Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
California, Take Back the Green Party!
"There's a little rebellion starting," [Peter] Camejo said this week.
Camejo said in California, the bastion of Green registration, "it's a fact: The majority of the party wants to put Nader/Camejo on the ballot." (Carla Marinucci, "Nader's Ballot Hopes Hinge on State's Greens," San Francisco Chronicle, August 7, 2004). . . .
Camejo is telling the truth.
Camejo said in California, the bastion of Green registration, "it's a fact: The majority of the party wants to put Nader/Camejo on the ballot." (Carla Marinucci, "Nader's Ballot Hopes Hinge on State's Greens," San Francisco Chronicle, August 7, 2004). . . .
Camejo is telling the truth.
"There's a little rebellion starting," [Peter] Camejo said this week.
Camejo said in California, the bastion of Green registration, "it's a fact: The majority of the party wants to put Nader/Camejo on the ballot." (Carla Marinucci, "Nader's Ballot Hopes Hinge on State's Greens," San Francisco Chronicle, August 7, 2004)
Camejo is telling the truth:Primaries -- The will of the votersAs Carol Miller and Forrest Hill declare, "It is time we take back the Green Party from those who want to capitulate to the Democratic Party" (August 4, 2004)!In five states, registered Green Party members, who are the rank and file of the party, had the opportunity to vote in a presidential primary. These five primaries represent the majority of registered Greens in the country.
The five primaries took place in California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington DC and Rhode Island. The total number of votes cast for a presidential candidate as recorded by Ballot Access News was 45,733.
The results from these primaries for the leading three candidates are as follows:In the three largest States, California, Massachusetts and New Mexico David Cobb was defeated. In California he was beaten six to one by Camejo, and Lorna Salzman almost tied him for second place. In Massachusetts he was beaten by Lorna Salzman and in New Mexico by Carol Miller. Both Lorna Salzman and Carol Miller endorsed the Nader/Camejo campaign.
Camejo 33,255 72.7% Cobb 5,569 12.2% Salzman 4,953 10.8% Others 1,956 4.2% In DC Cobb received 37% of all votes cast. The total number of votes cast in the Washington DC primary, including write-in votes was 374. Cobb faced only one local opponent, yet received only 138 votes!
In the Rhode Island primary, the one state Cobb actually won more than 50% of the vote, only 89 votes were cast. The primary ballot only included Kent Mesplay and Cobb. It did not even include New York's presidential nominee Lorna Salzman. The vote was 71 for Cobb and 18 for Mesplay.
Overall, the total primary vote for candidates who support Nader/Camejo was over 83% compared to Cobb's 12.2%. Where Greens actually were able to vote, Cobb was roundly defeated.
Nominating meetings -- The will of the few and selected
In all other states Green Party delegates were chosen at nominating meetings. These meetings varied in size but were overall quite small. The national Green Party web site never reported the number of votes cast at any of the state nominating meetings. This cover-up, whether intentional or not, hid from Greens the small number of voters that were determining how large numbers of delegate were proportioned between the candidates. (Carol Miller and Forrest Hill/Greens for Nader, "Rigged Convention Divides Green Party," August 4, 2004)
Rank-and-file Greens' battle to take back the Green Party has begun in California. Sign the proposal below (circulated by Forrest Hill), send your message to the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California, and spread the word:
Please forward and act immediately:::The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a "majority" decision at the convention. To correct this injustice, the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California will vote on Monday August 9 on whether to hold a Special General Assembly to let California Greens decide if they want to put Nader/Camejo on the our ballot line.
If you believe that the Green Party should continue to challenge the two-party "duopoly" and should not compromise it principles, then please sign the following proposal and email it to one (or all) of the CC members listed below. Time is of the essence!
Peggy Lewis pegola@softcom.net Sharon Peterson shalynne@pacbell.net Gerry Gras gerrygras@earthlink.net Michael Borenstein thebor@jps.net Jo Chamberlain joc@greens.org Matt Leslie mrl@greens.org Alex Brideau III alexb@cagreens.orgPROPOSAL TO HOLD A SPECIAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PUT NADER/CAMEJO ON THE GREEN PARTY BALLOT IN CALIFORNIA
Whereas:
1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, "Rigged Convention Divides Green Party," by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net);
2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority;
3. An overwhelming majority of Greens in the United States and California support the presidential ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo;
4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California;
5. Ralph Nader would hold fundraisers to support local candidates if nominated by the Green Party of California;
6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates;
7. The Green Party of California is a recognized Party in California and has a ballot line;
Therefore be it resolved that:
We the undersign urge the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California to show leadership and hold a Special General Assembly too place Ralph Nader on the California state ballot for President of the United States and Peter Miguel Camejo on the California state ballot for Vice President of the United States.
Signed
For more information:
http://montages.blogspot.com/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
enough already with these millionaire men basking in their sense of entitlement to the Green ballot line.
camejo has been running for 3 yr. give it a rest, girl.
nader is not gaining traction. give it a rest, girl.
time to build the party bottom up. say no to celebrity campaigns.
camejo has been running for 3 yr. give it a rest, girl.
nader is not gaining traction. give it a rest, girl.
time to build the party bottom up. say no to celebrity campaigns.
This must be a psuedonyn for Gov. Gropenator since the author is using the odd phrase 'give it up, girl,' an obvious riff on the 'girlie-man' theme.
So what if Nader is worth a couple of million dollars; he gives more money away than he spends on himself, obviously. He's doing more to expose and break the anti-democratic electoral fraud of the Republicrat duopoly than the Green Party. He and Camejo have done more for the Green Party than any other candidate or elected official. That the truth is coming out about the Green Party capitulation to the warmaker Democrats through their own electoral misdeeds is a good thing. Ralphsputin and his ilk may not be able to handle the truth but millions of other people can, and want to vote for the candidates who speak the truth.
So what if Nader is worth a couple of million dollars; he gives more money away than he spends on himself, obviously. He's doing more to expose and break the anti-democratic electoral fraud of the Republicrat duopoly than the Green Party. He and Camejo have done more for the Green Party than any other candidate or elected official. That the truth is coming out about the Green Party capitulation to the warmaker Democrats through their own electoral misdeeds is a good thing. Ralphsputin and his ilk may not be able to handle the truth but millions of other people can, and want to vote for the candidates who speak the truth.
I see, so, since Camejo did better in some primaries, we should blindly accept whosoever he cares to choose to be VP running mate for? And this is more democratic than a duly constituted party convention how, exactly?
Ralph couldn't even be bothered to show up at the GP convention to ask for the endorsement. So instead, he sends a bunch of idealistic kids schlepping around CA and whatnot, to get abused in heavily democratic regions by "spoiler" drones and, likely, burn out forthwith. That builds the movement how, exactly?
Oh, and he accepts the Reform Party nomination. Didn't they choose Buchannan last time? Man of scruples my ass.
RN's an egomaniac, and a destructive one. Let's have a candidate who wants to build a party, not (in this case) his own personality.
Cobb it is, this time around.... Stop whining and look to '08.
Ralph couldn't even be bothered to show up at the GP convention to ask for the endorsement. So instead, he sends a bunch of idealistic kids schlepping around CA and whatnot, to get abused in heavily democratic regions by "spoiler" drones and, likely, burn out forthwith. That builds the movement how, exactly?
Oh, and he accepts the Reform Party nomination. Didn't they choose Buchannan last time? Man of scruples my ass.
RN's an egomaniac, and a destructive one. Let's have a candidate who wants to build a party, not (in this case) his own personality.
Cobb it is, this time around.... Stop whining and look to '08.
damn, so focused on the democrats and republicans that you must be forgetting that you are a green.
no charges here of homophobia that you deny a lgbt green the right to use our own vernacular.
that's nader's and camejo's problem---two male millionaires too focused on the democrats to build the green party.
read the avocado declaration--99 parts democrat bashing 1 part green building. the democrats bash themselves when 75% of the country does not support them.
quit defining greens in terms of democrats and republicans.
Is this the voice of a true green?
For more information:
http://www.minjungkim.com/pix/FrameSet.htm
The devotion of some of his followers is bordering on the cultish. Why doesn't he just try to take over the LaRouche party instead?
Face it, Ralph has failed. It's over. He can't even get on the ballot state without accepting the Faustian help of Republicans.
Now leave us Greens alone. We have a real party to build.
Face it, Ralph has failed. It's over. He can't even get on the ballot state without accepting the Faustian help of Republicans.
Now leave us Greens alone. We have a real party to build.
that you can be abusive to women and minorities? it's not here:
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles...
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles...
Personally would love 2 see Winona Laduke run for President, though not sure about her personal feelings. The problem with Nader in the Greens is that he already ran for Pres two times consecutively, and the Greens using Nader every time is becoming tiredsome..
If Winona ever felt like running, she would definitely get my vote. More important would be her message, i would rather listen to her views than Nader's boring recitations..
Don't really know about Cobb either, i think we need a progressive woman President after the dozens of incompetent males we've been stuck with since 4ever..
If Winona ever felt like running, she would definitely get my vote. More important would be her message, i would rather listen to her views than Nader's boring recitations..
Don't really know about Cobb either, i think we need a progressive woman President after the dozens of incompetent males we've been stuck with since 4ever..
Cobb should not be afraid of a state nominating convention if he really is the choice of CA Greens. As it is, the state does not have to take the lead of the national convention. They have every right to nominate a candidate independent of the national. The national does NOT reflect the will of the state at this point. The convention was NOT democratic in the many ways outlined above.
Here's the link again:
http://counterpunch.org/miller08072004.html
Here's the link again:
http://counterpunch.org/miller08072004.html
sad to see that the naderites are so desperate that they forgo any sort of rational political dialogue in favor of ad hominem attacks.
how a hastily called general assembly after a failed effort to secure a state endorsement after a failed attempt to mau mau the convention with camejo after a decision to not participate in the green primary process can be viewed as legitimate is beyond me.
but then again, those who are pushing nader the hardest have least concern for the green party and priorities elsewhere.
how a hastily called general assembly after a failed effort to secure a state endorsement after a failed attempt to mau mau the convention with camejo after a decision to not participate in the green primary process can be viewed as legitimate is beyond me.
but then again, those who are pushing nader the hardest have least concern for the green party and priorities elsewhere.
2004 Green Primary Results
| State | Delegate Cnt | Math Tot | Camejo | Cobb | Salzman | Mesplay | Nader | No Cand | NOTA | Other |
| CA | 132 | 132 | 83 | 13 | 12 | 2 | 22 | |||
| DC | 11 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 6 | |||||
| FL | 26 | 26 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 4 | |||
| HI | 9 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | ||||
| ME | 19 | 19.57 | 0.42 | 4.48 | 2.03 | 0.53 | 5.55 | 1.5 | 5.05 | |
| MA | 36 | 36 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 13 | ||
| NE | 9 | 9 | 7 | 2 | ||||||
| NM | 9 | 9 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 1 | |||||
| OH | 23 | 23 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| PA | 37 | 37 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 12 | 9 | |||
| RI | 10 | 10 | 3 | 7 | ||||||
| WI | 33 | 33 | 4 | 24 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 354 | 354.57 | 94.42 | 92.98 | 28.03 | 15.53 | 38.05 | 4.5 | 43 | 38.05 | |
| 26.63% | 26.22% | 7.91% | 4.38% | 10.73% | 1.27% | 12.13% | 10.73% |
Source: Primary Results Prior to the Convention
See Also: Presidential Candidate Nomination Process for more background.
The table is straight forward. On the left are states that held primaries. Across the board there are delegate allocations per voter primary. The totals are on the last two lines, both in delegates and in percentages.
Camejo and Cobb are both tied, but Cobb's support comes from across the country and is thus broader. Camejo ran as a Green but expected (hell demanded and threatened) that "his" delegates should go to non-Green Nader. Many Green delegates balked at nominating a non-Green.
Nader himself only got 10% with Nader stand-in Salzman winning 7.9%
Thus, with the numbers before you there is no legitimate argument that the principles of democracy were being subverted. The process that formulated the Milwaukee convention was decided democratically during a 2 year process. That the Greens don't have ballot status and primaries in many states is also problematic.
But to assume that Nader/Camejo gets the most favorable interpretation of every possible ambiguity is disengenuous.
The conduct of the Nader/Camejo campaign has been so virtiolic that many Nader supporters here in San Francsico are against this fourth bite at the Green Apple:
1. Decline to participate in the primary
2. Name Camejo as VP candidate 2 days before GPUS convention
3. Tried to get the GPCA to endorse last month and failed
4. Now an assembly that is in violation of the bylaws due to noticing and time. Their first act would be to suspend the GPCA bylaws.
Also, there has been a massive propaganda campaign by loony leftists such as Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn to attack the Green Party more forcefully than the Democrats attack either Nader or Greens.
Joshua Frank Greens, Kerry and the Politics of Mendacity
Todd Chretien Green Resistance: a Reply to Normon Solomon & Medea Benjamin
Jeffrey St. Clair Chronicle of a Nomination Foretold: the Green Deceivers
Michael Donnelly How to Steal an Election: the Green Version, 2004
Bruce Anderson The Cheney-Leahy Metaphor and the Greens
Sharon Smith Twilight of the Greens: the Chokehold of "Anybody But Bush"
Jeffrey St. Clair Suicide Right on the Stage: the Demise of the Green Party
Alan Maass Green Party in Reverse
Chris Randolph An Open Letter to Dr. Ehrenreich: It's Over, Barb!
George Reiter A Defense of David Cobb
Say goodnight, Ralphsputin.
Are they Green? Who knows. Do they have a clue about the respect for diversity key value? Probably not as they accuse everyone who is not drinking the Nader kool-aid of supporting Kerry.
It is clear that these people have never worked on or won an election, mere electoral armchair dilettantes who believe that writing about something means its going to happen; that showing up as a candidate and saying the right things is in any way meaningful:
Joshua Frank David Cobb's Soft Charade: the Greens and the Politics of Mendacity
Joshua Frank Greens, Kerry and the Politics of Mendacity
Todd Chretien Green Resistance: a Reply to Normon Solomon & Medea Benjamin
Jeffrey St. Clair Chronicle of a Nomination Foretold: the Green Deceivers
Michael Donnelly How to Steal an Election: the Green Version, 2004
Bruce Anderson The Cheney-Leahy Metaphor and the Greens
Sharon Smith Twilight of the Greens: the Chokehold of "Anybody But Bush"
Jeffrey St. Clair Suicide Right on the Stage: the Demise of the Green Party
Alan Maass Green Party in Reverse
Chris Randolph An Open Letter to Dr. Ehrenreich: It's Over, Barb!
George Reiter A Defense of David Cobb
Say goodnight, Ralphsputin.
Personally, my vote WAS for Camejo, as Camejo, not as a Nader proxy, although I knew his intention was to run as a “favorite son”, with the likely idea of supporting Nader. Camejo has acknowledged this, by not requiring his delegates to vote in any one particular way on the initial ballot. -Thomas]
Dear Peter Camejo,
The Steering Committee of the Green Party of SLO County wants to make clear what you should and should not interpret from the vote cast for your candidacy in the March Presidential Primary election:
A vote for Peter Camejo was a vote for Peter Camejo for Green Party Presidential nominee. A vote for Peter Camejo was NOT a vote for Ralph Nader for Green Party Presidential nominee.
We on the Steering Commitee are aware that you intended your candidacy to be a “favorite son,” in other words to be a proxy for Ralph Nader. However, that message only got to a very, very small number of people who follow these things very closely. It did not get out to 99+% of Green Party voters. We could find no one aware of your “favorite son” concept. Some favor Ralph Nader, and some oppose, and some are none of the above. Whatever vote you received tells us nothing about the relative support or opposition to a Ralph Nader candidacy.
Therefore, we direct you to represent accurately the SLO County voters intent as supportive of Peter Camejo for President, and not Ralph Nader for President.
signed,
Orval Osborne, Concho Crotzer, Peggy Koteen, Liz Apfelberg, Jay Adams,
Dwaine Waddell, Joan Carter, Meredith Bates, the Steering Commitee of the
Green Party of SLO County
Dear Peter Camejo,
The Steering Committee of the Green Party of SLO County wants to make clear what you should and should not interpret from the vote cast for your candidacy in the March Presidential Primary election:
A vote for Peter Camejo was a vote for Peter Camejo for Green Party Presidential nominee. A vote for Peter Camejo was NOT a vote for Ralph Nader for Green Party Presidential nominee.
We on the Steering Commitee are aware that you intended your candidacy to be a “favorite son,” in other words to be a proxy for Ralph Nader. However, that message only got to a very, very small number of people who follow these things very closely. It did not get out to 99+% of Green Party voters. We could find no one aware of your “favorite son” concept. Some favor Ralph Nader, and some oppose, and some are none of the above. Whatever vote you received tells us nothing about the relative support or opposition to a Ralph Nader candidacy.
Therefore, we direct you to represent accurately the SLO County voters intent as supportive of Peter Camejo for President, and not Ralph Nader for President.
signed,
Orval Osborne, Concho Crotzer, Peggy Koteen, Liz Apfelberg, Jay Adams,
Dwaine Waddell, Joan Carter, Meredith Bates, the Steering Commitee of the
Green Party of SLO County
PETER CAMEJO: Well, I'm not running for president. I'm only a
favorite son in California and have allowed my name to be put on the ballot in several states. The Green Party has a very complex
situation in 2004.
Many favor Ralph Nader, others want David Cobb and are considering other alternatives. I wanted to have a way for Greens at each state to be able to vote for delegates that go uncommitted to the national convention so that we can figure out what is best for the party in June. I lean towards endorsement and support of Ralph Nader.
Foxnews.com: Will you accept the nomination if it is offered to you?
CAMEJO: No, I have made it really clear for a lot of reasons, both
political and personal. I am not going to be a candidate for the Green Party in the presidential race. However, I am playing a role in helping to get the options up and to participate in the discussion. I
feel that it is imperative that we have a strong voice in this campaign and I feel the attacks against us, especially coming from liberal Democrats -- and we can understand what motivates them -- but I think they have it exactly backwards.
The Greens have every right to run, that's what democracy is, and they should argue their point by saying how they think people should vote, not by telling us to be silent. And I'm very strong on this because there's even some Greens who think it would be best that we don't run. But I think that would be a huge mistake. We are trying to build an alternative party with a different vision and to do that you need to have your voice be heard. And I don't think anybody could represent us better, in this campaign, than Ralph Nader.
Foxnews.com: Ralph Nader is not running Green, are you making an effort to recruit him?
CAMEJO: I think what Ralph Nader has said has been partially
misunderstood. What Ralph, very correctly, said was you can't hold a convention in June under the framework in which it was established. Where he wanted to run, he wants to consider running, he feels he has to make his decision much earlier. He's trying to reach out to people beyond the Greens, on many crucial issues, such as civil rights and civil liberties against the Patriot Act.
And the Green Party was sort of constricting him. He chose to declare as an independent, but I personally talk to Ralph Nader and I am sure if you call him, he would verify this, but Ralph would be very happy to have the Green party endorse him. He has a great supportive feeling towards the Green Party; he has been one of the greatest helpers in building and recruiting to the Green Party. So, I think that's misunderstood. Like he had turned his back on the Green Party.
. . .
Foxnews.com: What do you think the top three issues of your candidate should be?
CAMEJO: First, I want to thank you for making the question three issues, because there's two that will make me sound like that's all I'm thinking about. But one of them, of course is the war in Iraq, the other one is the Patriot Act. I really think the Patriot Act violates our Constitution. . . .
The issue of Iraq, here's the crucial thing that only a Green will
represent: the United States and the CIA supported Saddam Hussein, right from the day he came to power, when the Ba'athists first came to power, they even gave lists of the names of people for the Ba'athists to murder, which they did.
The CIA worked very closely with them and United States supported
Saddam Hussein at every level -- gave him arms, gave him money, gave him political backing, the military helped him; none of this is
really fully understood by the American people. And then the decision when he wouldn't follow orders from Washington, to go to war against Iraq, is an additional crime against the Iraqi people.
Because first we put Saddam Hussein against them, a murderer and torturer, as George Bush says, without ever explaining, of course, that politically we supported Saddam Hussein. His father in 1990 even sent a message to Iraq, saying what a good job Saddam Hussein was doing. This is after he used poison gas on his people.
So after doing that horrible thing we commit another horrible thing.
We've bombed that country for 10 years, then we invade it and we have a military dictatorship with the mass of the people in Iraq
demonstrating asking for free elections, which the United States
won't let them have.
I think these are crucial issues to understand. The United States is not for democracy in Iraq, it's for setting up a puppet government and I will tell you the proof, which is so obvious and simple. It doesn't call for democracy in Kuwait or in Qatar or in the UAE or in Saudi Arabia. If the United States were for democracy in those states, where it totally influences and it has the leadership doing whatever it wants, it would be pushing hard for democracy. So, this to me is the second most. The third issue is the whole issue of the economy.
Today we are having record GDP in America but the average person's not gaining from this. Taxes are going up, but on the poor and the middle classes. They're not going up for the rich they're going down for the rich.
In fact, in California, when I ran for governor, I made the point that the wealthiest one percent, which has the same income as 75 percent of the people, has a 57 percent lower tax rate for state and local taxes, than the poorest 20 percent.
We must have a fair tax in the United States. We have to re-adjust it, we must be fiscally responsible. These massive deficits that Bush is running are terrible and of course the byproduct of the military expenditures. So without me getting too long, there's obviously a whole series of other issues that Greens will have a very different position.
We're absolutely in defense of the Eighth Amendment; therefore we're against three strikes. You know, I don't know if you know, but in California a man was just given 25 years to life, for cheating on a DMV test. That to me, a society that will send a person to jail for life for cheating on a DMV test because he wanted a driver's license for his cousin. He faked he was his cousin to try to get him a driver's license. It's a sick society; its values have been totally well this is a violation of the Constitution, no question of that in my mind.
So on many issues, whether it be universal health care, a whole series of issues about human rights in the United States. America's the only industrialized country with a death penalty on all of these issues. A Green Party candidate would be very different from a Democrat or Republican and should be heard.
Foxnews.com: What would you want your candidate to do with the troops currently stationed in Iraq?
CAMEJO: I would bring the troops home immediately and I would be supportive of having a generally free election in Iraq. Which
probably will lead to a government that a lot of Americans won't like. So what? That's the right of the Iraqi people. Think of what we would think in America if a foreign nation had come to occupy us and was telling us what to do and what sort of elections we should have, which had supported a dictator for years?
Deep down, the Iraqi people want the United States out. And their
self-determination should be respected. And how this works out would require some diplomatic issues, which of course would have to be worked out. But the essence is this: U.S. troops out of Iraq and some sense of responsibility to help overcome the enormous destruction that we have done in that nation through the bombings and destruction of their infrastructure. . . .
And the concept of privatizing their oil is beyond belief. That is something the Iraqi people will have to decide, if they want to do that or not. That is not something an occupying army can decide. . .
Foxnews.com: What do you expect your candidate to do about homeland security?
CAMEJO: I think there couldn't be anything that would protect the
American people more than a Green being elected president, which
reflects the majority point of view in the world... [that] the Democrats and Republicans voted to authorize George Bush to invade Iraq illegally because Article 1 section 2 doesn't permit that, and everything else they've done, the majority opinion of the world went completely against what the United States was doing.
The Green Party represents that majority point of view within the U.S. Our election could almost guarantee, immediately, that there would be no terrorist attack because our policy would be not be exploitive, abusive and we would show respect, not only to Muslims but toward all the countries of the Middle East. We would really fight to give justice to the Palestinians, and of course, protecting the rights of the people of Israel.
But the point is this, you change that political framework, and the relationship and the way the United States has armed every dictatorship in the Middle East, stop doing that and start supporting democracy, and the forces that fight for democracy -- especially politically -- and show respect, and say we will not try to make profit off the oil that comes from the Middle East but have that oil go to develop and to solve the poverty that so many tens of millions of people suffer in that part of the world.
With that kind of politics, the danger of terrorism would decline
sharply. . . .
Of course an effort has to be made that combines a diplomatic and political offensive... for instance, the Democrats and Republicans supported Usama bin Laden, they spent $4 [billion] to $6 billion of our tax money to build other extremist pro-terrorist Muslim groups, in partnership with Usama bin Laden.
George Bush's family, for gosh sakes, has been in business deals with this specific family for like, forever. This has left a totally different mood there, which we need to overcome. I believe the effort to stop terrorism and to protect our homeland is primary political, economic, and diplomatic, not just military as [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and Bush represent it. . . .
Foxnews.com: . . . So, how are the Greens raising money to support a national candidate?
CAMEJO: Well the Greens are the most amazing political party America has ever seen. We do incredibly well. We have 65 elected officials in California and we do it almost without money. Just with humans. This is the difference. We represent people; the Democrats and Republicans represent money. And money is not the crucial thing for us, at all.
In the campaign that Matt Gonzalez had in San Francisco . . . and Gavin Newsom . . . what everybody had to admit, no matter what position somebody held, was the amazing turnout of volunteers for Matt Gonzalez. Youth that poured out, people that had never been involved in elections before. Signs supporting the Greens were three to one against the Democrat who was endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans, by the way.
And Gavin Newsom, by the way, the new mayor of San Francisco, gave money to George Bush. He's a Democrat; he gave money to George Bush in 2000. He was actually on the voter's slate of the Republican Party with George Bush in 2000. . . .
Foxnews.com: What are the Greens doing about ballot access?
CAMEJO: . . . We are already on the ballot in about 20. But those are the larger states and we probably have over 75 percent of the people able to vote for us. Unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans have made it difficult to get on the ballot in many states, it's been part of their anti-democratic process not to allow free elections in America.
You know, this whole issue that many Democrats raised, that we shouldn't run because of the spoiler effect, they call it. That, in Europe, does not exist in a single country. All electoral laws in Europe are more democratic than they are in the United States. Because the obvious solution is the same solution we have in every city in America, you have a runoff. You have a runoff, so people are free to vote for who they want. So we're working on ballot status, but in some states it's very difficult given how reactionary the laws are to try to prevent third parties from existing.
Foxnews.com: What do you say to people who claim that voting third party is throwing away your vote?
CAMEJO: Well, they wouldn't have voted for the abolitionists, they would have voted for the two parties that supported slavery. They wouldn't have voted for the populists who fought for the rights of people and won over many states. . . .
. . . [T]he Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, only one senator voted against it. They voted a resolution of unequivocal support for George Bush in the war with Iraq. When Bush gave his 2003 and his 2004 State of Union address they gave him repeated standing ovations. A little less in 2004 and they still gave him 18 standing ovations.
We don't agree with George Bush and I think millions and millions of Americans don't agree with George Bush, tens of millions. And the fact that we run, many people will say, "Since we don't have free elections here. We don't have a runoff, even though I want to vote for the Greens, I'm going to vote Democrat."
We understand that. We are not angry at them. We understand what leads them to that. But there are hundreds of thousands of young people, especially in America, our vote is heavily weighed towards younger people, who will say "You know what, I'm fed up with all of this. If the Democrats can't even come out for free elections, I'm not going to vote for them ever again."
And those people have the right to cast their ballot, that's the great thing about elections. It's a chance for citizens to tell the world, tell the rest of the nation, tell the other citizens, where they stand. And those who decide to vote for a third party are sending a very powerful message. Therefore it's not a wasted vote at all.
favorite son in California and have allowed my name to be put on the ballot in several states. The Green Party has a very complex
situation in 2004.
Many favor Ralph Nader, others want David Cobb and are considering other alternatives. I wanted to have a way for Greens at each state to be able to vote for delegates that go uncommitted to the national convention so that we can figure out what is best for the party in June. I lean towards endorsement and support of Ralph Nader.
Foxnews.com: Will you accept the nomination if it is offered to you?
CAMEJO: No, I have made it really clear for a lot of reasons, both
political and personal. I am not going to be a candidate for the Green Party in the presidential race. However, I am playing a role in helping to get the options up and to participate in the discussion. I
feel that it is imperative that we have a strong voice in this campaign and I feel the attacks against us, especially coming from liberal Democrats -- and we can understand what motivates them -- but I think they have it exactly backwards.
The Greens have every right to run, that's what democracy is, and they should argue their point by saying how they think people should vote, not by telling us to be silent. And I'm very strong on this because there's even some Greens who think it would be best that we don't run. But I think that would be a huge mistake. We are trying to build an alternative party with a different vision and to do that you need to have your voice be heard. And I don't think anybody could represent us better, in this campaign, than Ralph Nader.
Foxnews.com: Ralph Nader is not running Green, are you making an effort to recruit him?
CAMEJO: I think what Ralph Nader has said has been partially
misunderstood. What Ralph, very correctly, said was you can't hold a convention in June under the framework in which it was established. Where he wanted to run, he wants to consider running, he feels he has to make his decision much earlier. He's trying to reach out to people beyond the Greens, on many crucial issues, such as civil rights and civil liberties against the Patriot Act.
And the Green Party was sort of constricting him. He chose to declare as an independent, but I personally talk to Ralph Nader and I am sure if you call him, he would verify this, but Ralph would be very happy to have the Green party endorse him. He has a great supportive feeling towards the Green Party; he has been one of the greatest helpers in building and recruiting to the Green Party. So, I think that's misunderstood. Like he had turned his back on the Green Party.
. . .
Foxnews.com: What do you think the top three issues of your candidate should be?
CAMEJO: First, I want to thank you for making the question three issues, because there's two that will make me sound like that's all I'm thinking about. But one of them, of course is the war in Iraq, the other one is the Patriot Act. I really think the Patriot Act violates our Constitution. . . .
The issue of Iraq, here's the crucial thing that only a Green will
represent: the United States and the CIA supported Saddam Hussein, right from the day he came to power, when the Ba'athists first came to power, they even gave lists of the names of people for the Ba'athists to murder, which they did.
The CIA worked very closely with them and United States supported
Saddam Hussein at every level -- gave him arms, gave him money, gave him political backing, the military helped him; none of this is
really fully understood by the American people. And then the decision when he wouldn't follow orders from Washington, to go to war against Iraq, is an additional crime against the Iraqi people.
Because first we put Saddam Hussein against them, a murderer and torturer, as George Bush says, without ever explaining, of course, that politically we supported Saddam Hussein. His father in 1990 even sent a message to Iraq, saying what a good job Saddam Hussein was doing. This is after he used poison gas on his people.
So after doing that horrible thing we commit another horrible thing.
We've bombed that country for 10 years, then we invade it and we have a military dictatorship with the mass of the people in Iraq
demonstrating asking for free elections, which the United States
won't let them have.
I think these are crucial issues to understand. The United States is not for democracy in Iraq, it's for setting up a puppet government and I will tell you the proof, which is so obvious and simple. It doesn't call for democracy in Kuwait or in Qatar or in the UAE or in Saudi Arabia. If the United States were for democracy in those states, where it totally influences and it has the leadership doing whatever it wants, it would be pushing hard for democracy. So, this to me is the second most. The third issue is the whole issue of the economy.
Today we are having record GDP in America but the average person's not gaining from this. Taxes are going up, but on the poor and the middle classes. They're not going up for the rich they're going down for the rich.
In fact, in California, when I ran for governor, I made the point that the wealthiest one percent, which has the same income as 75 percent of the people, has a 57 percent lower tax rate for state and local taxes, than the poorest 20 percent.
We must have a fair tax in the United States. We have to re-adjust it, we must be fiscally responsible. These massive deficits that Bush is running are terrible and of course the byproduct of the military expenditures. So without me getting too long, there's obviously a whole series of other issues that Greens will have a very different position.
We're absolutely in defense of the Eighth Amendment; therefore we're against three strikes. You know, I don't know if you know, but in California a man was just given 25 years to life, for cheating on a DMV test. That to me, a society that will send a person to jail for life for cheating on a DMV test because he wanted a driver's license for his cousin. He faked he was his cousin to try to get him a driver's license. It's a sick society; its values have been totally well this is a violation of the Constitution, no question of that in my mind.
So on many issues, whether it be universal health care, a whole series of issues about human rights in the United States. America's the only industrialized country with a death penalty on all of these issues. A Green Party candidate would be very different from a Democrat or Republican and should be heard.
Foxnews.com: What would you want your candidate to do with the troops currently stationed in Iraq?
CAMEJO: I would bring the troops home immediately and I would be supportive of having a generally free election in Iraq. Which
probably will lead to a government that a lot of Americans won't like. So what? That's the right of the Iraqi people. Think of what we would think in America if a foreign nation had come to occupy us and was telling us what to do and what sort of elections we should have, which had supported a dictator for years?
Deep down, the Iraqi people want the United States out. And their
self-determination should be respected. And how this works out would require some diplomatic issues, which of course would have to be worked out. But the essence is this: U.S. troops out of Iraq and some sense of responsibility to help overcome the enormous destruction that we have done in that nation through the bombings and destruction of their infrastructure. . . .
And the concept of privatizing their oil is beyond belief. That is something the Iraqi people will have to decide, if they want to do that or not. That is not something an occupying army can decide. . .
Foxnews.com: What do you expect your candidate to do about homeland security?
CAMEJO: I think there couldn't be anything that would protect the
American people more than a Green being elected president, which
reflects the majority point of view in the world... [that] the Democrats and Republicans voted to authorize George Bush to invade Iraq illegally because Article 1 section 2 doesn't permit that, and everything else they've done, the majority opinion of the world went completely against what the United States was doing.
The Green Party represents that majority point of view within the U.S. Our election could almost guarantee, immediately, that there would be no terrorist attack because our policy would be not be exploitive, abusive and we would show respect, not only to Muslims but toward all the countries of the Middle East. We would really fight to give justice to the Palestinians, and of course, protecting the rights of the people of Israel.
But the point is this, you change that political framework, and the relationship and the way the United States has armed every dictatorship in the Middle East, stop doing that and start supporting democracy, and the forces that fight for democracy -- especially politically -- and show respect, and say we will not try to make profit off the oil that comes from the Middle East but have that oil go to develop and to solve the poverty that so many tens of millions of people suffer in that part of the world.
With that kind of politics, the danger of terrorism would decline
sharply. . . .
Of course an effort has to be made that combines a diplomatic and political offensive... for instance, the Democrats and Republicans supported Usama bin Laden, they spent $4 [billion] to $6 billion of our tax money to build other extremist pro-terrorist Muslim groups, in partnership with Usama bin Laden.
George Bush's family, for gosh sakes, has been in business deals with this specific family for like, forever. This has left a totally different mood there, which we need to overcome. I believe the effort to stop terrorism and to protect our homeland is primary political, economic, and diplomatic, not just military as [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and Bush represent it. . . .
Foxnews.com: . . . So, how are the Greens raising money to support a national candidate?
CAMEJO: Well the Greens are the most amazing political party America has ever seen. We do incredibly well. We have 65 elected officials in California and we do it almost without money. Just with humans. This is the difference. We represent people; the Democrats and Republicans represent money. And money is not the crucial thing for us, at all.
In the campaign that Matt Gonzalez had in San Francisco . . . and Gavin Newsom . . . what everybody had to admit, no matter what position somebody held, was the amazing turnout of volunteers for Matt Gonzalez. Youth that poured out, people that had never been involved in elections before. Signs supporting the Greens were three to one against the Democrat who was endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans, by the way.
And Gavin Newsom, by the way, the new mayor of San Francisco, gave money to George Bush. He's a Democrat; he gave money to George Bush in 2000. He was actually on the voter's slate of the Republican Party with George Bush in 2000. . . .
Foxnews.com: What are the Greens doing about ballot access?
CAMEJO: . . . We are already on the ballot in about 20. But those are the larger states and we probably have over 75 percent of the people able to vote for us. Unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans have made it difficult to get on the ballot in many states, it's been part of their anti-democratic process not to allow free elections in America.
You know, this whole issue that many Democrats raised, that we shouldn't run because of the spoiler effect, they call it. That, in Europe, does not exist in a single country. All electoral laws in Europe are more democratic than they are in the United States. Because the obvious solution is the same solution we have in every city in America, you have a runoff. You have a runoff, so people are free to vote for who they want. So we're working on ballot status, but in some states it's very difficult given how reactionary the laws are to try to prevent third parties from existing.
Foxnews.com: What do you say to people who claim that voting third party is throwing away your vote?
CAMEJO: Well, they wouldn't have voted for the abolitionists, they would have voted for the two parties that supported slavery. They wouldn't have voted for the populists who fought for the rights of people and won over many states. . . .
. . . [T]he Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, only one senator voted against it. They voted a resolution of unequivocal support for George Bush in the war with Iraq. When Bush gave his 2003 and his 2004 State of Union address they gave him repeated standing ovations. A little less in 2004 and they still gave him 18 standing ovations.
We don't agree with George Bush and I think millions and millions of Americans don't agree with George Bush, tens of millions. And the fact that we run, many people will say, "Since we don't have free elections here. We don't have a runoff, even though I want to vote for the Greens, I'm going to vote Democrat."
We understand that. We are not angry at them. We understand what leads them to that. But there are hundreds of thousands of young people, especially in America, our vote is heavily weighed towards younger people, who will say "You know what, I'm fed up with all of this. If the Democrats can't even come out for free elections, I'm not going to vote for them ever again."
And those people have the right to cast their ballot, that's the great thing about elections. It's a chance for citizens to tell the world, tell the rest of the nation, tell the other citizens, where they stand. And those who decide to vote for a third party are sending a very powerful message. Therefore it's not a wasted vote at all.
Does Peter's reverence for the Rule Of Law apply to the Bylaws of the GPCA as well, which are entering the shredder with this Assembly?
Just reread the Avocado Declaration:
http://cagreens.org/longbeach/avocado.htm
Actually, didn't reread it, but realized why I only got 5 paragraphs into it when my attention wandered to something more interesting and finally glossed over the whole thing.
Here's the Cliff's Notes:
INTRODUCTION
Greens should run their own candidate and not vote for Kerry.
ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
Democrats were bad from the beginning.
STRUGGLES FOR DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
Democrats oppose Democracy and Social Justice.
DIVISION OF WORK
Democrats coopt and/or repress.
MANIPULATED ELECTIONS
Democrats rig elections when they win from it.
NO CHOICE, NO HOPE
No future, no future, no future for you.
DEMOCRACY VERSUS COOPTATION
Democracy is good but don't get fed by the hand you might need to bite
some day.
THE GROWING SHIFT AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW
Golden rule: he with gold rules.
DEMOCRATS: PATRIOT ACT AND UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR BUSH
Dems are sniveling quislings.
THE ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Democrats are really bad.
DEMOCRATS ATTACK THE GREEN PARTY
Because we're a threat or because they're paranoid?
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS JOIN ATTACK
What do you mean progressive?
THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE VOTERS
Liberal media sucks.
LESSER EVIL LEADS TO GREATER EVIL
Don't vote for Democrats.
OPPOSITION IS RISING
Does this opposition to Bush feel comfortable voting for Green or for
Nader?
DEMOCRATS HELP INSTITUTIONALIZE BUSH'S PLATFORM
Democrats are bayd, m'kay?
SELF-CORRECTING MECHANISM
Two sides of the same worthless coin.
SUCCESS OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life,
however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary
intrigue.
GREEN VOICE MUST BE HEARD
We should run a Green for President.
SHORT TERM VERSUS LONG TERM
Don't capitulate to the Democrats!
THE YEAR 2004
Is 20 years after 1984.
THE GREEN PARTY
I'll take it when we need it, or it can go fuck itself.
THE GREEN PARTY MUST BE A PLURALISTIC ORGANIZATION
Except when we need it, otherwise it can go fuck itself.
Now that's vice presidential material.
If you keep your mouth shut you will never put your foot in it.
your powers are useless in san francisco, sodom by the sea, city full of freaks too smart to drink the nader/camejo/petroni kool-aid.
Naderites won't touch the fact of the Reform Party endorsement. No wonder, that party chose the crypto-fascist Buchanan last time.
They cover it up with blather about how undemocratic it is that a party won't choose a non-member who blows off the convention.
It is indefensible. The Greens should in no way support a Repfrm Party candidate, given its dodgy history.
They cover it up with blather about how undemocratic it is that a party won't choose a non-member who blows off the convention.
It is indefensible. The Greens should in no way support a Repfrm Party candidate, given its dodgy history.
blah blah blah
so you admit it-- you do support the building of the reform party as an alternative?
all this disruptiveness on the part of "nader greens" is starting to make sense...
all this disruptiveness on the part of "nader greens" is starting to make sense...
nader likes the reform party. this is why he asked them for their nomination. he expected to be entitled to the green endorsement.
i was quoting some of ralph's new best pal's more hitlerian offerings in the posts above. it seems pretty clear. perhaps you are just muddling things up as you usually do.
i don't support the reform party although ventura's experience is instructive to independents seeking executive office with a duopolic legislature.
but at least, unlike most naderistas, the reform party has won an election somewhere.
putting words in others mouths (when you're not putting your foot in your own).
The Green Party is nothing but a tool for the Democrats. This is the second election I've seen where the official line has been "Except in these key states vote Green - but in these key states vote for the Democrats". And yes - Nader that was part of Nader's official platform in 2000. I can't think of any other political party who put out an official statement to vote for the other guy when they had a candidate running.
The nice thing about "Ralphsputin" is that he's so extremist that he does all our work for us - he exposes the absurdity of his own positions with his own choice of words. Trying to paint a lifelong consumer advocate as a 'fascist' or a 'Hitlerite' is so laughable it's got to be coming from a dyed in the wool DEMOCRAP.
No one said nader's a fascist. We're openly wondering (and yes there's at least 2 of us here, maybe more...) what on earth Ralph's doing in bed with Buchannan.
Do you support the "culture war," oh Green one? Come come, stop dodging and tell us plain.
Do you support the "culture war," oh Green one? Come come, stop dodging and tell us plain.
<<The Green Party is nothing but a tool for the Democrats. This is the second election I've seen where the official line has been "Except in these key states vote Green - but in these key states vote for the Democrats". And yes - Nader that was part of Nader's official platform in 2000. I can't think of any other political party who put out an official statement to vote for the other guy when they had a candidate running.>>
yes, indeed, you are correct, although it leads me in an unpleasant direction
and, look at what it got Nader and the Greens, slandered as the cause of Al Gore's defeat, anyway
realistically, the Democratic Party is run by the corporate dominated Democratic Leadership Council and its neo-conservatives with a human face, as it has been for at least 15 years, and, fearful of any progressive alternative within or without the Democratic Party, they will always respond hysterically to any challenge
hence, as Sam Smith of the Progressive Review has noted, the DLC, and its attack dog members, like Joseph Lieberman and Richard Gephardt, trashed Howard Dean and his supporters as avidly as the Democrats have trashed Nader and the Greens
Dean wasn't much of a progressive, but they were terrified by the level of grassroots support that he was energizing, support that gave Dean an independent base of support beyond the DLC
accordingly, the faillure of the Greens to stand up, fight the slander of the Democrats, and run their own candidates strongly on the issues, regardless of the time and place, has doomed them
and, one can identify the crystalization of the absurdity of the Green approach: when Medea Benjamin was arrested unfurling an antiwar banner at the Democratic Convention during Heinz's speech after opposing Nader's candidacy at the Green convention in Milwaukee
sadly, for people on the left like myself, elections and political protest are now two separate tracks
because I know a lot of people whose lives will marginally improve if Kerry is elected, such as recipients of Section 8 certificates for housing and funding for education, for instance, and because, as Tariq Ali has said, Bush's defeat will necessarily be seen as a repudiation of the neo-conservative project, thus, in my view, emboldening global opposition to the American imperial project, I will probably begrudingly vote for Kerry on election day
sometimes, the belief on the left is that the election of the most right-wing candidate will create a polarization that creates an opportunity, a complete break with the past, that will ultimately push the future into a more positive direction
in this instance, I believe that Kerry's election is more likely to have this impact, as people are confronted with the contradictions between what he promised, what he does and our inability to get out of Iraq on terms favorable to the Likudniks within the Democratic Party
by contrast, Bush's election is likely to result in demoralization around the world, as it will be construed as the consolidation of the neo-conservative perspective
as Sam Smith has also said, we need a November 3rd Movement in this country, one dedicated to protesting the wrongheaded policies of the newly elected President, whomever he is, because both Bush and Kerry have many of them, and the challenge, in the absence of any real electoral avenues for change, is to bring pressure upon politicians through vibrant, imaginative, ongoing protest
one can no doubt view my approach as containing many contradictory seeds of thought, but the left, when it has been effective historically, has always sought to understand popular progressive sentiment globally, adapt to it and move forward
in this instance, many in the US and around the world have been very clear on what they want: the defeat of George W. Bush, and they are not going to understand the reasoning of those who fail to support Kerry, no matter how well thought out
similarly, many gays and lesbians support Kerry, not because he's great on their issues (he's not), but because he opens the door to them to even more successfully pursue their aspirations independent of the electoral process
I respect Ralph Nader a great deal, and find the character assassination perpetrated by the Democrats to be nauseating; it's unfortunate that he's not on the ballot in California, he should be, so that people can hear the essential things that he has to say about Iraq, Palestine and globalization
but, with that said, there are much greater things at stake in this election than Ralph Nader
yes, indeed, you are correct, although it leads me in an unpleasant direction
and, look at what it got Nader and the Greens, slandered as the cause of Al Gore's defeat, anyway
realistically, the Democratic Party is run by the corporate dominated Democratic Leadership Council and its neo-conservatives with a human face, as it has been for at least 15 years, and, fearful of any progressive alternative within or without the Democratic Party, they will always respond hysterically to any challenge
hence, as Sam Smith of the Progressive Review has noted, the DLC, and its attack dog members, like Joseph Lieberman and Richard Gephardt, trashed Howard Dean and his supporters as avidly as the Democrats have trashed Nader and the Greens
Dean wasn't much of a progressive, but they were terrified by the level of grassroots support that he was energizing, support that gave Dean an independent base of support beyond the DLC
accordingly, the faillure of the Greens to stand up, fight the slander of the Democrats, and run their own candidates strongly on the issues, regardless of the time and place, has doomed them
and, one can identify the crystalization of the absurdity of the Green approach: when Medea Benjamin was arrested unfurling an antiwar banner at the Democratic Convention during Heinz's speech after opposing Nader's candidacy at the Green convention in Milwaukee
sadly, for people on the left like myself, elections and political protest are now two separate tracks
because I know a lot of people whose lives will marginally improve if Kerry is elected, such as recipients of Section 8 certificates for housing and funding for education, for instance, and because, as Tariq Ali has said, Bush's defeat will necessarily be seen as a repudiation of the neo-conservative project, thus, in my view, emboldening global opposition to the American imperial project, I will probably begrudingly vote for Kerry on election day
sometimes, the belief on the left is that the election of the most right-wing candidate will create a polarization that creates an opportunity, a complete break with the past, that will ultimately push the future into a more positive direction
in this instance, I believe that Kerry's election is more likely to have this impact, as people are confronted with the contradictions between what he promised, what he does and our inability to get out of Iraq on terms favorable to the Likudniks within the Democratic Party
by contrast, Bush's election is likely to result in demoralization around the world, as it will be construed as the consolidation of the neo-conservative perspective
as Sam Smith has also said, we need a November 3rd Movement in this country, one dedicated to protesting the wrongheaded policies of the newly elected President, whomever he is, because both Bush and Kerry have many of them, and the challenge, in the absence of any real electoral avenues for change, is to bring pressure upon politicians through vibrant, imaginative, ongoing protest
one can no doubt view my approach as containing many contradictory seeds of thought, but the left, when it has been effective historically, has always sought to understand popular progressive sentiment globally, adapt to it and move forward
in this instance, many in the US and around the world have been very clear on what they want: the defeat of George W. Bush, and they are not going to understand the reasoning of those who fail to support Kerry, no matter how well thought out
similarly, many gays and lesbians support Kerry, not because he's great on their issues (he's not), but because he opens the door to them to even more successfully pursue their aspirations independent of the electoral process
I respect Ralph Nader a great deal, and find the character assassination perpetrated by the Democrats to be nauseating; it's unfortunate that he's not on the ballot in California, he should be, so that people can hear the essential things that he has to say about Iraq, Palestine and globalization
but, with that said, there are much greater things at stake in this election than Ralph Nader
wait a second, pat buchanan is not a lifelong consumer advocate and ralph nader is not a right wing ideologue.
but ralph nader did make statements on immigration that should offend anyone who supports immigrant rights except for certain south american communist exiles who will do or say anything to get over the next rhetorical obstacle.
nader and buchanan are both so hungry for power and attention that they will team up in order to get it.
that's not the green way, that's where the far left and far right become the same.
"in this instance, I believe that Kerry's election is more likely to have this impact, as people are confronted with the contradictions between what he promised, what he does and our inability to get out of Iraq on terms favorable to the Likudniks within the Democratic Party"
americans don't pay attention to history. that's why institution-building is useful: it establishes social memory.
that's why the greens matter more than nader does, and why i for one want to see it emerge as more than his personal, private vehicle.
if he were a responsible leader, he'd want that too. why should we rely on him to move things for us?
americans don't pay attention to history. that's why institution-building is useful: it establishes social memory.
that's why the greens matter more than nader does, and why i for one want to see it emerge as more than his personal, private vehicle.
if he were a responsible leader, he'd want that too. why should we rely on him to move things for us?
<<americans don't pay attention to history. that's why institution-building is useful: it establishes social memory.
that's why the greens matter more than nader does, and why i for one want to see it emerge as more than his personal, private vehicle.
if he were a responsible leader, he'd want that too. why should we rely on him to move things for us?>>
as much as I respect Nader for his accomplishments and his integrity, I agree with this criticism
the Greens, and the social movements associated with it, are more important than Nader, and the Greens should be focusing upon issues, activism and "institution building" without so much of an emphasis upon Nader
Nader has never really committed himself to the Greens, so the Greens should act pragmatically to secure their future, Nader or not
in fact, this should always true of any political movement, focus on the issues and the institution, not on the personalities
that's why the greens matter more than nader does, and why i for one want to see it emerge as more than his personal, private vehicle.
if he were a responsible leader, he'd want that too. why should we rely on him to move things for us?>>
as much as I respect Nader for his accomplishments and his integrity, I agree with this criticism
the Greens, and the social movements associated with it, are more important than Nader, and the Greens should be focusing upon issues, activism and "institution building" without so much of an emphasis upon Nader
Nader has never really committed himself to the Greens, so the Greens should act pragmatically to secure their future, Nader or not
in fact, this should always true of any political movement, focus on the issues and the institution, not on the personalities
indeed. i phoned camejo the day after the convention to ask him to reserve some time in his schedule to come down to san francisco in order to visit with us to explain his conduct towards the california delegation concerning the second round.
he began to argue the substance of the presidential race, and as i kept steering the conversation back to the request for a visit, he kept arguing the race.
he hung up on me when i finally said 'look, peter, i believe the future of the green party is not built on celebrity candidates.'
the green party is acting age appropriate with respect to the presidential race by nominating david cobb. despite the cult of aggrandizement surrounding nader's presidential bids, as in 2000, neither cobb nor nader will have a measurable impact on the race.
<<the green party is acting age appropriate with respect to the presidential race by nominating david cobb. despite the cult of aggrandizement surrounding nader's presidential bids, as in 2000, neither cobb nor nader will have a measurable impact on the race.>>
an excellent political insight
as much as I wish that there were a Green party willing to fight aggressively for its principles across the country, I have no doubt that Cobb represents the mainstream Green view about how to proceed in this election
by selecting Cobb, there is a chance that the Greens will evolve into a legitimate opposition if subsequent events create the opportunity to do so
with Nader, Green values would be subsumed to the charisma of the candidate
and, I agree, neither Green nor Cobb will have any impact on the race itself, DLC types froth at the mouth over Nader, not because he might cost Kerry the election, but, instead, because he might reinvigorate the moribund progressives within the Democratic Party
personally, it strikes me as unlikely, but then, DLC types have never been known for being close to grassroots sentiment
an excellent political insight
as much as I wish that there were a Green party willing to fight aggressively for its principles across the country, I have no doubt that Cobb represents the mainstream Green view about how to proceed in this election
by selecting Cobb, there is a chance that the Greens will evolve into a legitimate opposition if subsequent events create the opportunity to do so
with Nader, Green values would be subsumed to the charisma of the candidate
and, I agree, neither Green nor Cobb will have any impact on the race itself, DLC types froth at the mouth over Nader, not because he might cost Kerry the election, but, instead, because he might reinvigorate the moribund progressives within the Democratic Party
personally, it strikes me as unlikely, but then, DLC types have never been known for being close to grassroots sentiment
I couldn't disagree more with most of the comments above, and there are too many to get into and still maintain a life.
Myths are being put forth, strawmen, cognitive fallacies, etc.
For example, the idea that the Green Party is more important than Nader, the man. No one said either must sacrafice. We simply ask for a real democratic process - this did not happen at the convention, as outlined. That has nothing to do with 'Nader the man' being more important or less important than the Greens as a party. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they bound. This is called a strawman argument - setting up a false dichotomy.
Many more examples. The idea that the world will be in a state of depression if Bush wins - wrong. The world will explode in rage and calls for a new election amid the almost certain DRE debacle that will happen in states who have done nothing to protect themselves from the e-voting companies. Florida is one of them. More activists than EVER will be coming out of the wordwork to oppose this man. Better still - bombs will go off and we won't even *get* the chance to vote.
Sadly, we don't have crystal balls, so we cannot know the future. Thus, this is another argument we can throw out the window.
On and on and on.
Can't waste my time with this.
Myths are being put forth, strawmen, cognitive fallacies, etc.
For example, the idea that the Green Party is more important than Nader, the man. No one said either must sacrafice. We simply ask for a real democratic process - this did not happen at the convention, as outlined. That has nothing to do with 'Nader the man' being more important or less important than the Greens as a party. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they bound. This is called a strawman argument - setting up a false dichotomy.
Many more examples. The idea that the world will be in a state of depression if Bush wins - wrong. The world will explode in rage and calls for a new election amid the almost certain DRE debacle that will happen in states who have done nothing to protect themselves from the e-voting companies. Florida is one of them. More activists than EVER will be coming out of the wordwork to oppose this man. Better still - bombs will go off and we won't even *get* the chance to vote.
Sadly, we don't have crystal balls, so we cannot know the future. Thus, this is another argument we can throw out the window.
On and on and on.
Can't waste my time with this.
a party without principles aint a party at all. Ralphsputin just needs to get laid...quick! booyakasha!
...it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
to those who live by this, good job.
those who haven't done so well in the past, you can change.
abuse directed at potential allies is futile.
we have a common enemy. let's not forget that.
to those who live by this, good job.
those who haven't done so well in the past, you can change.
abuse directed at potential allies is futile.
we have a common enemy. let's not forget that.
all youse gotta do is break it down and the hardcore naderites retreat towards the shit like cockroaches.
whether its walking away from a conversation when the fallacy of nader's proposition is laid out or the level of acid virtiol, this fear of legitimate political dialogue is disconcerting.
there is no evidence that spoiling works to coerce concessions from the democrats and there are ample test cases.
why should the green party nominate someone who was not a party member?
why are naderites resorting to ad hominem and disrespectful discourse when confronted with these positions?
where was nader over the past 4 years on matters of the day--the stolen 2000 election, instant runoff voting, the war on iraq?
why did nader prefer to hide under a rock, was it because he knew his name was mud with the base of the green party?
why should greens soil themselves with nader's mud after all of this?
the basic rule of thumb around san francisco is that if carlos petroni is for it, its a safe bet that it will fail.
prediction:
1. prop f as in goes down in flames like prop c '01
2. lucrecia goes down in flames again
3. nader goes down in flames again
just like in march 2004, carlos petroni came in second to last in the race for green county council having spent $3000 and received matt's endorsement. you see, most greens who voted for matt are smart and know when matt's gone off. i'm sure they'll vote for christine linnenbach over gonzalez endorsed sean elsbernd.
Don't forget: why should the Green Party condone Nader's marriage of convenience with Buchananites?
Presuming of course, that Green values matter to our political alliances...
Naderites are dodging that one real good, too.
Presuming of course, that Green values matter to our political alliances...
Naderites are dodging that one real good, too.
and this is the difference between the greens and the reds.
greens want you to vote your conscience and work to make our candidates reflect your conscience.
reds want you to vote their conscience and blame you when you don't.
and as far as the french reference goes let's mix it with a reference to the bush economy and ask: would you like some fallujah fries with that?
You're toasty. Extra crisp.
never popped. I'm picking him out of my teeth.
Methinks that the lady doth protest too much. Carol Miller voted "yes" on the proposal that determined the allocation of delegates between the states, so if there was any "rigging" of the convention, she was in on it, too:
http://green.gpus.org/vote/voteresults.php?proposalId=55
BTW, this proposal was passed in November 2003, before any of the primaries and caucuses were held. There was no conspiracy by Cobb supporters to rig the balance of delegates in their favor.
http://green.gpus.org/vote/voteresults.php?proposalId=55
BTW, this proposal was passed in November 2003, before any of the primaries and caucuses were held. There was no conspiracy by Cobb supporters to rig the balance of delegates in their favor.
Camejo claiming there is a little revot going on is revolting.
During the primary Camejo plainly said, "if for some reason we end up running David Cobb, I will be there to help him in whatever way I can."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111630,00.html
Nader's choice of Camejo as VP has caused Camejo to abandon the Green Party and abandon his pledge to help Cobb.
That is not the basis for challenging the Green Party nomination on the California ballot.
Camejo is sounding more and more like a sore loser after the convention. For a man of Camejo's intelligence and background that is very sad to see.
During the primary Camejo plainly said, "if for some reason we end up running David Cobb, I will be there to help him in whatever way I can."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111630,00.html
Nader's choice of Camejo as VP has caused Camejo to abandon the Green Party and abandon his pledge to help Cobb.
That is not the basis for challenging the Green Party nomination on the California ballot.
Camejo is sounding more and more like a sore loser after the convention. For a man of Camejo's intelligence and background that is very sad to see.
This petition is nothing more than a declaration that the California State Green Party should not affiliate with other State Parties in a National Party.
That is the kiss of death for building an alternative national party.
If each state is free to nominate and run its own favorite son/daughter candidate, then there will be no National Green Party.
That is the kiss of death for building an alternative national party.
If each state is free to nominate and run its own favorite son/daughter candidate, then there will be no National Green Party.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$120.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network