Live from Milwaukee: support David Cobb and a safe state strategy?
Hi fellow Greens, I'm here in Milwaukee, in between the Presidential Candidate Forum and the CA Delegation Meeting and wanted to share this with you. I met Austin King and Louie Mercer from Madison, Wisconsin. Austin is a 23- year old Alderman, elected when he was 21 by running on raising the minimum wage. He beat his opponent 2-1 even though he was outspent by nearly 3-1. It didn't hurt that his opponent was 32 ("an old fogy"), not a Badger, and wanted to raise taxes on beer kegs! http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/council/District08/index.html Austin is one of several people I've met here who are genuinely concerned about Peter Camejo's decision to run with Ralph Nader on an Independent/Reform/Green/ Left ticket. Austin said that "Nader is the reason why I'm in politics," but believes that our choice of a candidate this weekend is ultimately a referendum on the party. Are we a political party or an advocacy group? Austin believes the answer is that we are a party, and for this reason should support Cobb as our candidate, and oppose a move to give Nader/Camejo our endorsement. There will be two ballots cast to select our nominee. I'd bet that most votes on the first ballot will go to Cobb or Nader/Camejo, but neither will get a majority. What happens on the second ballot is anyone's guess. Will those who voted NOTA or for other candidates pick Cobb or Nader? Austin is now working to form a bloc of voters who: * support David Cobb, NOTA or are uncommitted * want to defeat Bush in November * support a safe state strategy His proposal is that we coordinate our efforts and vote as a bloc, to whom we're bound on the first and for Cobb on the second. I'd like your thoughts and promise to pass them along to other delegates in attendance who aren't checking their email. I've posted some audio from tonight's presidential candidate forum. From top to bottom, you'll hear Salzman, Mesplay, Camejo and Cobb. http://www.testpattern.org/sanfrancisco Peace, Dan
At 01:42 AM 6/25/04 +0000, dan@testpattern.org wrote:
Are we a political party or an advocacy group?
For now, at least, i believe we have more in common with an advocacy group, or at least I hope so, If we are a political party, we will do only what is good for the party, and not what is good for the wider third party/open government movement of which we have been a part for many years. There is time to mature as a party. For now, there is so much wrong with the system that I consider it dangerous to refer to ourselves as a party right now. Seems too much like wanna be good ol boy networkers. And I like David Cobb, but he has no charisma, or a bemusedly interested media looking for an angle that we might be able to exploit. I still believe we should be paying more attention to impeaching Bush than running against him, and I hope that, even if the worst happens and "we are responsible once again for putting this maniac in the White House" (sic), his articles of impeachment will be ready before his reinauguration. Good luck in Brewtown, Don My humble o, Don "><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>" Organizing is Sorting in to smaller piles, Then dealing with them. Don Eichelberger Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse http://www.energy-net.org San Francisco Green Party http://www.sfgreenparty.org California State Green Party Issues Working Group Co-coordinator http://cagreens.org/giwg/ Green Community/GreenWorks project for sustainable small businesses http://www.sfgreenworks.org 2940 16th St., #309 San Francisco, CA 94103 phone 415-861-0592 done@energy-net.org done@greens.org
< If we are a political party, we will do only what is good for the party, and not what is good for the wider third party/open government movement of which we have been a part for many years.> - uh, i kinda thought everyone realized that we ARE a political party, as is suggested by our very name: green party. <There is time to mature as a party. For now, there is so much wrong with the system that I consider it dangerous to refer to ourselves as a party right now. > - again, too late for that. See above commentary. .<And I like David Cobb, but he has no charisma, > - and Ralph does? THe man can be a human sleeping pill. <I still believe we should be paying more attention to impeaching Bush than running against him, and I hope that, even if the worst happens and "we are responsible once again for putting this maniac in the White House" (sic), his articles of impeachment will be ready before his reinauguration.> - I totally agree that, in a sane society, bush would have been impeached by now, and that's what I would prefer to see. (I myself have signed every 'impeach bush' petition to come my way.) But since there is no guarantee of it happening, and if we do in fact wind up with four more with bush and the GP is blamed for it (which we will be, right or wrong), I feel it will be so damaging to the party that we may never recover. Its not that I'm against risk-taking, but consider the stakes here: its a very high risk venture (Nader/Camejo) with a very low (or no) return. Even potentially suicidal. Not even close to being worth it, in my view. When we have a much wider base of support (as in, Greens elected to some congressional seats, maybe a green governor or several mayors), THEN talk to me about all this effort and pain on presidential politics.
the convention. No one has demonstrated more courage and dedication to help the GP than Nader and, let's face it, you won't be able to build the party with a complete unkown and fringe candidate at the top of the ticket, his credentials as a nice person notwithstanding.
Carlos, Thanks. You've made some excellent points about why Ralph Nader is Public Citizen #1, and why he deserves our praise, and even our gratitude. Maybe you're right that Cobb won't be able to "build the party" as well as Nader, but at least it will be our party. And not Ralph's. Rest assured that whether Nader receives our endorsement, whether he is labeled a Green or Reform or Independent Party candidate matters diddly squat to the voters, and I imagine, most Naderites like you. Nader voters like their guy because of his message, and although they may associate him with the Green Party, don't really care what party he affiliates with. Why should we? I mean, he didn't even bother coming to Milwaukee. How much do we matter to him? Not enough, clearly. Don't get me wrong. Nader is one of my personal heroes. I'm sure there are people on this list who became Green because of Nader. I also know plenty of Republicans who voted for Nader in 2000, and who will vote for Kerry in 2004. Go figure. If you check out our party website, we have consistently claimed that Nader took more votes away from Bush than from Gore in Florida in 2000: --- Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadnt run in 2000. Vote your conscience and your hopes, not your fears! Democracy means joining the party of your choice, and voting for candidates who best represent your interests and ideals. http://www.gp.org/organize/spoiled.html --- Can Nader do the same again in 2004? If so, then please, by all means, run, Ralph, run. We need Bush out of the White House, and though Kerry may be nearly as corrupt, the differences are significant. Noam Chomsky "describes the choice facing US voters in November as 'the choice between two factions of the bu siness party'. But the Bush administration was so 'cruel an d savage', it was important to replace i t. He said: 'Kerry is sometimes descr ibed as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differenc es both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system o f imme nse power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.'" [Noam C homsky as quoted in the Guardian UK, Marc h 2 0, 2004] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,1 391 8,1174017,00.html I joined the Green Party in 1996 because I wanted to see a third p arty prosper on the local level, get its sea legs, and w ork up to higher office whil e fighting the good fight to change the regulations and the structure of our pol iti cal system, e.g. electoral reform. The San Francisco Green Party helpe d Matt Gonzale z win 47% of votes in a city where the party had only 3% of registered voters. We did so well by con vin cing many Democrats that Matt's ideas were better. And they are, and many Democrats are now able and willing to vote for good, qualified Gree ns on the local level because of our hard work. Ok, great, but we're a long w ay away f rom running a viable national campaign. Personally, I'm not ready to have a ca ndidate who has never registered with my party -- although he is a great, impo rtant m an -- serve as my Presidential Candidate after failing to up hold the promise he made to us in 2000, namely, to not campaign in swing states. I'm not blaming Nade r for Bush's manipulation of the med ia and the Supreme Court to take o ffi ce, but Nader did break his promise. And I don't like being lied to. Peter c laimed on Democracy Now just this week that the Nader/C ame jo campaign didn't need the Green Party for ballot access. Ok, prove it. And let us run our candidate -- David Cobb. Ralph , y ou had your chance. Thank you for your hardwork, we really appreciate it. Now tak e Peter with you and go run without our endorsement. And ta ke everyone with you who believes in your cam pai gn. I wi sh you we ll.
the convention. No one has demonstrated more courage and dedication to help the GP than Nader and, let's face it, you won't be able to build the party with a complete unkown and fringe candidate at the top of the ticket, his credentials as a nice person notwithstanding.
Carlos, Thanks. You've made some excellent points about why Ralph Nader is Public Citizen #1, and why he deserves our praise, and even our gratitude. Maybe you're right that Cobb won't be able to "build the party" as well as Nader, but at least it will be our party. And not Ralph's. Rest assured that whether Nader receives our endorsement, whether he is labeled a Green or Reform or Independent Party candidate matters diddly squat to the voters, and I imagine, most Naderites like you. Nader voters like their guy because of his message, and although they may associate him with the Green Party, don't really care what party he affiliates with. Why should we? I mean, he didn't even bother coming to Milwaukee. How much do we matter to him? Not enough, clearly. Don't get me wrong. Nader is one of my personal heroes. I'm sure there are people on this list who became Green because of Nader. I also know plenty of Republicans who voted for Nader in 2000, and who will vote for Kerry in 2004. Go figure. If you check out our party website, we have consistently claimed that Nader took more votes away from Bush than from Gore in Florida in 2000: --- Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadnt run in 2000. Vote your conscience and your hopes, not your fears! Democracy means joining the party of your choice, and voting for candidates who best represent your interests and ideals. http://www.gp.org/organize/spoiled.html --- Can Nader do the same again in 2004? If so, then please, by all means, run, Ralph, run. We need Bush out of the White House, and though Kerry may be nearly as corrupt, the differences are significant. Noam Chomsky "describes the choice facing US voters in November as 'the choice between two factions of the business party'. But the Bush administration was so 'cruel and savage', it was important to replace it. He said: 'Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.'" [Noam Chomsky as quoted in the Guardian UK, March 20, 2004] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html I joined the Green Party in 1996 because I wanted to see a third party prosper on the local level, get its sea legs, and work up to higher office while fighting the good fight to change the regulations and the structure of our political system, e.g. electoral reform. The San Francisco Green Party helped Matt Gonzalez win 47% of votes in a city where the party had only 3% of registered voters. We did so well by convincing many Democrats that Matt's ideas were better. And they are, and many Democrats are now able and willing to vote for good, qualified Greens on the local level because of our hard work. Ok, great, but we're a long way away from running a viable national campaign. Personally, I'm not ready to have a candidate who has never registered with my party -- although he is a great, important man -- serve as my Presidential Candidate after failing to uphold the promise he made to us in 2000, namely, to not campaign in swing states. I'm not blaming Nader for Bush's manipulation of the media and the Supreme Court to take office, but Nader did break his promise. And I don't like being lied to. Peter claimed on Democracy Now just this week that the Nader/Camejo campaign didn't need the Green Party for ballot access. Ok, prove it. And let us run our candidate -- David Cobb. Ralph, you had your chance. Thank you for your hardwork, we really appreciate it. Now take Peter with you and go run without our endorsement. And take everyone with you who believes in your campaign. I wish you well. Dan in Milwaukee
participants (3)
-
dan＠testpattern.org -
Don Eichelberger -
Patrick Villano