Greens find strength in local races but party is struggling nationally

[Freddie Stubbs]

BY LAURA KURTZMAN AND MARY ANNE OSTROM

Knight Ridder Newspapers


SAN JOSE, Calif. - (KRT) - After a dismal showing in the presidential contest, the Green Party finds itself out in the cold and likely to lose ballot access in a handful of states.

Its little-known candidate, Eureka, Calif., lawyer David Cobb, won barely one-10th the vote Ralph Nader captured as the party's nominee in 2000, meaning the party will not clear the vote threshold to stay on the ballot in some places. His decision to run in states where his campaign would not threaten the Democratic candidacy of John Kerry made his a token campaign that was further drained of energy by Nader's competing independent candidacy.

"No one ever likes their candidate not to get votes," said Jo Chamberlain, a national co-chair for the Greens who lives in Half Moon Bay, Calif., and stayed out of the party's intramural split over whether to nominate Nader or go with Cobb. "Let's be honest."

But even as the Greens struggle to remain relevant nationally, they are showing strength in local elections, particularly in liberal Northern California, where they have been able to position themselves to the left of moderate Democrats.

more: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10294646.htm

[eyesroll]

1. The Greens did the right thing this year

(with the caveat that, as a non-Green, my opinion means pretty well zilch)

The party chose an actual member, who sounded like an all-around decent person with good ideas, to be their candidate, instead of choosing a non-member with an ego the size of Montana.

Of course, Nader is going to blame the Greens' poor showing on the fact he wasn't the nominee, because it's all about him.

[Bono71]

2. I usually agree with the greens on some issues, but it seems

there is great potential to split the democratic party to the benefit of those who think science is "just plain dumb."

[el_gato]

3. do you always just make stuff up?

[Bono71]

4. Did a third party not hurt Al Gore in the 2000 election? What is

made-up about that?

[el_gato]

12. I'm referring to your post #2

which is obvious

Maybe you just don't want to talk about it.

[Bono71]

13. Need a little help...what was my post #2, and why the venom,

Catwoman?

[el_gato]

14. here

---------
there is great potential to split the democratic party to the benefit of those who think science is "just plain dumb."
---------

Who thinks science is just plain dumb? There are many people
who feel technology is leading humanity down the road towards
the ultimate dystopia, but I have not heard anybody say
science is "just plain dumb." I don't know where you got that
from. No venom, just curious. No need to take things personally.

[Bono71]

15. Oops gotcha : lame attepmt at humor on my part:

People who think science is just plain dumb:

Those who oppose stem cell research;
Those who oppose abortion;
those who thought the world was flat (couldn't you see Bush in the 15th century).

[el_gato]

16. thanks, I didn't catch that, I need more coffee

[Bono71]

19. No hay problema

[mike_c]

23. I'm a working scientist, with a Ph.D, a professor of zoology...

...and a member of the Green Party, USA. Why on earth do you think Greens regard science as "dumb?" That is one of the most uninformed remarks I've seen all day.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

5. Legitimacy of a third party...

... must come from the grassroots level. You cannot dictate the legitimacy of a party from a national pulpit. By getting locals elected to commissions, boards and state legislatures, the message of the movement is spread, along with real results that the Greens can lay claim to.

This article seems to point that out. Many "demand" legitimacy for Green candidates, but it has to be earned on the grassroots level.

[Bono71]

6. Agree with that

[Charles19]

7. Best thing is to start at local level

It is better for them to start at the local level and work their way up.

Also when people vote they may really want one person for president or senator but most people don't even know who the local people are. They can vote green there as a protest to the big parties and because the greens (in my opinion) have a good platform.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. I wonder how many Greens are actually elected as Greens

Aren't local election in California non-partisan? Taht would mean that voters may not be aware that they are voting for Green candidates. When voters are aware of party affiliation, such as for candidates for state legislatures and Congress, Green candidates don't seem to fare as well.

[Bono71]

11. From my own anecdotal experience, that may be true...

I tend to shy away from the greens (not because I disagree with what they say) but because I think the party is a threat (bomb away green lurkers) to the Democrats. Maybe that is a good thing in the sense that it might give the dems a swift kick in the ass so they'll actually fight for us, but in the long run, two progressive parties is not the way to go (in my humble opinion).

[mike_c]

24. Nope-- we vote for them BECAUSE they're Greens.

Our ballots list every candidate's party affiliation. Greens don't sneak into office in NorCal-- we elect them the old fashioned way!

[Catchawave]

9. The time to build is now....

not 6 months before a national election.

[Imperialism Inc.]

10. I'm sure they won't have a lot of problems getting

back on. This election was different and even the Green party recognized that. They'll get their ballot access back next time, just takes a few (thousabd) signatures.

[hippiechick]

21. aaahahahahaaaa...

'all it takes is a few thousand signatures' ...

... and then those signatures get reviewed and declared invalid for any of a number of bullshit reasons by the sitting elections boards because they represent one of the 2 major parties in power and are loathe to allow a third party on the ballot.


:hippie:

[bvar22]

17. Millions of GREENS held their noses,

and voted for a conservative Democratic Candidate in the last election. Most are sorry they wasted their vote.

http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html

[Bono71]

18. I wouldn't call Kerry conservative. Do you really belive that?

WOuld you call his stance on health care, abortion, stem cell research, gay rights (ok maybe a little there), taxes, and Kyoto conservative?

[bvar22]

20. Go to the link and see for yourself.

Pro War in Iraq
Expand the Military
More $ into the Defense Industry
Pro Patriot Act
Pro Isreali Settlements
Against Universal HealthCare
Pro NAFTA WTO IMF
Supported Deregulation of Telecoms
Supports AgriBusiness through CorpoWelfare
Supports the overthrow of democratically elected governments (anti-Chavez)
Against meaningful Election Reform

Yes. From a liberal perspective, Kerry was DLC conservative.

Check for yourself.

http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html

[Bono71]

26. I'd take issue with several of your points...

1) He is not pro-patriot act in its current form, though he may have voted for it in the immediate aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country. He is on record as stating it needs to be amended. I have no problem with this.

2) He has never stated the Chavez should be overthrown (by means other than constitutional ones), though he has stated his disdain for the Chavez administration.

3) Remind me again why deregulation of telecoms is a bad thing

4) Though Kerry is a free trader, he has also voiced support for fair trade agreements that take into account the environment and labor rights. Again, I have no problem with this.

5) War in Iraq...well Kerry was so all-over-the-place on this issue, I'll take your word for it (this was his weakest point).

[bvar22]

28. Please take issue.

I am glad Democrats ARE questioning policy and positions instead of just chanting "Anybody But bush*!"

1) You said, "He is not pro-patriot act in its current form,"

YES, I heard him say that.
What he didn't do was LIST the provisions he found objectionable, and specify how he would change them.

What he DIDN'T SAY was that the Patriot Act in and of itself was government encroachment on CIVIL RIGHTS specifically set forth in the Constitution, and that the Federal Government doesn't grant these rights to citizens, the Constitution grants these rights and specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from fucking with them.



2)Chavez and Venezuela
Kerry has aligned himself (and the Democratic Party) with those who oppose the Democratically elected president of Venezuela.

Those who support Chavez:
A very LARGE majority of the population in Venezuela.

Those who oppose Chavez:
The FTAA
Large American Corporations
The Wealthy white minority of Venezuela
George bush*
John Kerry



3)Remind you why deregulation of Telecoms is a bad thing:
WorldCom
Fraud
loss of transparency
predatory pricing
Ultimate consolidation into a few unregulated MegaCorps
Michael Powell


I wish John Kerry and the Democratic Party had taken a position on Media Consolidation which is the inbred cousin of the Telecommunications Act.




4)Free Trade
NAFTA,FTAA,WTO are Treaties, and as such, cannot be adjusted as Kerry said he would do in his campaign. Kerry said he would reward Corporations who heep jobs at home by giving them Corporate Welfare. This is forbidden by the current Trade Treaties.

DK and other liberalDemocrats voiced the only workable solution that would benefit the American Worker and Global Labor Class.
Withdraw from the trade treaties and forge NEW bi-lateral trade agreements based on Economic Justice, Environmental Protections, and Human Rights.



5)Pro-War
Not just the War in Iraq. Kerry stated he would EXPAND the Military and INCREASE FUNDING.



Edited to add:
I am NOT anti-Kerry or Anti-Democratic Party. I voted STRAIGHT Dem this year, and campaigned for Democrats. I was disappointed that the Party produced such a conservative candidate. I personally feel that Kerry is liberal at heart, but was forced to run on the Party Platform which was written by the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (DLC).

I am STRONGLY opposing the conservative voices (DLC) within the Party that are calling for the Party to become MORE conservative.

I am also disturbed that many are attempting to marginalize the GREEN PARTY by pointing out the poor performance this year.The Poor performance this year was due to MILLIONS of Greens voting for Kerry against their conscience. They won't be here in 2006, especially if the Democratic Party ignores them or ridicules their sacrifice of conscience by voting for the Democratic candidate.

I believe in the Democratic Party of Roosevelt and Wellstone (the Green Platform). There are other Democrats within the Party who are working to reform the Party. I am working with them. This is about issues, policy, and platform!

Join me!

http://www.pdamerica.org/

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/2004/11/002671.html

[0rganism]

29. "Remind me again why deregulation of telecoms is a bad thing"

Holy shit, man, if you haven't figured it out by now, how many elections are we going to have to lose before you do?

Deregulation --> Consolidated ownership

How many book publishers, newspapers, and magazines do you want Rupert Murdoch running, anyway?

[Bono71]

30. At some point, won't anti-trust kick in?

[0rganism]

31. anti-trust is a matter of REGULATION, get it?

How do we decide what an actionable trust is, anyway? Oh, that would be the job of the Regulatory laws. One of the primary functions of the recent telecom deRegulation was to relax media ownership limitations which previously could have been used to Regulate mergers and acquisitions within the industry.

[Bono71]

32. I'm not so sure about that...anti-trust laws (I believe) are separate

and apart from administrative regulations. Though I am an attorney, I am not an anti-trust attorney, so maybe some one will correct me.

[bvar22]

33. I'm not sure what mechanism ....

...activates anti-trust laws, and you've given me an avenue for research.

I DO know that the FCC under Michael Powell is trying to give even more ownership to fewer owners.
I know he will continue to do so until somebody actively works to stop him.

From a Bill Moyers commentary.

It's a similar story in television. No single company is supposed to control more than one television station per city, except in some big markets. But look at what's happened in Wilmington, North Carolina, where there are three network affiliate stations: Fox, NBC and ABC. This year, the Fox station changed hands. On paper, the new owner was Southeastern Media Holdings. But then Southeastern Media announced that Raycom Media would help manage the company. Raycom already owns the NBC station, so it combined the two news departments and laid off much of the staff.

But hold on to your hat. Raycom and Southeastern Media Holdings turn out to be part of the same company. Now there's not only one less independent news operation in Wilmington, there's also one less media company.

The flimflam-ery goes on. In 33 other cities, stations that are supposed to be competitors have found clever ways to undermine the existing rules, mergers and takeovers, for example. Remember when Viacom married CBS and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp ponied up for the television stations owned by Chris-Craft? Those deals put both conglomerates in violation of the rule that no one company can control stations that reach more than thirty five percent of the total audience. But so what? The FCC just rolled over, winked, and gave both conglomerates temporary waivers of the rule. A little time passed and this summer the FCC raised the limit to give the big guys what they wanted, anyway. But that giveaway brought protests from over two million citizens; they turned the FCC into a beseiged Bastille on the Potomac. Such indignation from the grass roots caused even the Senate to say, "Whoa, something's going on. People really care about this issue." And the Senate stopped the FCC in its tracks. There are enough votes to do the same in the House. But then General Electric, owner of NBC; News Corp, owner of Fox; Viacom, owner of CBS; and Walt Disney, owner of ABC, brought on the hired guns — the lobbyists — to wage a Trojan War on Congress. A passel of former insiders moved through the revolving door, rolodex in tow, trading their influence for cash — top aides of the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Whip and of John Ashcroft himself.

Now the most powerful Republican in Congress — Tom Delay, the House Majority Leader — won't let a vote happen. The effort to reverse the FCC is dead in the water, sinking the democratic process with it."

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers27.html

[0rganism]

40. If you mean the Sherman anti-trust laws, then yes it's separate

Specifically, the commerce laws are USC Title 19 and the FCC authority is established in USC Title 47. The problem we run into, and that necessitates a separate law for communications in the first place, is in thinking of transfer of ideas as equivalent to exchange of product. The only meaningful & applicable exchange of that sort in broadcasting is in the marketing of probable audience share to paying advertisers.

The point at which the Title 19 anti-trust laws would "kick in" is when it can be established that consolidation is having an effect on interstate trade, especially with respect to the prices of goods and services. Oligopoly is a-okay, as long as they are construed to be competing with one-another for ad money.

Now if that level of media consolidation is acceptible to you, then I can see why you asked to be reminded about why media deregulation is problematic. If you don't care whether Murdoch and GE eventually own 90% of the means of communication, then just sit back and reassure yourself that you have both Coke and Pepsi opinions from which to select.

The FCC's charter is a bit different. As much of what they oversee is access to publicly owned e-m spectrum, they are charged with preserving diversity in broadcasting for the public good, and their means of enforcement is licensing. Even now, in the face of previously-unseen levels of consolidation, the FCC pays lip service to an idealized egalitarian localism.

So I repeat my question: how much media can Murdoch own before you get concerned?

[mike_c]

25. and we're all wondering just HOW the democratic party...

...is going to express it's gratitude. Maybe NOT eject anti-war activists from the 2008 DNC? Maybe leave some progressive issues on the national platform.

Nah, probably not.

[davsand]

22. Greens siphon votes off Dems.

That is the logic a LOT of Dems use in deciding who to vote for.

Locally, we had Greens running in County Board races against both Dems and Repubs. Dems control that board with a small majority, and the loss of just three seats would have returned control of the county to the GOP.

Things like responsible bidder ordinances along with health insurance for county employees (and any protection for GLBT employees) would be gone in a heartbeat if that board shifts back to GOP control. Everything progressive about this county that has transpired since 2000 (when Dems got control) will be gone if too many votes get siphoned off of those Dems and the GOP picks up those seats.

While I understand the desire to gain a foothold for the local Green party, I also see it as pretty self indulgent to risk that much on what is, essentially, a poly sci experiment in real life.

My suggestion that Greens run in Dem primaries and THEN gain a foothold has been met with charges that I am trying to kill the Green party and obstructing ballot access for an entire party. Seems to me that it is much smarter to fight from inside in this case...

If you aren't working WITH me to keep progressive ideas advancing then you're not my buddy. I'll fight you the same exact way I do the GOP...


Laura

[mike_c]

27. dems siphon votes off Greens....

MANY Greens voted for John Kerry in this election.

The problem is that dems expect the greens to forever be the ones compromising their principles in order to keep the GOP monster out. When will we hear dems say "Vote for the GP candidate this year instead of the democrat-- we need a real progressive alternative in the White House?" But that's what the dems keep asking the Greens to do, year after year after year, without ponying up anything close to a progressive alternative themselves. If you want our vote for the long haul you've got to move the democratic party to the left. Period.

Sorry, I've compromised for years. I was a democrat/green long before the GPUSA came on the scene, and I've seen too many progressives sacrificed to keep lackluster dems on the campaign trail, both inside and outside the democratic party.

[davsand]

34. WHY is it so impossible to run in a DEM primary and move the party left?

I can't see where the Green party agenda is all that different than the progressive Dems' (And DO please correct me if I'm wrong about that!:)) Why is it so tough to consider running inside the Dem party primaries and moving the party left? That way, the Greens will gain some seats and form some very real alliances with progressive Dems.

Please, understand, I am NOT being snarky here--I seriously am wondering why it is preferable to jump thru the hoops of ballot access laws and all the fund raising hurdles if you could save a lot of energy by running as a PROGRESSIVE in the Dem party? Why not let some of us in the establishment HELP you get to what you seek?


Laura

[mike_c]

35. look at what happened to the progressive agenda during 2004....

All mention of anti-war positions removed from the platform, and anyone expressing anti-war sentiments ejected from the DNC. Fair trade striken from the platform. Real health care reform stricken from the platform. The list goes on.

Personally, I was a dem for thirty voting years, so I strongly supported the position that progressives should work within the party rather than abandon it. But time after time I've watched the national committee gut progressive issues from the party platform, and always with the implied excuse that they didn't really want to do it, but they had to. This will simply go on forever until progressives begin voting with their feet, IMO.

[davsand]

36. They will abandon it if you leave the job to the Dinos.

I am NOT thrilled with the DNC--and I make NO bones about it. What I am wondering, however, is WHY reinvent the wheel if you can simply move in and take over?

I have SEEN how well Greens here locally can organize--and I honestly think you will go further much faster by taking over the Dem party and moving it left. WHY NOT get a bunch of honest to gawd progressives on the platform committee rather than a bunch of GOP appeasing DINOs?

Laura

[mike_c]

38. they abandoned it already, despite MILLIONS of greens...

...answering the call to support John Kerry. No, the 2004 election showed me unambiguously how much support liberals can expect from the democratic party.

on edit: I've been at this for 30 years. Thirty years of liberal activism and I got John Kerry and a democratic party that was AFRAID to oppose an immoral and illegal war. I got a democratic party that REFUSES to put people's needs before corporate profits. The notion that the democratic party can be changed from within is a myth, IMO.

[IndianaGreen]

37. The 2004 election showed the need for a political party that represents

the interests of the working class against those of the capitalists. We need a party that will take an uncompromising stand against the war and the machinery of war, that opposes discrimination in all of its permutations, and that supports full rights of citizenship to all, including the right of same sex couples to marry.

An excellent article about the challenges that the Left faces in the aftermath of Bush's election is the following piece by fellow DUer and fellow comrade Martin Schraeder:

Weekly Worker 551 Thursday November 4 2004

View from the US left

Martin Schreader, editor of Appeal to Reason, paper of the revolutionary Debs faction of the Socialist Party US

Into the abyss

Until today, it remained something of a question whether or not the people of the United States would use the ballot as a means of demonstrating their desire to maintain nominally democratic norms. As it stands right now, the question has been answered ... in the negative. The combined power of the corporate media, the corporate parties (and their corporatised labour unions) and a contrived ‘culture of fear’ have turned the average American voter into a Pavlovian nightmare. The end result has been that the Bush regime, which came to power through a bloodless coup d’etat in 2000, has now been effectively legitimised through a large ‘vote of confidence’ by over 50 million Americans.

A plurality of Americans has, through their votes, chosen to approve the burial of the second republic in favour of imperialist empire. Their legitimising of the Bush regime and their support for the ‘culture war’ has irreversibly broken the continuity of American democracy. The process of Weimarisation is complete.

Certain wooden-headed elements of the left will, of course, continue to assert that little, if anything, new has happened as a result of this election. They will continue to see the old institutional facades in place and will impressionistically conclude that all talk of a new period in American history as delusional. They will note that the uniquely American brand of anti-democratic, anti-worker corporatism that has taken hold in Washington does not correspond to what they read in history books and vulgarly conclude that nothing has really changed. In this author’s view, these are little more than the echoes of the past and should be treated as such.

It is time for class-conscious working people, revolutionary socialists and communists to face forward and begin to come to grips with the new situation confronting us. Working class unity will have to take as its starting point the development of a common assessment of this situation and the revolutionary democratic tasks that inevitably flow from it. Left unity - if such a thing is still possible - will have to be its by-product.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/551/us%20left.htm

[flying_blind]

39. Approval Voting

http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200211/index.html

It may come as a surprise to many that there is a science of elections, whose provenance can be traced back to several important theorists, including: 1) the Marquis de Condorcet in 18th-century France; 2) Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) in 19th-century England; and 3) Kenneth Arrow in 20th-century America. Since Arrow published his seminal book, Social Choice and Individual Values, 51 years ago -- for which in large part he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1972 -- there have been thousands of articles and hundreds of books published on everything from the mathematical properties of voting systems to empirical tests of the propensity of different systems to elect centrist candidates.

The 2000 U.S. presidential election highlighted, among other things, the frailties of voting machines and the seeming arbitrariness of such venerable U.S. institutions as the Electoral College and the Supreme Court. Political commentary has focused on these aspects but given little attention to alternative voting systems, about which the science of elections has much to say.

Several alternative systems for electing a single winner have been shown to be far superior to plurality voting (PV), our current system. PV, which allows citizens to vote for only one candidate, suffers from a dismaying flaw. In any race with more than two candidates, PV may elect the candidate least acceptable to the majority of voters. This frequently happens in a three-way contest, when the majority splits its votes between two centrist candidates, allowing a more extreme candidate to win. PV also forces minor-party candidates into the role of spoilers, as we saw in 2000, which can be decisive in a close contest between the major-party candidates.

Of the alternatives to PV, I recommend approval voting (AV) on both practical and theoretical grounds. Proposed independently by several analysts in the l970s, AV is a voting procedure in which voters can vote for, or approve of, as many candidates as they wish in multicandidate elections -- that is, elections with more than two candidates. Each candidate approved of receives one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

[struggle4progress]

41. kick for acting locally

:kick: