Peace and Freedom Party's Presidential Candidates' Forum

Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are by far the most well known candidates in the Peace and Freedom party primary . One of them will probably win . But neither one will attend ?
Both are scheduled to speak at the Green event the following day . So what's up ?
I'm also curious what's up with Stewart Alexander . He's the Socialist party candidate for VICE president . So how can he run in the Peace and Freedom primary for President ? And to confuse things even further , Brian Moore, the Presidential candidate for the SP is running against his VP running mate in the PFP primary !

These silly contradictions with their primary are all too typical of the Peace and Freedom party . While i agree more with their program more than i do with the Greens , i have to stick to the Green Party . When have the Peace/freedom ever run for and won major city council seats as the Greens have in San Francisco ?When have they even tried to campaign in races where they actually might win ? Where are their offices located ? Do they even have offices ?
The Greens have a long ways to go when it comes to racial and ethnic diversity. But they sure have the PF beat . I have only seen stereotypical aging white hippies marching under the PF banner at marches . (Some of my best friends are ''aging white hippies '' but you cannot present yourself as a alternative if that's your core group )
i see Gloria La Riva is running in the PF primary . I do respect her a lot . But i suspect she and her party are only doing so to avoid the prohibitive process of obtaining ballot status for the Party of Liberation and Socialism . PF does have a African American named Stewart Alexander in their primary .But aside from what Mario wrote i understand he has ran as a Democrat and even as a Republican in past races ! I may be wrong but he sounds like someone that just wants to run for office , any office with any party .
I may sound too harsh but i just don't see much in PF . A lot of people are fed up with the Democrats but i don't see any significant move towards PF .
Something that might work is a fusion between the Greens and PF . A Green/Labor alliance .
That's something that activists from both parties might want to consider .

The Peace and Freedom party needs to take a hard look at itself . I withdrew my registeration after they refused to endorse Nader in 2004. (At a time when Democratic party operatives were smearing Nader as being in bed with Bush, the majority of Peace and Freedom party convnetion delegates thought he wasn't ''left '' enough )
Amy Allison, a dynamic African-American activist in Oakland , ran twice as a Green for City Council . Her progressive credentials are beyond reproach . She was a Gulf War Military resister and a strong supporter of the Labor movement . She mainly lost the race because Ron Dellums refused to endorse her, deciding to remain ''neutral ' in the race between her and a Corporate Democrat .
For reasons unexplained Peace and Freedom declined to endorse her .
Does Peace and Freedom have any strategic plan ? What are their short term and long term goals ? I hope someone will answer these serious questions . I do not want Peace and Freedom party to die of irrevelancy .

There are 60,000 people in California who have registered in a working class socialist party that is for the working people to have control of society for the working class. The party while smaller and weaker than the Greens is the only working class alterative and has been on the ballot for 40 years. It is also supporting the California Healthcare Security Plan which would eliminate the insurance industry in healthcare within California. I don't believe the Green leadership are serious about challenging the Democrats. They attacked Nader and really did not want any serious candidate to challenge the Democrats. Their candidates that have been elected like Ross Mirikarimi have ended up supporting raises for the police in San Francisco and in supporting the privatization of the UC extension in SF. So much for candidates who are challenging capitalism.
If you are interested in the CHSP it follows.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#circ
1300. (07-0055, Amdt. #1S)
Subject: Attorney General's Title and Summary of Initiative
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:26:02 -0800

1300. (07-0055, Amdt. #1S)
Health Care. Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 12/06/07 Circulation Deadline: 05/05/08 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: James R. Smith
Directs Legislature to establish a “California Health Security Plan”. Plan shall be free to all members and fully funded by “general revenue and sources” as directed by Legislature. Requires plan to pay for all medical, mental health, dental and vision care. Directs plan to provide equal care for all members. Makes all residents who have resided in state for ten months of previous year eligible for plan. Provides for some residents to be automatically enrolled. Requires privacy of medical records of members. Requires Legislature to establish an elected oversight board. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Net unknown costs to state and local government, potentially in the low tens of billions of dollars; these costs would be greater or lesser depending on actions taken by the Governor or Legislature in structuring the health coverage expansion program. (Initiative 07-0055.) (Full Text)
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i724_07-0055_Initiative_A1S.pdf

http://www.californiansforhealthsecurity.org/

The California Health Security Initiative

Text of the Proposed Initiative for the Nov. 4 2008 Ballot:


The California Health Security Plan

The State of California shall establish the California Health Security Plan, which shall meet the following requirements:

• All current residents of California shall be eligible to join the Plan, provided they have physically resided in the state for ten months of the previous year. In addition, the Plan shall automatically enroll and deliver membership cards to all California income tax filers who have California addresses and their dependents.


• Membership in the Plan shall require no premiums, copayments or deductibles. The Plan shall be fully funded by such general revenues and sources as the Legislature may enact.

• The Plan shall pay for the health care of members. "Health care" shall include all treatments, prescription drugs, devices, emergency care, preventive measures, rehabilitative care, longterm care, mental healthcare, dental care, vision care, women's healthcare, care for work-related injuries and other care classified as medically necessary by the California Health Security Board, as described below.

• The Plan shall implement the principle of equal care for all. The plan shall be evaluated by data on outreach, access, treatments, and outcomes; administration of the Plan shall be modified to achieve equal outreach, access, treatment, and outcome for all. Privacy of medical records and the right to have hard copies of medical records will be required of this healthcare security plan for the patients.

• The Legislature shall establish an elected Board of healthcare workers and Plan members composed of one board member from each Congressional district elected by the people in the same time, place and manner as the U.S. President. The Legislature shall appoint an initial Board within 60 days of certification of this initiative, and thereafter the Board shall be elected.

• The Board's classification of medically necessary care shall include at least 95 percent of all California spending on health care. The definition of such spending shall adhere to the definitions used to collect statistics on care, services, supplies, and public health activities by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or its successor agency. The Board shall be empowered to negotiate with
pharmaceutical corporations for lower prescription drug prices and for all goods and services for this plan. The Board shall make an annual report to the people of California on the state of their health security.

• The Legislature shall implement the major provisions of this Plan within one year, following the certification of its passage.

CHSInitiative [at] gmail.com

Questions & Answers:



Is there a conflict between the provisions of the California Health Security Plan and Senate Bill 840?

No. The CHSP puts the principles of equal care for all into the State constitution, while Senate Bill 840 is proposed legislation to enact the details that do not belong in the constitution. The bill has been amended often. In its current form a few provisions of SB 840, such as the possibility of copayments and deductibles at some future date, would have to be amended out of the bill.


Does the California Health Security Plan rely on the same financing sources as SB 840?

SB 840 does not specify financing. That job is left to a companion bill that has hardly begun its journey through the legislature.


Shoud I work for an initiative to pass the California Health Security Plan instead of working for SB 840?

There is no need to choose. We want the CHSP initiative on the Nov. 2008 ballot. Everyone acknowledges that SB 840 will not become law by itself so long as Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor, and his term runs through 2010. Putting the CHSP into our constitution will advance the single payer movement.



Does a person need to file an income tax return to get health care?

No! The California Health Security Plan includes everyone who shows he or she "physically resided in the state for ten months of the previous year." The income tax roll is simply used as a tool for automatic enrollment that gets the plan off to a great start.

the candidates most likely to do what? get elected President?
The issues however will be there.
The struggles will be there.
We will not obtain the goals we seek in a capitalist arrangement. The struggle is to build socialism. As you can see, without it labor is crushed and Earth is raped.
That people are conditioned to ignore issues and focus on personalities, races, the sport or war of elections, is a victory of the ruling class over us.
Elections now are a ruse to imply to those of us willing to lie down for The Owners, that we have a democracy, although only the ragged remnants remain.

re Alexander's advances into progressive politics. He used to be wrong-ish. Now he's right. He learned and changed. It can be done. While he is born Black, he is not born Republican or Democrat.
Re the Green vs a socialist party: Socialism is not capitalism. Socialism cannot be achieved using capitalism. Nothing silly about the contradiction; it regularly causes the destruction of socialist struggles .
That people won't move toward socialist struggle from submission to capitalism and the ruling class's joke on us, called elections is a good question. I'm sure you can find substantial awareness of the problem without my pointing it out to you.
Socialist struggle is fun, feels good, the opposite of the painful allowance of continuation of and support for the status quo.

Dwight Welch, Mary Alice Herbert and Eric Chester are NOT on the Peace & Freedom Party primary ballot. All are members of the Socialist Party USA and they have withdrawn their candidacies in favor of Brian Moore, the candidate of their party.

Gloria La Riva is the candidate of the Party for Liberation and Socialism.

The Peace & Freedom Party presidential preference primary is a "beauty contest." Like the Iowa caucuses of the Democratic and Republican parties, it will not decide the party's nominee or even elect delegates to the party convention. (Those will be elected in the June primary.) The decision will be made after deliberation and debate, not by which candidate has greater name recognition from the capitalist press.

Amy Allison, as fine a candidate as she is, could not take the necessary step to work for what she says she stood for, and was endowed by her followers as standing for: socialism. We cannot get the fine things demanded by 'progressive' candidates and constituencies in a capitalist system.

I think I remember that we did endorse her. I went to one and another rally/event which served her campaign.

Nader expressed his dislike of our platform at our convention. While people who support Democrats - and Republicans - usually have to accept the conflicts and disagreements with programs necessary to serve us all, we can at least stand for our principles, as laid down in our platform. http://peaceandfreedom.org/content/view/2/73/ ,
http://peaceandfreedom.org/component/option,com_search/Itemid,81/

Would someone please answer the questions posed by the first three people ? Stop ducking and evading like Capitalist politicans

Ralph Nader just endorsed Democrat John Edwards, demonstrating what he has always been, a pro-capitalist pressure candidate. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html
He says lots of good things but he is not a socialist.
Cynthia McKinney is also running on the Green Party ticket and so far appears to be the most likely presidential candidate for the Green Party. She is not a socialist and quotes Bobby Kennedy in her literature who did some good things but is also remembered as being Democratic counsel to Senator Joe McCarthy, the anti-Communist terrorist witchhunter of the 1950s. This can be seen in the famous movie of the Army-McCarthy hearings when Senator McCarthy crossed the line and attacked a member of the military. Cynthia McKinney is also a good candidate but is not a socialist.
A socialist party has to have a socialist candidate for president.

As to numbers, the biggest problem for all the small parties is the "lesser evil" stupidity of the regular voters. If you insist on voting for the evil Democrats, you will receive evil deeds and the smaller parties cannot grow. A candidate must receive your votes to win; it as plain and simple as that. The other problem is that it is very difficult to register the non-voters, who are mostly workingclass, as we all know. Rather than sniping, please give us a hand and register the workingclass of California to vote for Peace & Freedon Party candidates.

As to numbers, in the 2006 US Senate race against Diane Feinstein, Marsha Feinland, the P&F candidate, won 117,764 votes, far more than the P&F party registration of almost 60,000. There are 27 million adults in California, of whom perhaps 10 milion will vote in November. We need you to help us register 17 million people to vote, preferably Peace & Freedom Party. Then we can win all kinds of races from city countil to president.

125 YEARS OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IN GERMANY; SUPPORT HEALTH SECURITY ACT ON NOVEMBER BALLOT
As stated above, P&F is sponsoring the crucial, milestone Health Security Act on the November ballot so we can catch up to Germany which has had universal health care since 1883, 125 years ago. GET OUT OF BED, DEAR READERS OF THIS WEBSITE, AND HELP US FINALLY WIN SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IN CALIFORNIA SUPPORTED BY PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY, A SOCIALIST PARTY ON THE CALIFORNIA BALLOT.

I agree that a "Socialist party should have a Socialist candidate ''. But isn't the Socialist Party a anti-communist Cold War relic ? Didn't they back the Bay of Pigs invasion ? Didn't they support the CIA funded alliance of Islamists against the Soviets and the liberalizing nationalist Afghanis in the nineteen eighties ? Don't they call for the overthrow of the Cuban Government ?
There is a alternative . Vote for Gloria La Riva .

The accusations made by "unreconstructed Leninist" about the Socialist Party are entirely false. The Socialist Party is an explicitly anti-imperialist party as reflected in its Platform, Statement of Principles, and party statements. The Socialist Party has not taken a single one of those positions you falsely attribute to it. If you want to argue that PSL has a better program and organizational model for the working class, then make that argument and try to substantiate it. But please have enough integrity to stick to the facts.