"Which Way Greens in '04" - Archived Link for Camejo / Solomon Debate

Peter also challeged Gavin Newsom to conduct a full review of all voting data, saying that he bet Newsom 10,000$ that all the dead people in San Francisco who voted, voted for Newsom.

...I'd like to see that investigation.

I was at the event at the Crest, but left about three paragraphs into Norman's rap. What bilge! I can't understand how people with the sense to vote Green could sit there & listen to all that tired BS. Really! -- it's beyond me.

It's not just that it's wrong -- it's so CORNY! These tweedle-crat stooges have been peddling this "lesser evil" sucker game since (at least) 1964: "We have to vote for LBJ the Peace Candidate, cuz Goldwater will take the country to War!"

NS=BS: As soon as I heard Normy say that "any demo would be a signif improvement on the incumbent", I thought of Lieberman -- (haha!) -- who might be significantly WORSE, seeing that he's really an unreconstructed revisionist Zionist, the Senior Senator from the Likud. If you think PNAC/AIPAC is running rampant now, see what they do if Good Ole Joe gets in.

Kucinich/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun were simply added for window dressing, & distraction of certain well-meaning pigeons. The rest are just more Usual Suspects: stooges of the Ruling Class, apostles of Empire. If you think any of them are Peace candidates, you need to have your head examined.

What is needed is a Mass Movement, based first of all on the campuses & on taking protest to the streets. Going directly f2f to the Grassroots, taking a message to people, letting them give you their reaction, refining the message & taking it back; until a Critical Mass emerges capable of challenging the Status Quo.

Yes -- some people need to specialize in keeping a presence alive in the electoral arena, to be there as a vehicle for the day the mass movement is ready to ride. But forget these Tweedlocrats* & their old Lesser Evil snowjob.

*(Among whom I do NOT include Cynthia McKinney -- SHE is a diff. phenom altogether...)

PS: I dare Mr Solomon to come out to 16th & J any Tuesday & debate these points. That goes for any of his stooges too;^)

February 04, 2004
Debate Highlights
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DEBATE BETWEEN PETER CAMEJO AND NORMAN SOLOMON

by Victoria Ashley (2.3.04)

The notes below are a critique of the recent debate between Peter Camejo and Normon Solomon entitled “Which Way Greens in '04" (an audio recording of the debate can be heard at http://www.kpfa.org/archives/specials.php). Direct quotes from Peter Camejo are in bold and italicized. My comments are paraphrases from my own notes, which can be found on the archived link to the radio program.

Peter's essential positions can also be read on the Avocado Declaration, now located on over 2,500 places on the internet.

My overall goal here is to highlight some of the most effective points Peter made during the debate, for use in our own personal discussions. Please feel free to add your own comments and/or emphasize debate topics that you think are particularly memorable or important.


1. "The policy for the Greens not to run is an insult to the voters and an insult to Democracy. The Democrats have every right to say 'Vote Democrat,' and I would defend their right to campaign. But they're not satisfied. They don't want people to see any other name on the ballot, to have any other option except them."

This idea illustrates a contempt for the voters. Solomon tried to argue that you could not equate 'strategy' with 'contempt for the voters,' but I disagree. Is this Democracy? Why should we have to beat Bush by becoming Bush? And why are the American people not allowed a single non-corporate choice?
(cont'd)
http://www.draftcamejo.org/

February 04, 2004 Debate Highlights http://www.draftcamejo.org/ (link dead)

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DEBATE BETWEEN PETER CAMEJO AND NORMAN SOLOMON, by
Victoria Ashley (2.3.04)

The notes below are a critique of the recent debate between Peter Camejo and
Normon Solomon entitled “Which Way Greens in '04" (an audio recording of the
debate can be heard at http://www.kpfa.org/archives/specials.php ). Direct quotes
from
Peter Camejo are in bold and italicized. My comments are paraphrases from my
own notes, which can be found on the archived link to the radio program.

Peter's essential positions can also be read on the Avocado Declaration, now
located on over 2,500 places on the internet.

My overall goal here is to highlight some of the most effective points Peter
made during the debate, for use in our own personal discussions. Please feel
free to add your own comments and/or emphasize debate topics that you think
are
particularly memorable or important.

1. "The policy for the Greens not to run is an insult to the voters and an
insult to Democracy. The Democrats have every right to say 'Vote Democrat,'
and
I would defend their right to campaign. But they're not satisfied. They don't
want people to see any other name on the ballot, to have any other option
except them."

This idea illustrates a contempt for the voters. Solomon tried to argue that
you could not equate 'strategy' with 'contempt for the voters,' but I
disagree. Is this Democracy? Why should we have to beat Bush by becoming Bush?
And
why are the American people not allowed a single non-corporate choice?

2. "Hillary Clinton came back from Iraq and wants 30,000 more troops. She
wants total control of that country, to smash the resistance of the Iraqi
people."

This was the top item which I have found myself repeating in this past week.
Indeed, I got some dropped jaws in response to it. Peter added to this idea
later, pointing out that the Democrats are perhaps more dangerous than Bush in
the scenario for Iraq because they can easily get someone smarter than Bush
and
– because they can speak a complete English sentence – can then get the
American people to go along with the occupation.

As an aside, remember that Democrat Howard Dean has called for a 10 year
occupation of Iraq with the US in charge (although with troops from other
nations). Senator Kerry is careful to use terms describing the 'perception' of
the
occupation,[1] rather than the actual reality. Indeed, when discussing the
reality, Kerry calls for 40,000 more troops in Iraq.[2] Only Kucinich,
alienated by
his own party, appears to have a plan for getting out and ending occupation
('US out, UN in'). [3]

3. "We cannot build a Democracy by silencing voices, by preventing other
voices from being heard."

4. "When CAN we run a non-corporate candidate? This is the same position as
the abolitionists – You shouldn't run. It's never the time. There's always a
worse 'Bush' to get out. Was Reagan nice? Was LBJ nice?"

5. "When George Bush, in his state of the union speech, laid out his plans
to destroy all of the international laws that exist, to declare the UN Charter
no longer valid, to declare that the US has the right at any time to invade
any nation (because they have the military might to do it), he received a
standing ovation from the entire Democratic Party leadership . . . repeatedly.
In
the year 2004 – an electoral year – the Democrats were a little more
careful,
they only gave him 18 standing ovations."

And later, "The Democratic Party's support for Bush is what makes it
possible for him to do this. This is the party that labor and Blacks and
Latinos look
to, and when they give their stamp of approval, that makes it possible for
George Bush to do what he has done."

This is about the complicity of the Democrats, and how they enable the
Republicans. Peter's message on the relationship between the two parties
(discussed
in detail in the Avocado Declaration) was also made clear in the next quote.

6. "They know they have to have TWO parties, because if they only had one,
the people would rise up and resist."

7. "They prevent free elections because they need to block any opposition
from the people from ever really developing."

8. "That myth – that the people believe they decide who will be president
in
America – must be kept up. Because the people are so powerful. If the people
ever become conscious of the fact that they do not control the US, they WILL
control the US."

This statement received a fair amount of applause. In general, Peter's
message stressed the power of the people, respect for the intelligence of the
people, and trust in the people, while Norman's stressed the need to
strategize due
to the threat of Bush. Peter's message was that the people are intelligent
enough to get Bush out, without having to eliminate the Greens from the
ballots,
and that if the people are allowed to hear the truth – as they will from any
non-corporate candidate – they will turn against Bush.

9. "The task we have is to expose what these two parties represent."

10. In response to Norman Solomon's call for the Greens to run ONLY in local
and state assembly positions – "If Ralph Nader had never run, people like
Matt Gonzalez might never have become Green. If I hadn't run for governor,
Matt's
campaign might never have done as well as it did."

11. "The move away from Democracy and towards Totalitarianism is being done
by both Democrats and Republicans. The PATRIOT Act is an example of this. It
is illegal to change the constitution without due process. The Senate and the
Congress do not have the right to do this. Barbara Boxer and Paul Wellstone
voted to support the PATRIOT Act, and we should not insult their intelligence
by
assuming they didn't know what they were doing."

12. "How can a party that has supported Bush on every major issue, be a tool
to oppose him?"

13. "You're not going to hear the Democrats tell the truth about Iraq. And
if you tell people the truth, they'll turn against Bush."

14. "Safe-states says the people are too stupid to understand. It doesn’t
allow people to make their own choices."

I have chosen to focus on Peter's points, rather than Norman Solomon's
points, because I often felt that Norman's points had more basis in
grandstanding,
than in fact. The essential argument he made was that the Democrats aren't
perfect, but we have to get Bush out and so we have to silence all opposition
or
threats to the Democrats as the method to accomplish this, because the threat
is so great and so unique this time. Solomon also made some interesting
efforts
at disinformation which I'll just point out here:

1. Solomon tried to make it look like Matt Gonzalez would not support an
alternate candidate by saying he had come out against a Ralph Nader run for
president. Peter corrected him, "Matt will support the Green candidate."

2. Solomon's constant focus on Ralph Nader might have created some confusion
about the potential differences between a Green candidacy and a Nader
candidacy. Peter pointed out, "Ralph would love to have the endorsement of the
Greens."

3. Solomon repeated ad nauseum that the Greens should do grass roots
campaigning in the streets rather than trying to be on CNN and are only
fixated with
running presidential candidates. It appeared he has no idea of how MUCH
precinct walking and phone banking we all do. Peter did not really correct
this
misperception that I could see.

Overall, it was an excellent debate, and I'm sure I've missed some points,
or need to continue to refine this report of it. Comments and criticism are
welcome.


REFERENCES

1. "As we internationalize the work in Iraq, we need to add 40,000 troops –
the equivalent of two divisions – to the American military in order to meet
our responsibilities elsewhere – especially in the urgent global war on
terror."
[my highlights].
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

2. "Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority should be . .
. replaced by a UN Special Representative in Iraq who will remove the stigma
of foreign occupation from our presence there." [my highlights].
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

3. 'Democratic presidential candidates back US occupation of Iraq'
By Patrick Martin
8 September 2003
"For all the noisy criticism of Bush’s diplomatic methods, none of the major
candidates advocates withdrawal of most or all American troops from Iraq."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/dems-s08.shtml