Elbow-throwing Berniecrat doesn't get why Greens aren't more welcoming to his blessed self

Via the not-worthy-of-snarky-names for this piece Brains, a 2016 Berniecrat, Carl Peterson, decided to re-identify as Green to run for the LA School Board.

His take is interesting. And, I'd half-agree. But not fully. And maybe not even half-agree.  Probably more one-quarter agree.

A number of Greens do see Dems as "equally evilism" rather than "lesser evilism." And aren't very accommodating. But others mean it when they say "lesser evilism." So, no

OTOH, many 2016 Berniecrats, as I know from experience in both multiple unofficial and one official GP Facebook groups, come in thinking that Bernie Sanders is god's greatest gift to American electoral politics since sliced bread.

He ain't, and he ain't even close.

Many Greens, like me, are Green in part due to foreign policy issues, and while 2020 Bernie is better than 2016 Bernie, he ain't that good. He still opposes BDS. Until very recently, he wouldn't call out Netanyahu, and he still won't call out Zionist-apartheid politicians and parties in Israel in general.

While he voted against the Iraq War, he voted in favor of bombing Libya. While he's voted to end us supporting the war in Yemen, he still believes the bipartisan foreign policy establishment in claiming that Assad is behind all chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

And I haven't even talked about him lusting after F35s. To go with that old screengrab, more here from this post which sparked Brains' ire or whatever, about Bernie largely being part and parcel of the foreign policy establishment and the national security establishment.

And, even domestically, the Democrats' Green New Deal is both a pale imitation of and ripoff of the Green Party's original version, crafted in large part by presidential candidate Howie Hawkins.

Which makes this comment:

As the California primary approached, I carefully eyed the candidacies of Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, especially as the Greens neglected to put anyone forward that I viewed as capable to assume the presidency.

Laughable.

Presuming an attitude to accompany that comment has been on display, is it any wonder that many Greens would be unwelcoming? I may have tangled with Peterson myself AFAIK.

Frankly, if he DID stay inside the GP, he'd probably be an AccommoGreen who would want to make the party into a new version of overrated DSA Roses.

As for Brains' take on Howie preaching "New McCarthyism"? I don't know if he's been sniffing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory glue too much or what on Hillary's emails. Howie's position is closer to the ... speaking of ... bipartisan foreign party establishment than mine, and he knows about it via Twitter and FB.

That said, it's not exactly the same as the foreign policy establishment's.

My stance? Russia DID meddle, and the Mueller report et al shows that. It just didn't meddle exclusively in favor of Trump. Calling Russia out for that doesn't ignore U.S. meddling in Russia and elsewhere, and I know Howie agrees with that.

Otherwise, as far as "New McCarthyism"? No, I see that as a certain group of new activists inside the GP and have a blog post upcoming about that.

That said, in light of that, Brains is right, in my lesser experience, about some Green Party people being a problem.

I think it's kind of a vicious circle. The GP's decentralization has let many state parties become little fiefdoms (even more than happens in state duopoly parties). Once they get hold, if they're bad leaders, that anti-cream (scum?) will rise to the top. That personal dysfunctionality then affects the state parties involved. A fair degree of disorganization also comes into play.

Side note: For either new(ish) Greens or old time AccommoGreens who don't like this piece? Maybe you're part of the problem, not the solution.