Green and Mainstream

The Politico (where I have a column today assessing Barack Obama's crossover appeal and Hillary's lack thereof) reports that the Greens are getting ready to leapfrog the Libertarian Party and become the third party with a senatorial campaign committee.

The Federal Election Commission is scheduled to consider the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee's request Thursday. If approved, the GSCC can raise money for senatorial candidates like its Republican and Democratic counterparts. The new committee would also have to adhere to the same campaign finance rules.

And it's part of a ploy to—surprise!—punish the Democrats.

The GSCC won't disclose its 2008 game plan yet, but it plans to target those senators who are not firmly against the war. Once the FEC recognition is in, the committee will ask all senators to vote against additional funding of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"When Democrats in Congress vote for war, their actions have consequences," GSCC co-chairman Anita Wessling said in a statement. "One of those consequences is that the Green Party will oppose them at the ballot box. If the Democrats vote for more funding, or even promises of more funds, they are supporting the occupation's continuance, not opposing it."

Ralph Nader is threatening another presidential run and the Republicans are still hurting from the LP-abetted loss in Montana, so Democrats might sweat this. They need to hold 12 seats in states from Montana to Massachusetts and pick up Republican seats in states like Minnesota and New Hampshire to have a good year. So… maybe they shouldn't whiff on the Iraq war?

Comments

[joe]

So it’s sort of like the Lamont campaign, except smaller, with less money, and no endoresements by major political figures.

[Rick Barton]

The Greens are making alot more sense on the war than both the Bush administration and the Dems.

Truth is where you find it.

[ChicagoTom]

I dunno if it’s a ploy to “punish the Democrats”. Rather it seems like they are trying to force the Dems to actually oppose Bush’s war.

It seems to me like the Democrats, who are in a position to solidify and expand the gains made in the mid-terms, are determined to disillusion voters (who are increasingly demanding some type of commitment to end the war) by refusing to do anything other symbolic opposition of the the war and railing about the handling of the war (without ever questioning if the judgment to wage a pre-emptive war in the first place — See Clinton, Hillary)

If the Dems wanted to make the Greens irrelevant, they would use their majorities to do things that could actually bring this war to an end.

[Rimfax]

Should we celebrate/lament that the Greens are wasting all of their money and effort on unwinnable national races or should we lament/celebrate that they may actually have some political influence while losing those races?

Also, didn’t the Greens supposedly leapfrog the LP back when Nader got his big vote numbers and gave them guaranteed federal funds back in double-aught? Whatever happened to the “dynasty” that that big name candidate started for them?

[fyodor]

Rimfax,

I don’t think Nader ever garnered enough votes for federal funding. OTOH, the Reform Party did, and look at THEM (if you can find ’em). Either way, either party was/is doomed without already popular figures to lead them in our first-past-the-post system in lieu of the highly unlikely collapse of one of the two you-know-whos.

[Warren]

The Greens scare the living shit out of me. I don’t care how much I agree with them on Iraq. Those anti-humanists are not pacifists.

[Shelby]

Why are the Greens making Iraq their headline issue? Why not global warming or another enviro-issue? I know there’s a lot of overlap between them and the anti-war left, but isn’t their base more motivated by, well, Green things?

[Dainty]

Weigel states – it’s part of a ploy to — surprise! — punish the Democrats.

Then immediately quotes the GSCC plans to:
target those senators who are not firmly against the war.

Weigel, I’ll type this slow for you. Do you think there is a slight possiblity that plans to target those that are against the war is an attempt to punish more than just Democrats?

[R C Dean]

Do you think there is a slight possiblity that plans to target those that are against the war is an attempt to punish more than just Democrats?

The Greens are essentially irrelevant to the Republican universe. They can target Repubs all they want and there will be no net change in the status quo, and thus no punishment.

No, the only negative effects will be felt by Dems. Which is as the Greens want it – the Repubs are written off, in their world, as hopeless Gaia-raping cretins, but the Dems might still be capable of salvation

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I hate to break the news but I’m pretty sure the Greenies leapfrogged the LP long ago.

[Kyle]

The LP is a joke. The system itself is broken, not just the two major parties. Instead of whining about how the two major parties suck and how I wish the LP would get someone elected to a major office (LOL), I spend my time getting people to read Rothbard, Nock, and Hoppe, and have actually converted a few people to the anti-government cause, and gotten a lot more people to think about it. *This* is what libertarians should be spending their time doing: spreading their ideas at the grassroots level and making up self-propagating memes that further libertarian thought.

Kyle