HOW IS THIS CONSTRUCTIVE???

Barbara Boxer, politician she may seem, is nevertheless a liberal. More often than most, or just about all of congress, she stands up for liberal points of view. For Jebus' sake, she single-handedly killed drilling in ANWR!

So why in the frig do the Greens want to run a candidate against her in what looks like a tough 2004 reelection campaign?

Like Hamlet weighing whether to stoically suffer the world's ills or take resolute action against them, the Green Party is weighing whether to field a candidate against California's Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2004 -- a candidate who could sap Boxer's support from the left and leave her more vulnerable to Republican attack.

(...)

After Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., died last year, Boxer went to the top of many pundits' most-liberal senator lists, and many now believe her bid for a third term could be 2004's costliest and most hard-fought Senate race.

"The question is, how much more liberal does the Green Party want a Democrat to be?" Stern asked.

Greens can't really use the "no-difference-between-Democrats-and-Republicans" argument from Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign in the upcoming Boxer race. They tend to like many of Boxer's stances, such as those on women's rights, the environment and social issues.

But many believe she has committed at least one unpardonable sin.

"She is compromising too much on this issue of the war," said Peter Miguel Camejo of Walnut Creek, the Greens' 2002 gubernatorial candidate and among influential Greens urging a challenge to Boxer.

She hasn't appeared at anti-war protests; she hasn't spoken against development and potential use of a new generation of nuclear weapons and she hasn't supported creation of a permanent United Nations war crimes tribunal, Camejo said. And this month she joined in the 99-0 vote for a resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the president, as commander in chief, in the conflict against Iraq."

That's not what Greens want, Camejo said, and so "the Greens should run; the Green point of view should be heard.

"The last thing Greens want is for Barbara Boxer to be replaced by a Republican," he acknowledged, adding that on the whole she's "one of the better people in the U.S. Senate. But why criticize the Greens if an individual chooses not to vote for Barbara Boxer because he or she doesn't agree with her? That's what democracy is all about."

First of all, I'm not going to condemn a senator for being part of a 99-0 vote. Anyway, this is just preposterous. As someone who's likely to be volunteering for Boxer's campaign next year, I'm rather annoyed by this.

Yes I would possibly have been more aggressive than her about the war at times. But Greens (particularly you, Ralph): President Gore would not have started an unjust, evil war in Iraq, and you sure did a lot to put Bush in a position to carry out such an operation.

Umm Peter, isn't killing ANWR drilling a statement against Bush policy of continued oil dependence?(and thus salivation over the prospect of occupying Iraq and its precious, precious petroleum?)

I agree with a lot of the Green Party's platform. But that's not the issue. Let's say, hypothetically, that a Democratic representative, senator or president --even one with corporate ties-- will give you, say 60-70% of what a Green in the same position would give you. (actually probably closer to 90%, given that it's not like the GOP is gonna lay down for the Greens) But what would a Republican, who won a seat due to a spoiler Green candidacy, get you if you're a progressive? Yep, about 0% of what you want. I dunno, but I'd take those 60-70% (minimum) any day of the week.

Howard Dean, for example, is a Wellstone Democrat. Yet he has a good rating from the NRA. Is that one issue reason enough for the Greens to play spoiler again in the 2004 election? Challenge Democrats if they're really drifting that far to the center, but why Boxer? I know it's a gross and heartless word, but consensus is important. And mainstream Democrats have a lot of common ground with Greens on one signifcant, important issue: Emphatic opposition to the Bush junta. That's where the energy should be.

I'm all for third parties, mind you, as long as they're aware of the consequences of their choices.