Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb 919
Today you have the opportunity to ask questions of the
Green Party's candidate for President of the United States,
David Cobb. Standard interview rules apply: we'll select a dozen or so of the best questions and Mr. Cobb will give us his answers next week.
Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Interesting)
In this world of political campaigning via direct attacks and dancing around the real issues, I am curious to know how you and your party have reacted to these attacks.
Additionally, what is your party and personal stance towards using the very methods I'm mentioning as return fodder for the 2 large parties?
The Nature of Grassroots (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for taking our questions.
The first of the ten key values of the Green Party is "Grssroots Democracy". Over the past few years, the American Green Party has made significant steps forward, but (as best I can tell) is still growing at a local level. While I understand the appeal of national coverage, is running a presidential campaign really in the spirit or the best interests of the party? Wouldn't those funds be more effective in campaigning for more local offices, or launching a statewide candidate in an area where the Greens have a solid foothold? Isn't that how grassroots is supposed to work--from the bottom up and not from the top down?
What's your strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
Mainstream Perception (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you think might be the best approach to educate the masses about the rest of Green Party polices?
Switching (Score:5, Interesting)
A "true" third party (Score:5, Interesting)
Value 5 (Score:2, Interesting)
Does that include divesting the Union government of the powers it has accrued after its formation?
Specifically, would you support decentralizing all environmental law, by leaving it to the states and private citizens?
-Peter
What's your ultimate goal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?
Affirmative Action (Score:5, Interesting)
Nader (Score:5, Interesting)
Presidential versus other elections (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it a PR thing? If you look at the Greens in Germany (granted, very different system) you see that they rose slowly over time from the smallest contests to eventually having Cabinet positions.
What is the American Green Party's overall strategy to increase their representation, and how does an unwinnable Presidential election fit into it?
Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Voting Rights for Noncitizens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for your time. Recently in San Francisco, Matt Gonzalez, a popular local Green Party politico, has been pushing for the ability for noncitizens to vote in some of the local elections. While there are other places that offer this long before SF, it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not. Rather than expanding the franchise this way, why not work to streamline the process for getting citizenship and encourage people to seek it?
Can you expound and explain a bit on your stance on this?
Meta-game strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
what is a President's role with the environment? (Score:5, Interesting)
As President, you would at best be able to veto bills and direct some agency policies (within the confines of legislation).
Why are you seeking the presidency, particularly? Why is it the best strategy for achieving your goals?
National debt? (Score:3, Interesting)
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Voting Machines (Score:3, Interesting)
Reparations (Score:5, Interesting)
Where would this money come from, if this plan was enacted and how would the recipients be determined? If the money would come from tax dollars, what do you say to people, such as myself, whose ancestors had no part in slavery or major racial discrimination and don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these reparations?
Green White House vs. Capitol Hill (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright and Digital Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, on the concept of intellectual property and copyright laws. What are your party's and your feelings on the current trend of extending the length of copyright terms? Do you have any plans to reverse the current trend or perhaps to set the lengths back to their original terms?
Thanks.
---Nick Fury
Drug Reform (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, How will you deal with our budget deficit and reform the GOP's relentless tax cuts and the Democratic Party's exorbanent spending?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
DOH! (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr Cobb,
What is your view of our national debt versus
current entitlement programs? How would you
balance the federal budget and would you support
paying off the national debt?
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
Conservative forces helping liberal campaigns (Score:0, Interesting)
Viable Third-parties (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you believe is necessary for your party or any other to become a viable third party in American elections? Even though George Washington warned against having a partisan political system in his farewell speech, America seems to have developed a two-party system that forces third-parties out of the political process.
Also, what do you think of the Democratic and Republican parties shift away from what's good for America toward what is good for their respective parties and the businesses / people that support them while leaving the majority of Americans out?
Corporate News (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks!
What is the best way to move America leftwards? (Score:5, Interesting)
The more visible component of this propaganda machine are the talk radio shows and the cable tv news shows. But they sprang from, and still largely depend on, fodder from the think tanks and foundations.
Many on the American Left now accept that unless this inexorable flood of rightwnig propaganda is somehow countered or neutralized, electoral politicking (e.g., fighting to elect Kerry, or voting 3rd party) is somewhat moot, because this decades-old flood of propaganda has also moved the Democratic party to the right much the same as the GOP. Also, the undemocratic structure of the electoral political machine in America (single member, winner take all districts, etc) would seem to disempower 3rd parties except for a spoiler role.
Given the situation outlined above, what good does it do to engage in 3rd party electoral politics?
And more to the point, what can American leftists do to move America to the left, given the power that 3 decades of rightwing propaganda has had on the American political mind?
Would it be more productive trying to land a talk radio gig somewhere?
Why such broad reaching ideals? (Score:2, Interesting)
The name "Green Party" conjures images of a party interested in environmental concerns. Of course, environmental legislation isn't the only issue to have environmental impacts; international trade and energy policy both have substantial environmental ramifications. However, it seems some Green issues aren't environmentally related. For example, while I too believe that gender equity and diversity are good values, why are they part of The Green Party's Ten Key Values [gp.org], given they don't appear to be substantially related to environmental issues?
Why does it seem that the Green Party takes on issues that aren't related to "green-ness"? Is it essential for a modern US political party to have a stance on every issue, even those not seemingly related to core beliefs?
Social Security (Score:1, Interesting)
Gun Control. (Score:4, Interesting)
What exactly does that mean? Registration? Licensing? Confiscation?
racism (Score:3, Interesting)
Can we take you seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is: are you guys ready or able to play on the same stage as the Democrats and Republicans, can you get the attention of the media, and can you sell your message to the average american? Convince me that voting for you would be of more use than voting for the lesser of two evils.
Advanced technologies stance (Score:2, Interesting)
Some future technologies may deliver unparalleled energy efficiency, resource utilization, and the ability to reduce or reverse many of the ecological problems that current technologies and societies have created. As examples, molecular nanotechnology [wikipedia.org] may enable atomically precise manufacturing and widely adopted fusion power [wikipedia.org] would reduce greenhouse gas emisions from burning fossil fuels. However, both of these technologies also present major risks to the planet and the human species. Nanotech gone wrong may lead to grey goo [wikipedia.org] that would destroy the biosphere, while fusion power requires (moderately) radioactive materials that could poison water supplies if released. Given that such technologies both serve to meet the Green Party's goals of energy independence and environmental responsibility, and could seriously jeopardize those same goals, where do you stand on advanced technologies?
And, because I'm curious, a space question: If affordable space travel becomes available and people can easily colonize other planets or moons, how would you answer calls for teraforming [wikipedia.org] to help ensure the spread and long term survival of humanity?
A green global policy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Taxes (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus, a (comparatively well-to-do) American making $75,000 a year would probably be expected to pay a fairly hefty tax rate, say 30-35%. It'd keep you from buying a lot of nifty toys, and you'll probably need to settle on a humbler house than you'd otherwise want, but it's not really not that hard a price to pay.
Re:Simple question (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you really think nuke plants could get built without government subsidy? No one has ever really tried to convince me, but maybe it's possible.
Re:I love their protest slogan... (Score:3, Interesting)
School Choice (Score:2, Interesting)
The Green Party platform states in section II.A.2 that,
"Education starts with CHOICE and within public education we believe in broad choices. "Magnet schools," "Site-based Management," "Schools within Schools," alternative models and parental involvement are ways in which elementary education can be changed to make a real difference in the lives of our children."
Since the Green Party believes so strongly in school choice, do you support giving parents the option of receiving vouchers with which they can send their children to private schools (secular or religous) or to pay for the expense of home schooling? If not, why do you only support choice within government-controlled schools?
Give me a pragmatic reason to vote for you. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am what is usually described in the United States as a 'liberal' or 'progressive'. As such, I share most, if not almost all of your party's ideals and goals.
Nevertheless, neither I nor anyone I know who shares my political views plan to vote for you in November. While your positions on the issues may match my own more closely than any other candidate, I believe I have a better chance of seeing at least some of my positions enacted as public policy if I vote for John Kerry.
With all due respect, Mr. Cobb, you are not going to win the election this year. To a certainty, the winner will be either John Kerry or George Bush. If George Bush is the winner, then he will continue to govern according to his extreme right-wing beliefs. Most, if not all progressive causes that you and I support will suffer significant setbacks. As President Bush will most likely be able to nominate one or more Supreme Court judges during a second term, those setbacks would long outlive his administration.
If, on the other hand, John Kerry is elected, he will govern according to the political preferences of the Democratic party. While Kerry and the Democrats are, in general, quite a bit more conservative than I am, the simple fact is that the progressive causes I support would fare far better under Kerry than they would under Bush. I am sure that a President Kerry would do things that I strongly disagree with, but I am also sure that his goals and mine are not fundamentally incompatible. In short, I am certain that I can live with Kerry, just as I am certain that I cannot live with George Bush.
According to the polls, this election is going to be extremely close. If John Kerry is to win, he needs every vote he can get. I do not have the luxury of knowing that whoever ultimately wins the election will be at least somethat acceptable to me. Bush must be defeated or the ideals I stand for will be in serious jeopardy.
Thus, my question to you is: How is voting for you, as opposed to Kerry, make it more likely that the ideals I support will be reflected in public policy? Is there a *pragmatic* reason why I and other progressives should vote for you?
Health Care (Score:3, Interesting)
as drug treatment, dental care, medication for chronic and terminal illness, equal coverage of
mental illness, and abortion."
Does this mean that you would make it illegal for a person to pay for medical care themselves? If not, how do you plan on inforcing the 'single-payer' portion of your plan?
What about wages in the medical field? Would you limit how much hourly workers like nurses are paid?
Nader backlash? (Score:5, Interesting)
Home Schoo; / Private School? (Score:3, Interesting)
Local vs. National Elections (Score:2, Interesting)
Electoral college and voting methods (Score:1, Interesting)
What is your position on alternative voting methods such as Approval Voting?
maximum wage? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income, regardless of source, over ten times the minimum wage. With this Ten Times Rule in effect under today's extremely unequal distribution of income in the U.S., a 100% tax on income above ten times the minimum wage would allow us to cut the income taxes of everyone in the bottom 99%, by over half for the top brackets, by over three-quarters in the middle brackets, and totally for the lower brackets--and still generate about 40% more tax revenues than under the current income tax structure."
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Interesting)
Could we alter the political party landscape (which, IIRC, has no mention in the Constitution) towards a parliamentary-style arrangement (repeat: darn little of the apparatus currently used actually exists within the Constitution).
What would we require for such, and what, besides consciousness and intellect, would be required of the electorate to implement substantial change?
Re:A "true" third party (Score:4, Interesting)
Take your statement. Switch the sides. You have exactly what some other of my friends believe.
You have been taken in the professional wrestling match that the media has presented. They are both 99.99% the same. They also would ALWAYS have you believe "now is the not the time to experiment" because they would prefer to POSSIBLY lose to the other party than DEFINITELY lose to a third.
Make your vote count! Vote Independent. Green, Libertarian, Freedom, WHATEVER!
Vote for real change.
Economics of Production and Consumption (Score:3, Interesting)
Three words (Score:1, Interesting)
Tax bads, not goods.
Allies in the Non-corporate parties (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm sure this at least partially stems from neither of you having entrenched political positions to protect, it also mirrors my recent experience. I lean towards the Green platform, and I have many friends who are Libertarians. Our political discussions, while spirited, show some fundamental agreement on the kinds of urgent systemic change required in this country.
My question to you is, do you see an opportunity to build consensus among those of us who see through the corporate oligarchy masquerading as democracy and focus on our areas of agreement rather than our differences? Specifically, would you support the Green party and the Libertarian party running joint drives in support of campaign finance reform, control of corporatism, ballot access and voting system reform?
Three Contentious Technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
- Nuclear energy.
- High-temperature garbage incineration.
- Genetically modified foods.
All of these technologies have drawbacks, but they also have many advantages over the alternatives. Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases, incineration destroys toxic chemicals and does not require land fill, and GM foods can greatly reduce the amounts of pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, or water needed to grow food.What is the Green Parties' stance on these, and do you see them changing their stance in the near future?
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Bah, I wanted to moderate rather than post in this thread, but you've baited me into it. If you think an average American makes $75,000 a year, you are completely out of touch. The median household income for the US was $43,318 [census.gov] last year. Per capita income was 35,000, but that counts children, so isn't really applicable.
Also, it's rather naive to talk about "tax percentages" as if there were only one tax out there and it affected everyone equally. Most people pay a variety of state and local taxes along with federal income tax (progressively graduated) and federal payroll taxes (slightly regressive because of how it's capped). Tax reform is a complex subject, and it can't be reduced to "what do you think the rate should be." If you're interested, you should have a look at a very good overview [proaxis.com] of the different possibilities and their consequences.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:4, Interesting)
If that's his opinion, then he's not running to win, in which case, he's not a real candidate at all, and just using the pretense of "running for president" to stand on a slightly taller soapbox while speaking about his ideas.
He has that right, but I see no reason at all why I should pay any more attention to this guy than any other spokesman of progressive/liberal issues.
When Ross Perot ran for president, he was running for president. He was actually gaining enough ground to look like he had a real shot at it, too, until he let a little too much "crazy talk" enter into his rhetoric.
When Jesse Ventura ran for governor of Minnesota, he ran to win, and did so.
These are examples of real third-party candidates. They actually wanted to hold the offices they were seeking.
Anybody who says "don't vote for me" to the people of certain states is not a real candidate, and so I'm not even going to bother to submit a question, because I have no plans to read his answers when they are published in a few days.
He's not running for president. He's pretending to run for the sake of the attention. I say, let's not give it to him.
Cooperative Actions to Break Debate Stranglehold (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you think that coordinated press conferences and press releases from all four campaigns regarding the issues raised by Open Debates and the Citizens' Debate Commission would have a beneficial long-term effect?
Single Payer Healthcare (Score:4, Interesting)
The dilemma amounts to this: as medical science continues to advance, and as we in general live longer and longer, the amount of things that can be done continues to expand, along with the costs involved with any new technologically advanced treatments. Because of this, the costs of providing complete healthcare continue to expand at a rate faster than we can pay for. With healthcare, if something is possible, people tend to demand that it be done, even if we do not have the resources to do it.
Complete provision of healthcare simply isn't a sustainable practice as the costs are not proportionally bound by population (and hence very roughly speaking, government income), but instead by the ever expanding limits of medical science.
How do you intend to deal with this dilemma? Do you only plan to provide single payer healthcare for core and emergency services only? Do you intend to allow a parallel private health system to provide the more expensive treatments?
Thank you.
Jedidiah.
Colorado (Score:5, Interesting)
What is your opinion of the proposal in Colorado to award electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote? It would seem this could potentially be a great benefit to your party, firstly by making the state uninteresting to the Democrats and Republicans (it would only have one or two electoral votes in play instead of nine), and also by allowing third parties to win an electoral vote with only 11% of a state rather than needing a plurality across a state (or district). How signifigant would such a change be for your party? Of other changes to the voting system that have been proposed, such as approval voting, Borda counts, etc. which would you favor to improve the viability of third parties?
5% of the vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Cobb. Given that you're on record saying you won't even vote for yourself if your state is close, how can anyone possibly take you seriously as a candidate for President? Given that it seems you won the nomination over Nader by taking this position, how can your party be seen as anything but an astroturf campaign for the Democrats?
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Interesting)
To a certain extent I must agree. But I believe that if we allow for the disposal of nuclear waste by firing it into a decaying orbit around the sun I'd say Nuke plants would be a good idea.
Otherwise we're gonna fill up all the springfield gorges in the world and our mutated ancestors will have to deal with three eyed fish.
Deregulating nukes and forcing a free market might create an environment for cheap commercial Guass style launch systems. That is if the same people calling for getting rid of nuclear reactors would let reactive materials into space without a huge fuss. (See Ion drives)
Now, with this in mind. As the Green Party Presidential candidate, would you support the disposal of fission byproducts by shooting them into the sun? And if this is made a reality, would the Party's stance significantly change towards nuclear power generation?
Would you sign the Kyoto Protocol? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Taxes (Score:3, Interesting)
Dammit, are you really suggesting that I'm some idiot who sees economic policy as some light switch? You think I live in some black-and-white, Hardcore Anarchy vs. Big Brother in your Bathroom world? Or are you just trying to thrust me into some convenient mold so you can smear me with whatever the talking points tell you to say? And what the hell is up with that 'are you a communist' crap? Are you some wild-eyed McCarthyist or something? You think I'm gonna go all shakey in the knees 'cuz you're insinuating I'm some bass-ackwards god-damned Red who wants to destroy America and shit on her apple pie?
Here's a novel idea for you. I'm interested in using government, a government made by the People, for the People, to actually help the fucking people. That's the whole fucking point of society. You think you were just born into a place that happened to somehow magically become the greatest nation on earth one day? Do you know anything of our history? Do you know anything about human nature? You really think that tweaking a government so that it caters to the ambition and greed of the individual is a good fucking long-term plan?
You think you stand to gain from your position? You and I, friend, are fucking peons to the people who have real wealth and real power. Given opportunity to take even more wealth and power, I assure you that they'll beat the likes of us senseless in getting it. We are the schmucks who -should- be making $60,000-75,000 a year. We're the poor bastards who get to look at annual double-digit-percent insurance premium increases and actually wonder if it's worth gambling on whether or not we'll fall ill this year...and maybe next year... Does that strike you as sensible? Do you really want to tip the scales to favor frighteningly rich people who are in it to take your money for their own personal gain? That's what you want from society?
Do you even understand the statistics you bandy about? Of course the people who make over $50k are going to pay the vast majority of our income tax--they've got the vast majority of the fucking money! You're going to see the same kinds of numbers when you apply a flat tax! Go ahead--try it! Whip out Excel and run some simple scenarios, then scratch your head in wonderment when those same long-suffering rich folks get "stiffed" over and over again!
You and I are chattle. In the grand scheme of American power and wealth, we're the unwashed plebes. The more power and wealth we willingly cede to the individuals who already posess most of the power and wealth, the less opportunity we're going to have to get a piece of it, and the less they'll want to give it back. If you're gonna advocate 'every man for himself', be damn sure that the guys standing behind you with the machine guns are on your side.
How do you avoid corruption? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you propose to have such strong government controlled regulation, without falling victim to the corruption inherent in a bureaucratic system?
Ten Year Delay To Enact Taxation Changes (Score:2, Interesting)
Safe-State Strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
As a Green, I feel that the "Safe-State" strategy you advocate is detrimental to the process of keeping the Green Party growing. That is, if Greens fail to run in competitive elections and only run candidates in states/districts/etc. that are not competitive, how can the party continue to grow? Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
In short, how does the "Safe-State" strategy translate into growing the Green Party?
Re:Safe-State Strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
Make that:
Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign in states have been all but decided?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd consider that if it didn't mean I have to vote for Dubya. As it stands, my personal fiscally conservative, socially liberal, world-aware agenda fits much better with Kerry than with Dubya. Perhaps if the Republicans put forth a candidate that was less of a radical on the international front, wasn't trying to write discrimination into the constitution, was making an effort to keep the deficit under control AND made every right to uphold civil liberties at home, they could attract a lot of folks like me. As it stands, however, I'm voting for Kerry, mostly because as a different person, he can put in a different administration,and start cleaning up the mess left by this one. If that makes me a Democrat, I'll be one for this election. After that, we'll see.
Peace in Iraq (Score:2, Interesting)
Your web site states that you advocate an "immediate withdrawal" of troops from Iraq. How would you propose to clean up the mess we've made in the region without a military presence? What do you see as the chances of survival of the current Iraqi government without America's support? And what do you believe would become of Iraq if this new government is overthrown or rendered irrelevant by popular uprising?
Thank you very much for your time.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:2, Interesting)
Free Market (Score:2, Interesting)
There are three types of economic systems: Free market, command economy, and mixed market. The US is a mixed market, not quite command, and not quite free market. What this means is that our businesses aren't dictated to by our government, but there's still government influence in almost everything a government does. Todays businesses are riddled with regulations, laws, and restrictions to the point that our economy is no longer efficient.
To take an example: According to Wikipedia, Hong Kong [wikipedia.org] is the perfect example of a free market economy. "But wait," you might say. "Isn't Hong Kong in communist China?" And I would say to you, "Why, yes, it is." However, when Hong Kong began, about 50 years ago, it was agreed that "China's socialist economic system would not be practiced in Hong Kong and that Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters" (Wikipedia). It's China's "little experiment" with capitalism. And, guess what? It's a thriving economy. People move from the US, Scotland, Japan, Australia, just to start a business in Hong Kong. It's success is due to it's limited government interaction. One paper is all one needs to start a business, and unlike in India where there is no guarantee your business will even be reviewed and approved, in Hong Kong, the paper is copied and stamped. Poof. Business started. There is a fixed tax for everything, only for government. There are no regulations. When did there ever need to be regulations, anyway?
It's a simple theory. If a business produces diseased food, nobody will eat from there any longer. The business will go bankrupt and another business will fill it's place, the peoples needs. It that business begins abusing it's power and begins to charge too much, another will arise and fill the need. If people aren't limited by work hours they can work longer and get more pay for that TV they've wanted. If people just want to deliver a flippin newspaper for $4.00 an hour, they aren't denied the job because the employer can't pay the $6.00 minimum wage. It JUST WORKS.
My question: What can the Green Party do to make this country more of a free market?
Re:Meta-game strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
What you are advocating might be a democracy, but it seems to lead to the abolishment of the American republic and the establishement of something else.
Personally, I would rather see something like a European "double majority" presidential election occur where the votes are tallied and one has to win bit a majority of states comprising 60% of the population. For this to work, I think one would have to have something like a modified approval voting/instant run-off system replace the electoral college.
Approval or instant run-off voting could also create some viability for third parties in the races for congressional seats.
Preference Voting (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you feel that the voting system is inherently crippling the strength of 3rd parties such as yours? Do you think implementing a preference voting system would significantly increase the number of votes for 3rd parties?
For slashdot readers:
Preference voting is a sytem where you rank each candidate by whom you would prefer to win most.
Example:
A ballot might like look this:
1. Cobb
2. Bush
3. Kerry
Suppose that the ballots were collected and they count all the votes in the number one slot. The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated from the list. Now we have:
1. Bush
2. Kerry
The process is repeated until one name is left on the list. It is clear that this voting system reduces down to our current one, save that there is no "throwing away of the vote".
3rd parties have had a HUGE impact in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
Now a *5th* party is picking up on the left -- the Greens. In the 2004 elections, they received enough votes to qualify for federal funding. This is huge. Apart from the cash, this will make it harder for them to be denied a place in debates and in news stories et al.
In a few more election cycles, the Greens may even gain official status, particularly given the frequency of elections being won by voting against very unpopular leaders.
It's a shame Reform and the PCs merged. Strong alternatives on both the left and the right would have made for something resembling a true democracy. (The other parties are the "New Democratic Party" just now coming back from the dead and the Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec separatist party).
Attitude adjusted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently, I took the test at Political Compass, and you came in as a great match for me. I wasn't surprised at all. I've often held firm to the Green ideal. I was happy to see the Greens here were similar to the party in Germany.
Then, I saw the 3rd Party Debates on C-Span. You came across as bitter, mean, and just plain angry. I can understand your anger, but presentation is key and after seeing that display, I was almost ashamed.
Were you instructed to come across that way? Did your consultants direct you to come across as an angry bitter person? Hopefully you'll change your personal presentation. It really drives people away. I was completely turned away from the party although I still hold the ideals. I'm experiencing a real Catch 22 here.