The scariest thing to me is that those who are now claiming disgust with the two major parties are the very same folks who put them in power in the first place.

We’re doomed.

Lake: I second the emotion ………..

On the LPPA discussion forum there was just yesterday an inquiry about free markets and a living wage. The LP should be able to address these issues and environmental issues as well as the Greens. There should be no problems in the LP with local control, in fact it may help to move policy positions on issues like abortion. Same thing with corporate personhood, the LP and the GP should be on the same page.

I think one difference is that many in the GP see only a society and many in the LP see only individuals. In reality, there is a society made up of individuals, so unless you consider both you are not getting the whole picture.

As for politicians and their insipid sycophants, disdain has turned into outright fear and loathing. Humans have nearly a perfect track record of selecting (or tolerating) the worst specimens of the species to be their leaders since the beginning of time.

You’d think folks would have wised up by now and figured out what government and politicians are all about.

Let me make a psychic prediction. The more disgusted voters are with the major parties, the more the minor parties will resemble the major parties. If people actually stop voting for major party candidates, their elected office holders will become candidates for the minor parties.

I would never call anybody a “commie”, but I think the Green Party platform is arguably socialist — although Novak apparently disagrees. But as I understand it, the Green Party calls for social control or provision of land, education, retirement savings, health insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, deposit insurance, housing finance, and business finance. The GP also advocates “a fair distribution of income”, “a living wage”, “the social ownership and use of land at the community, local, and regional level”, “allowing municipalities to approve or disapprove large economic projects”, and “a reduced-hour (30-35 hours) work week”. I can’t quite tell if the GP would socialize housing, but it advocates “consolidating housing into such structures as ecolonies, to free open space, and to move about by bicycle, train, bus and on foot so that roadways may be converted to parkland and agriculture.” It also says cryptically: “The concept of a ‘job’ is only a few hundred years old; and the artificial dichotomy between ‘employment’ and ‘unemployment’ has become a tool of social leverage for corporate exploiters.”

That’s what you’re voting for when you vote Green.

I don’t see how Libertarian Presidential candidate Tom Knapp can say that in 2008 in most states, the candidate running on this platform “was the closest thing to a libertarian presidential candidate on the ballot” — when the LP candidate in those states was explicitly running on the LP platform.

But I still hold out hope for the Green Party. Notice how little the 10 Key Green Values would have to change to make them green-libertarian: http://earthfreedom.net/green-libertarian-values-diff

How about issue coalitions on issues besides ballot access?

On this other thread

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/ralph-nader-dubya-and-obama-are-a-seamless-transition-on-the-war/

We’re discussing why Ron Paul (and perhps Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin) were not invited to – or perhaps chose not to attend – the anti-escalation rally put on by End US Wars.

It seems that there is an opening for a new organization on the peace issue that invites everyone who is for peace, regardless of what they believe on other issues.

Same can be said for many other causes.

——- where are these reasonable Loyal Opposition types at, cause I can tell you where they are not!

We have met the enemy and it is the Democans, the Republicrats and us!

Ballot access issues are pretty easy for cooperation. In PA there is a coalition, primarily LP, GP, and CP, but also with some other input from socialists and others, and they developed an election reform bill that is now in committee in the state legislature. No problem.

The GP state party chair and me were discussing the possibility of holding a joint convention next year, with separate business sessions but sharing workshops, speaker events, social events etc. It was then that we got to hear the comments I referred to earlier, on both sides. In the end it turned out to be better to put that idea off for some other time.

Cooperation does not mean nominating the same candidate, or declining to run in a race because there is already a third candidate. It can take many different forms.

That hasn’t really been my experience. Most Greens I talk to recognize the value of working with Libertarians on ballot access and issues like that. Also, I think having more Ls and more Gs run for office in the same district could actually be beneficial, because then the media has more trouble applying the ‘spoiler’ label to either one.