Michael Moore for President?

[birdbath]

Suppose the Greens nominate Michael Moore for President? Or maybe Barbara Ehrenreich, or Ron Daniels, or Ralph Nader, say. How about running their candidate aggressively in all states where the final ballot is simply a foregone conclusion? Moore running in Texas and in Massachusetts seeking as many votes as possible in those and in similarly uncontested states is not going to impact the broader election because were Bush to lose Texas or were whatever Democrat is running to lose Massachusetts, the whole election would be a gigantic stampede uninfluenced by our project. And there are many other such states.

More here (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4041)

[CEO]

I'll need a large mochalattechino before I can read that.

[ArseBurger]

Cutting back CEO?

Off the mochalattechinofrappechaiteabellagioexpresso chocochip mongo-grande?

[CEO]

yeah. wot he said.

[shakabu]

surely the eyes should be firmly on the prize of removing bush from power, leaving nothing to chance. i don't think there's really any need for vanity candidates this year...

[ArseBurger]

Moore is sensationalist and doesn't have the education to run (ruin??) a country...

[Qu1zMaster]

Yeah but it turns out caffiene is bad for you. Latest findings. It's all on the interweb.
It doesn't taste bad for you.

Much as I like Michael Moore, he's too much of a buffoon to be a presidential candidate. He belongs on the sidelines, sniping.
Nader though. I'd vote for Nader. Even if it did put the Democrats in danger, so what, they're no different.

[CEO]

Back to school.....:D

[birdbath]

perhaps if you read the article you might see the point

[colinsky]

They already tried Nader, bb. I even voted for him.

Your other choices... I have a hard time believing that someone would be able to gather broad public appeal merely by writing a book, no matter how good, on one specific topic. Personally, I'd think that sort of person who be better off as an advisor/minister of their area of expertise than as president.

[Qu1zMaster]

OK I read the article.

There was a bit of it going on at the last election. The clear-cut result states were encouraged to vote Green, while the swing states (like Oregon) were encouraged to vote Democrat. Voters were exchanging their votes with others in other states: the "Nader Traders". But it was all a matter of honour and very open to abuse.

My point is, I don't believe the Democrats are all that different. They have swung so far to the right in recent decades there is no choice left in America. My gut feeling is to vote for the Greens regardless, even if it puts the Republicans back in power. In the longer term it will build up their strength and maybe educate the Democrats about what happens if you stop offering a real alternative to the Republicans.

Also there's something about getting 5% of the vote, gets you extra funding and resources or something. Why would the Democrats ever cooperate with the Greens acheiving that?

[shakabu]

It's all so speculative and to be honest I think a people powered, grassroots movement would be better off campaigning with the Dean campaign (which has a pretty good shot, and would be an excellent alternative to Bush with Wesley Clark as VP) than attempting to gain the green party a foothold in US politics.

There are only so many activity-minded people in an electorate, they should be, in the 2004 election, driven towards winning.

It would be wonderful if this election could be used as a platform for the aversion of Armageddon (hyperbole much?) but the reality is that all available resources, from the Democrats, from enthusiastic, engaged volunteers and from Green party activists should be diverted towards bringing George W Bush down.

[Qu1zMaster]

I don't agree with "Bush out at any cost".

It's a bit mindless. Look at history. It never works.
Look at Britain, they got rid of Thatcher (and Major her monkey-boy) only to get Blair, who is even more of a thatcherite warmonger than Thatcher ever was.

[shakabu]

Originally posted by Qu1zMaster


My point is, I don't believe the Democrats are all that different. They have swung so far to the right in recent decades there is no choice left in America. My gut feeling is to vote for the Greens regardless, even if it puts the Republicans back in power. In the longer term it will build up their strength and maybe educate the Democrats about what happens if you stop offering a real alternative to the Republicans.


http://www.hammerposters.com/pics/fre10030.jpg

[TheFunkeyGibbon]

Moore would make a lousy President. He's a commentator not a leader. He's also not as smart as he thinks or as he would have people think.

[shakabu]

Originally posted by Qu1zMaster
I don't agree with "Bush out at any cost".

It's a bit mindless. Look at history. It never works.
Look at Britain, they got rid of Thatcher (and Major her monkey-boy) only to get Blair, who is even more of a thatcherite warmonger than Thatcher ever was.

that's the whole thing...Thatcher stayed in for ages because the Labour party was riven with party divisions about "what to do next".

I'd also advise you to take a look at the Howard Dean campaign before making the "they're all the same" accusation.

[colinsky]

shak, dean doesn't support equal rights for homosexuals. that's a major impediment to his chance of succeeding.

[Qu1zMaster]

Point me to Dean please anyone?

[shakabu]

http://www.deanforamerica.com/
didn't dean introduce same sex civil registrations in Vermont?

[Jeff Eire]

Micheal Moore is a legend . . . .

[colinsky]

http://www.deanforamerica.com/

...he's also pro death penalty, and has publically stated he thinks there should be more troops in Iraq. he's not a good candidate.

[4ofUs]

third party candidate will never win. moore will just take votes away from the democratic candidate.

[colinsky]

Originally posted by shakabu
http://www.deanforamerica.com/
didn't dean introduce same sex civil registrations in Vermont?
That's a double standard:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp
Dean: Well, that’s a very difficult issue. The position I’ve always taken is that it’s the church’s business to decide who they can marry and who they can’t marry.

He's completely avoiding the fact that, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal rather than religious ceremony, and that the church's policy has utterly no relevance to who the state allows to marry. A proper recognition of gay relationships would be to make marriage gender-independent, not to introduce a different set of laws. "Separate for equal" wasn't a good policy for racial schooling either.

There's a document with more official statements that I'll try to find...

[TheFunkeyGibbon]

Originally posted by Jeff Eire
Micheal Moore is a legend . . . .

So is Godzilla but I wouldn't make her president... :rolleyes:

[shakabu]

anyone think it's possible for an pro-gay, anti-death penalty candidate who wants the US army to disengage (and therefore concede defeat) in Iraq with the current climate in the USA right now?

[shakabu]

Originally posted by colinsky
That's a double standard:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp


He's completely avoiding the fact that, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal rather than religious ceremony, and that the church's policy has utterly no relevance to who the state allows to marry. A proper recognition of gay relationships would be to make marriage gender-independent, not to introduce a different set of laws. "Separate for equal" wasn't a good policy for racial schooling either.

There's a document with more official statements that I'll try to find...

um the focus on marriage as gender-specific is George & his gangs schtick.

but yes, offering civil registrations for same sex couples is slightly discriminatory. But hey, the gay community seem happy with and it's a good comprimise over an issue that's waaay thornier in the US than it is most other places.

[Qu1zMaster]

Ok read up on Dean. I must admit it's the first I ever heard of him.
He strikes me as being slightly more liberal than the right wing conservative party the Democrats have become.

Even if I thought he was going to make a real difference, what do you think are the chances of him winning the nomination? Even if he did, he would do so only by making a lot of compromises, to gain the support he needs.

Do you think the Greens see themselves as a tool, a sort of wedge to help the Democrats along? They do not. Why should they?
But that's the way everyone else seems to see them.

[shakabu]

"he's not going to win the nomination"
"i had a doggie and he hit it with my car"
"my mother died of a stroke in his care"
"he's a murdering electric-chair fiend!"
"Those Democrats are just a shower of money-grabbing scumbags"

Please. Can't anyone try to see the Dean campaign as a small, grassroots campaign to reclaim the Democrat party for their original values.

Isn't this what Moore suggested in his book in the first place?
Universal Healthcare?
Education?
Disability Rights?
Some form of status for gay couples?

Aren't they the things these hype-merchants are always banging on about?

The man has a platform that doesn't amount to "loads of money for us, sucks to you"

[Nexus6]

Originally posted by Qu1zMaster
Do you think the Greens see themselves as a tool

No, but I do see GWB as a tool.

[TheFunkeyGibbon]

Originally posted by shakabu
anyone think it's possible for an pro-gay, anti-death penalty candidate who wants the US army to disengage (and therefore concede defeat) in Iraq with the current climate in the USA right now?

No. Not a snow flakes chance in hell.

[Qu1zMaster]

Originally posted by shakabu
"he's not going to win the nomination"
"i had a doggie and he hit it with my car"
"my mother died of a stroke in his care"
"he's a murdering electric-chair fiend!"
"Those Democrats are just a shower of money-grabbing scumbags"

Please. Can't anyone try to see the Dean campaign as a small, grassroots campaign to reclaim the Democrat party for their original values.

Isn't this what Moore suggested in his book in the first place?
Universal Healthcare?
Education?
Disability Rights?
Some form of status for gay couples?

Aren't they the things these hype-merchants are always banging on about?

The man has a platform that doesn't amount to "loads of money for us, sucks to you"


Why are you making things up? He killed your dog indeed.


I'm just saying, from a Green point of view, nowhere is it written in the Green Party constitution:


1.(a). iii: Purpose:
Our purpose is to row in behind the Democrats at all times. Our slogan shall be: Republicans bad, Democrats less bad

[shakabu]

Um, I was making a joke about all the pathetic whining that goes on around the "Corrupt, greedy Democrat party".

Basically you want to have a discussion about how best the US green party can pull itself out of political obscurity and get it's mythical 5% and all the funding.

I, to be honest, couldn't care less about the US green party.
I care about getting Bush out.

my contribution here is no longer required.

[Zeno]

I also only care about getting Bush out. The Democratic candidates don't inspite confidence but they will be getting my vote. We haven't seen the worst of Bush & the Neo-Cons yet, just wait until they turn their focus on social issues in the U.S (probably now in the second term). I reckon that they will be a lot more active in their second term since Bush or Cheney won't be able to stand in 2008.

As for avoting pact between Greens and Democrats in regard to clear cut vs marginal states, that would require that the Greens see the Democrats as their allies. I don't believe that is the case, the Greens will get votes from the Democrats not the Republican, they are the enemy. That was the case in the last congressional election when I saw a Green Candidate and a Republican Candidate literally hand in hand attacking the Republican.

[colinsky]

I'll admit to being non-mainstream politically: nobody that I have voted for has ever been elected. But that doesn't automatically make my concerns about Dean invalid.

[Qu1zMaster]

Go on ahead with the "Bush out at any cost" mentality then.

You'll get a Blair though, mark my words.

[shakabu]

surely the US have already had a Blair with Clinton?

[Qu1zMaster]

Originally posted by shakabu
surely the US have already had a Blair with Clinton?

Clinton and/or Bush. Spot the difference.

[Kickstart]

the republicans and democrats both take their money from the same special interest groups. there is no way anyone from either party would want to have anything to do with nader, moore or ehrenreich...well, not if they wanted to get elected anyway. as a matter of fact, i can't think of a quicker way to commit political suicide in the usa than appearing on stage with michael moore and announcing your plan for a "shadow government" - on second thought - if you announced your plan to run the Oval Office "just like Tricky Dick" your political death might be a shade quicker.

the only way to break free of the "repucrat" juggernaut is for a true heavyweight to put his/her muscle behind an independent movement. the only person big enough to do that right now is bill gates. nader no longer has any clout. moore is an overexposed buffoon. ehrenreich wouldn't pass the laugh test outside of most university communities. unless the economy takes a serious dump very soon, bush is a shoe-in. :rolleyes:

[magicbastarder]

Originally posted by TheFunkeyGibbon
So is Godzilla but I wouldn't make her president...
fuck, i would. i think it's a great idea.

is gozilla democratic or republican?

[TheFunkeyGibbon]

Originally posted by magicbastarder
fuck, i would. i think it's a great idea.

is Godzilla democratic or republican?

Fiscally I guess she's a Republican (all for the powerful) but Democratic in attitudes (very keen on the family - look how fierce a protector of the young she is.)

I'm not sure. I'll leave it to you to interview her... ;)