Search
Greens attack Working Families
Capitol Confidential makes note of a controversy brewing between The Working Families Party and the old socialists and 9/11 tinfoil-hatters of the green party.
At issue is the mailer above, on the reverse of which is the entire WFP slate; however, the green Senate candidate claims to have been endorsed by Cindy Sheehan and is accusing the WFP of deliberate deception right before the election. Gatemouth agrees.
Here's the problem with that assessment: all of the people pictured on the mailer provided statements and express permission for these to be used. To quote the WFP's Alex Navarro:
“Cindy Sheehan is a courageous American, who along with Michael Moore and Pete Seeger, has been an important force in changing public opinion about the war in Iraq,†Navarro said. “The Working Families Party is grateful for the support they’ve given to the party’s ‘Bring ‘em Home’ campaign and for the quotations they authorized for our direct mail.â€
“We hope New Yorkers who reject the Nader-ite spoiler approach to electoral politics that elected George W. Bush president will vote Working Families on Tuesday to send a message about the war.â€
So basically, what you have here is a case of crossed wires and competing endorsements, one personal, the other party-based. As far as I can tell, WFP did its due diligence; getting statements from people usually implies they'll be published to some advantage, a fact not unknown to the people in the habit of making such statements. Maybe Sheehan, God bless her, should have checked for potential conflicts before she even talked to that green.
None of this explains, by the way, how a vote for or against a statewide candidate - Cuomo, anyone? - is going to bring home the troops. Last I checked, that's a decision for the executive branch at the Federal level; not that such arcane obscura as the structure of government should impede any of this electioneering business. What this mailer does, however, is interesting; we'll find out how strongly anti-war sentiment, as expressed via the WFP vote, influences state-level races. The WFP has positioned itself as the clear vehicle for the anti-war vote; snall wonder the greens are foaming at the mouth and screaming bloody murder about this. Here's a hint: next time, just do your homework on your endorsements.
Tempest in a Teapot
WFP: All strategy, no ideology
Greens: All ideology, no strategy
Of course Dems are not enough strategy and not enough ideology, but they are the best we have.
Republicans are all about protecting Halliburton, Exxon and sexual predators while spying on Americans and ignoring bin Laden.
Dems remain the best choice around. Republicans remain the worst. The third parties sometimes tempt me, but overall, neither WFP nor the Greens are doing much for me this year. And this is a year where I am dissatisfied with Cuomo, Clinton and Hevesi, but can't really find an alternative that strikes me as better. So they may yet get my vote.
And, for the record, Steve Finger, running in CD-11, won't get my vote, but he does not fall into the category of corrupt, Halliburton-serving, bin Laden ignoring, sexual predator protecting Republicans. He is an old fashioned libertarian from what I can tell. Just want to be fair on the ONE Republican I can find who still seems to have some values.
I'm with mole
on this one. So now WFP is the party of Pete Seeger, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and.... Nick Spano? Someone please explain to me exactly what these people stand for, and then I'll think about voting for them. Next time.
Cindy Sheehan's Comment
Sheehan immediately issued the following clarification of her position:
"I support a lot of the work of the Working Families Party and especially Mr. Pete Seeger who has been an amazing warrior for peace. However, I cannot support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton who is ensconced in the all-Democratic slate. She is not pro-peace, or even anti-war and has been a rubber stamp for George Bush's war of terror. Many of the candidates that the WFP supports are worthy of support, but certainly not Senator Clinton."
Gobbledygook
I'm sure the above distinction has meaning in some super-lefto universe, but the difference between 'pro-peace' and 'anti-war' escapes me.
Cindy Sheehan is naive
Cindy Sheehan is naive. When you are a progressive and you vote in a federal election (read: congress, senate, president) for a third party candidate, you are HELPING the republicans! Look no further than the 2000 election for that. I wonder how the anti-war Green folks who thought Gore wasn't dove-ish enough and caused Bush's election feel now?
If Sheehan wants this war to end, she needs to back senate and congressional candidates who can actually get elected. That means Democrats!
Careful...
You and Bouldin may actually agree on something!
To Bouldin: Clarification from the Super-Lefto Universe
Anti - against, opposed to, prejudicial to
thus anti-war means: against war, opposed to war, preducicial to war
Pro - in favor of
thus pro-peace means: in favor of peace.
See that was easy, wasn't it?
Oh, but I'm condescending?
Maybe I'm not as up on hippie lingo as I need to be, Coulter, but perhaps you could enlighten me what the concepts mean, as opposed to engaging in some silly verbal calisthenics.
Sorry.....
didn't mean to step on your toes, seriously.
I'll enlighten you on something-
Maybe, just maybe- Dems will notice that a lot of their base is going Green/Independant and change their BS up a little bit.
I suppose one could continue to vote for people who continue to fail them because they believe that is their only choice but what message does that send?
The Dems are so dense that they have yet to take any ownership in an election that was lost 6 YEARS AGO (which was truly lost when that twit in Florida decided she would give the win to Bush dispite the fact votes were still uncounted).
I can't speak for Sheehan as to how she made an oversite on who was on the WFP line- but you cannot expect that she would sit idly by as her name was being used to promote someone who voted for the war that killed her son.
Call it naivete if you wish but at the very least, supporting a third party sends a message. A much bigger one than voting for a crook or someone who voted for the war- just because they are your party of choice. That's just stupid.
If the Greens get enough votes they WILL be considered third party. That might be unfortunate for the Dems- but it really wouldn't be if the Dems could pull it together as a party.
They don't have to be "LEFTO" because the vast majority of us are NOT "lefto-hippies" but Dems have done everything but sell their souls and they still can't get a win. So they lose the election AND their dignity.
This begging for people not to vote Green in order to defeat Republicans is WEAK.
How's about voting for the Dems because they aren't Republican light? Oh, wait...that's not necessarily true is it?
Oh yeah, someone who is "Pro-Peace" might go to war to support peace or inforce peace where an "Anti-War" person would not-
but WTF difference does it really make anyway?
Sheehan clarified her support after she realized people who voted for the war were on the ticket, as anyone would expect her to do.