What does "Being Green" mean to the mainstream media, to the Democratic and the Republican insiders?
The title of a CBS's Horserace blog entry last week was entitled"Not easy Being Green". The author used the phrase "Being Green" to discuss the challenges Barak Obama will feel in finding a running mate who vets well under public scrutiny, given all the ties to corporations and lobbyists.
Is there irony that the CBS article was "Presented by Exxon Mobil". Perhaps the title should have been "Not easy Finding Green When you Declare that You Will No Longer Take Corporate or lobbyist Money", as Obama declared early in the month.
While it's not easy "Being Green" it's really not easy being "Seriously Green." Ask a Green Party Presidential candidate, whose party allows no corporate funding whatsoever and whose party members are, by and large, working class people without spare dollars.
With little ground organization provided by the party, except in a few states like Illinois, Maryland, Maine, California, Minnesota, Texas and New York, all four of the Green Party Presidential candidates are working hard to collect enough to pay for trips to their potential constituents and to their Convention, let alone qualify for matching funds. None of them are close, at this point, to meeting the base requirements of raising $5000 from 22 different states, not even the lead candidate, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
Early last week, the Green Party's national leadership sent out a donation plea to party members on behalf of all the candidates. Being a party that espouses democratic values and egalitarianism, the party leadership could not ask directly for donations to go to the presumptive candidate, McKinney. However, Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, believes that the National Green Party leaders should have done just that so that at least one candidate could carry the Green flag with some kind of visibility into the final election period.
What will McKinney do if the funds are not raised? Will she raise or fold? If she folds, will one of the three remaining candidates, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay or Kat Swift, claim the responsibility for finishing the campaign or does Ralph Nader ride into the rescue? These questions are circulating amongst Greens as they also watch some notable Greens, chief amongst them being California Green Party co-counder and San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, accept Obama as a choice they can abide.
Oh no, it really isn't easy "Being Green," when one man's "Green" is another's black tea.
http://polidoc.blogspot.com
I am a documentary producer based in San Francisco, CA. My current project, "Seriously Green" watches the development of third parties during the course of the 2008 election cycle with an emphasis on the Green Party. You can find out more about our project at www.polidoc.org or read more articles at www.polidoc.blogspot.org.
It's seriously surprising that Greens went with a safe campaign in this election. I spoke with the Indiana Green Party and they are only doing a write-in campaign here.
It's sad. Nader at least attempted a 50-State campaign.
And McKinney? Why isn't she getting herself out there onto progressive talk shows, C-SPAN, etc.?
Obama must really be putting a dent in the party.
by
Kevin Gosztola (212 articles, 114 quicklinks, 70 diaries, 811 comments)
on Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 9:02:51 PM
As a Green, I will speak for myself, but neither Obama nor the Democrats are putting a dent into the Green Party.
The Republicans have become known for their vote jiggling and juggling, but Democrats have their own ways. The Democratic Party has raised the ballot access bar in so many states that running is becoming prohibitive for non-major candidates. As a Nader supporter Kevin, you will begin soon to see how the DP drags third party and independent candidates into court, challenges their petition signatures and drains campaign war chests of funds in side issues in order to preserve the 'integrity' of the Democratic vote. They seem to believe that they own all progressive and liberal votes.
There are other issues as well. We do not take corporate money, so, while we are not beholden to business interests, fund raising is slow. We do not hold our nominating convention until mid July- a mistake in my estimation, as that places us far behind the majors in public exposure of our candidate.
The Major parties have successfully limited third party and independent access to national Presidential debates ever since they ginned the League of Women Voters out of the job of presenting the debates. Hard to get needed exposure for votes when you are not in the debates and the MSM does not mention your candidacy.
We do not have a presence in all states. Believe it or not, some states, actually make the act of creation of a third party seriously difficult.
And of course, as within any party, there are internal issues.
But the bottom line is that the Green Party is growing. Here in Maine we have experienced a near doubling of registrations in 2006, from surveys done by the Secretary of States' office, from June to Nov of that year. And we have continued to grow since that time.
The two major parties have caused such hate and discontent among their own supporters that they are in jeopardy of breaking up. A major benefit to us. Time will tell.
by
Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments)
on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM
While growth and organization in other states has been good, particularly in Maine and Illinois, I am in California where there aren't enough organizers in the party and the few that exist take on too many jobs and burn out. CA Greens are working on that, but still, there's not a lot of visibility on our streets.
by
Babette Hogan (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 1:12:43 PM
The issue is not a choice to run a limited campaign, it's restrictive ballot access laws. Greens are limited to a write-in campaign in Indiana because state law requires third-party (not Democrat or Republican) candidates to turn in over 30,000 signatures just to put their name on the ballot. It's one of the most restrictive requirements in the country. If the Green Party were automatically allowed access to the ballot in every state, like the major party candidates are, we would definitely be running a 50-state campaign.
by
Brian Bittner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM
Ballot Access is definitely a problem. It is costly and unfair to third parties. I have underscored this in previous posts, so I hope you will look into that if you are interested in understanding this matter from my perspective.
However, it is about more than just ballot access. The cost of plane tickets, lodging, food, time away from their jobs, not to mention campaign material and staff, tax these candidates so that their efforts of devotion to the quest on behalf of their party (or themselves for the cynics) is great without a solid base of support.
For example, when candidate Jared Ball traveled throughout California and into San Francisco in December of 2007, local party members were overwhelmed with their own exhaustion from their local elections and favoritism for the two known names being drafted to run for Green Party President, McKinney and Nader, that Ball was neglected. His efforts and sacrifice were great, but unseen by members of the party. The same has occured for the other candidates, Kat Swift, Kent Mesplay, Jesse Johnson and even Cynthia McKinney who have put out a great deal of energy to have a room of just 15-40 people show up.
So, I agree that ballot access is an issue. It's just not the only one in the way of the Green Party.
by
Babette Hogan (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 12:53:08 AM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
