All of this, I predicted 8 years ago...

... perhaps not the specifics, but the general idea of the struggle the Greens would have once they attempted to grow. When you comprise or represent 5% of the population or less, it is easy to stay coherent and 100% true to a core set of beliefs and principles.

As soon as you try to grow much beyond that, it comes apart. You cannot find 30% of the population that will all agree to three basic principles, let alone five, seven or ten. When you grow to the size of a party that threatens to vie for a Presidency or control of congress, an amazing amount of compromise and negotiation is needed for platforms and positions. I always thought the Greens who argued with me about that were incredibly naiive.

The reality is, for a party to be able to craft a coalition of 30-40% of the population on the left in this country, and appeal to the independent centrists, it will find itself looking a lot like, <gasp> what the Democratic party looks like. You can call that party "The Democrats" or "The Greens" or "The Blues" or "The Turtles", but it will all end up in the same place.

by Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1634 comments) on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 2:05:34 PM
 

Which End of the Green Party is Frank?

It's always good when someone looks from outside the Green Party to tell us how messed up everything is. The only real question is the reason for such distinguished literary melodrama. There is nothing new in the lack of organization of the Green party and as an insider from NM since 1993 I will testify there is an unraveling momentum that remains within the Green political culture. One of the reasons lies in the repeated insistence to reinvent the wheel and try to make a political party something that it is not.

 But, back to Mr. Frank. What is his particular interest in the debate on resolutions currently before the NC? How has he defined himself in these matters as anything other than a gadfly? What does he know about Phil Huckleberry's work in Illinois or on the NC that he is so quick to try and appear as the advocate for radicals? For that matter what does he even know about John Murphy?

Lots of noise and a bad odor remains after Joshua is finished with his pronouncements. Once again Joshua prefers Monday morning quarterbacking to political engagement. If it was as easy as Josh seems to think it is, don't you think it would've been done before?

 I suggest Greens disregard Josh's provocations and do what is needed to be done in the Congressional and Presidential elections. If that means policy innovations that irritate liberals, so be it. What was the last thing they did to the Green Party? Think ABB.

by Martin Zehr (38 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments) on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 2:20:11 PM
 

OK, Let's say Joshua's motives are the worst possible

is what he writes true and correct? Seems like his links work and say what he says they say.

by Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1634 comments) on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 6:12:20 PM
 

More nonsense, or something more sinister?

In the '06 election Greens fielded 374 candidates in 38 states running for 66 types of office gaining 65 victories. Hardly a scenario as dire as Mr. Frank declares nor as stultifying as Steve gloats over.

I understand that Steve is a staunch democrat and sees Greens as a threat, I also see he lets his hopes outweigh his common sense but it is understandable as Greens do pull democrats a bit more than they do republicans, not as much more but still.....

Our system is a two party monopoly and Greens are slowly but steadily cracking that barrier. Noone said it would be easy or overnight, but I believe Mr. Frank to be motivated by less than truth, sorry but Ive read his stuff before.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 10:04:02 PM
 

Whatever my feelings are is irrelevant to what I wrote

I wrote something very simple.

1. Joshua, with whom I rarely agree, wrote an article that asserted X, Y, and Z events occurred.

2. Zola did not attack the facts of Joshua's article, she attacked his motives. Her tactic is a subtle form of argumentum ad hominem. That is a fairly classic strategy of people who are trying to deflect attention from the facts being discussed without addressing said facts directly.

3. Noting the tactic employed by Zola, I asked a simple question. OK, let's assume Joshua's motives are the worst possibly imaginable. Did X, Y and Z occur? Is his article correct and factual?

Now, you are coming on the scene and again addressing people's motives. I am going to continue to ask, did what Joshua describe actually occur? That is in what I am really interested. The rest is rhetoric and window dressing.

by Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1634 comments) on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 12:55:41 AM
 

And you are right, Greens are a threat to Democrats

because they enable the election of Republicans. You wrote:

"Greens fielded 374 candidates in 38 states running for 66 types of office gaining 65 victories"

Ignoring, for the moment, that winning 65 out of 374 races one chooses to contest is usually described as a catastrophe, who won the other 309 races? How many were won by Republicans? In those elections that Republicans won, was the margin of victory often smaller than the amount of votes garnered by the Green candidate?

That is the only thing that concerns me about the Greens. As I said, if the Greens grow beyond 10-15% of the population, they will start to turn into the Democratic Party. I am convinced of that, I have explained why and therefore, the fear you wish to impart upon me simply does not exist. I can expand on my rationale at any time if you wish to continue this conversation further.

by Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1634 comments) on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 1:07:04 AM
 

You make the same fatal error each and every time, Steve

Noone owns my vote, nor anyone elses either. If I choose to vote Green, which I damn well do because democrats are cowards and republicans are criminals then I would simply leave the box blank should the choice of Green be unavailable, as do many folks now. How this enables republicans is simply a mystery , and worse a grasping at silly straws in an effort to save what is simply unsalvable.

By the by, Steve, I do not believe that voting democrat, electing democrats or counting upon democrats is a sane way to approach our current political situation. You may believe as you please but you may not foist stupidities upon me...Please refrain from citing such silliness as it just makes you look foolish. Greens have as much right to run as does anyone, I have as much right to vote for them as for anyone or any party. This in no freaking way elects republicans, it simply brings crap like you spouted out of the woodwork. Sad, Steve, really truly sad, and desperate as well. I know you can do far, far better than this.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 8:56:33 PM
 

I noticed neither you, nor Zola responded to

"I am going to continue to ask, did what Joshua describe actually occur? That is in what I am really interested. The rest is rhetoric and window dressing."

by Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1634 comments) on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 8:13:50 AM
 

Pot meet kettle

I wasnt there ,Steve, thus I have no first hand knowledge of the events or the chronology. But imagine a political gathering in which differences of opinion arose...horrors, doom and gloom must follow.

Nader was NEVER a Green Party member, and those interested in building that party might certainly take umbrage at those members who voted for his independant candidacy, so what? How dare you note such when your own party is in tatters and cannot get a full majority on any single issue?

The building of a new party is a tedious and incremental  process and there will be ups and downs. I hate to burst your bubble laddy, but the Green Party aint going away, not as long as we do not have a real two party system any more. I would, were I you, spend more time trying to fix your own mess and less time gloating over imaginary bullshit. It makes you look far too petty.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 6:42:50 AM
 

addendum, just because

I noted Ralph Nader's appearance on the Bill Maher show and was once again floored by his absolute grasp and accuracy of definition of our current political problems and the way to resolve them. Not one single other political figure on the national horizon speaks with such clarity and accuracy, though Kucinich comes closest. Sadly Dennis is wedded to this corrupt and incompetent system as Nader is not.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 9:39:01 AM
 

Does this pass for journalism?

This article is  a poorly-researched, low-substance, sensationalist  hit-piece. There is so much venom, and just plain inaccuracy, I'm not sure where to start. 

On "Tearing Open of Old Wounds"

A single quote is given, by Delegate Murphy. No opinions or quotes are sought from others. "Insulting" and "Condemning" are pretty strong words, especially when they are not backed up with the actual language of the proposal.   Delegate Huckelberry was not "promoted" to the Steering Committee, he was elected to it by majority vote of the national delegates. 

The supposed opposition to Delegate Murphy's amendment is a falsehood.  Delegate Huckelberry was not the sole author of the proposal.  Democratic discussion was held off-line with all the authors of the proposal to determine changes in response to Delegate Murphy's objections.  For Delegate Huckelberry to act alone would be contrary to democratic principles.  To seek the opinions of the co-submittors was the essence of democracy. The language was changed, and the proposal passed by a large margin

Consensus decision-making is not some "bizarre" system.  It is used by many organizations, especially grassroots organizations, to make sure that dissenting opinions are heard.  The GPUS does not make decisions by consensus, it strives for consensus during discussion periods, and then conducts votes with various stated thresholds. 

Who uses the term "Demogreens?"  I have never seen it before this article, certainly not in Green Party discussions.

On "Green Party Turns Hard Right"

No comments are sought from either side on the assessment of the "Moving the Money to Main Street" proposal.  Given a Key Value of community-based economics, how can an effort to localize investment dollars be interpreted as "turning hard right?"  The proposal  merely called for a party-wide endorsement of Greens, where possible, in publicized group efforts to move their personal accounts to local banking institutions with a history of local investment.  There was no endorsement of  any person's financial theories or "philosophies."  The names mentioned in this article were stated as footnotes, and as noted in this article were removed.

The statements here about moving hard right or being "Demogreens" are ludicrous. If any group is to be a legitimate political party, its members must learn to work with members of other groups.  Greens in Utah work with Libertarians on  fighting media blackouts against third-parties, against give-aways to the nuclear power industry, for local energy production and local business, and against the abuses of power of the Bush administration. We disagree with them on other issues, such as  unrestricted capitalism. We work with Democrats and conservatives (under various party names) on finding points of agreement such as anti-war issues.  No party can exist in a vacuum, and must always seek points of commonality with other parties.

On "Nader Greens to the Rescue, Again"

I admire Ralph Nader very much. That being said, Ralph Nader has little or nothing to do with gaining ballot lines.  Gaining ballot lines is done by hard, local work, in many cases before any candidate is known.  It is done by party, not candidate.  We in Utah are laboriously gathering signatures to  gain ballot access, well before any candidate is known.  So are many other states, and there is active discussion within the party about how to assist state parties with draconian ballot access laws.

There are plenty of delegates (like me) who weren't around for the 2004 election cycle, and want to focus their attention on 2008, ballot access, and developing local candidates. Some delegates are involved in grassroots issues, such as local economy, water use and envionmental racism.  The Peace Action Committee is actively engaged in local and national actions against the Iraq War and a possible attack against Iran. As noted above ballot access activity is well under way, but each state has its own laws and challenges to maneuver. The presidential election only occurs every 4 years, and is a small part of what Greens are and should be doing. 

by Eileen McCabe (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 3:14:34 PM