! From Gore's ILLEGAL fundrasing for Bubba in the buddist temple to the money he took from the Red Chinese in exchage for our NATIONAL SECRETS, Gore is as guilty as Clinton! Period, end of story.

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 14, 2000.

Um, "Crono", before you burst a vein over there, do you have any proof of any of your accusations?

Or do you just like spreading conspiracy theories around in the hope that one day you might be right?
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 14, 2000.

[This last line was supposed to have been in there.....don't know what happened :-)]

Oh and thanks for proving my point. LOL.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 14, 2000.

Oh yes Patricia the olde "cyber-chad" struck your post. Better luck next time.

PS(and that be certified)

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), November 14, 2000.

Brian:

I am not into predicting the future. I know that 10 y ago we had Greens elected to local office. This year none were elected [they didn't even break 0% in the election results] and Nader didn't get 3% in the county. This article describes what I've observed at the local level. It may not be true in Portland, but it isn't a prediction here; it is history.

Everyone else, go on with your Clinton discussion. :^)

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 14, 2000.