Your prefered Green Parties' nominee for U.S. President
Submitted by JamBoi on Thu, 05/03/2007 - 2:55am.
Elaine Brown
4% (2 votes)
Kent Mesplay
2% (1 vote)
Kat Swift
0% (0 votes)
KCM Curry
2% (1 vote)
Pat LaMarche
21% (10 votes)
Rebecca Rotzler
2% (1 vote)
Cynthia McKinney
21% (10 votes)
Alan Augustson
9% (4 votes)
None of the Above (please add comment re: who you have in mind).
38% (18 votes)
Total votes: 47
you have in mind. Thanks!
Technorati Profile
We need to either run a serious candidate next year, or none. A serious candidate is eligible, available, and qualified to hold the office if elected. She's got an outstanding history of public service. Shows impeccable strategic, tactical, and ethical judgement. A law degree doesn't hurt. Name recognition doesn't hurt. Has experience running a large organization and dealing with a legislature. My second choice after Ralph Nader is still Anita Hill.
If we don't run a candidate we'll lose ballot access in many states. We worked too hard to get here and that would be a HUGE step back. If we get over 5% nationally then we'll qualify for future public financing!!! No, there's plenty of good candidates out there and we can't just sit on our hands this time round.
Technorati Profile
I agree with Cameron that we should not waste effort on campaigns which offer us little shot at winning anything. From lost ballot lines to internal conflict to plummeting vote totals on election day, the Cobb campaign delivered relatively few immediate benefits to my state of local. I assume that the same is true across the rest of the nation.
I would specifically prefer that it not be a lawyer. Lawyers are trained to hide, find the best way to say the least.
I believe that we should consider two things. Run a high profile nominee or a lower profile nominee with ties to a constituency, such as the President of SEIU, or consider allowing each state to decide whom to place on their ballot. That way, if Greens in PA believe that Nader can give them the "umph" they need to get the signatures to get on the ballot, how does that damage me? If we here in South Carolina want to run Ms. Brown, especially considering her proximity, the rest of the nation would be unaffected.
I know that many will say that this would dilute our power. We have no power. We must disabuse ourselves of that notion. It may confuse national media, but they don't cover us anyway! We would lose the chance to be in debates, but they won't let us in anyway.
Sorry, with the exceptions of Brown and McKinney, there are no names on the list that will bring us much more than Cobb did. Cindy Sheehan can get us on TV. Not so sure about Brown. McKinney, yes, of course. Nader? Yes.
LaMarche and Rotzler have both proven that they are successful campaigners. I could support LaMarche. But to be honest, as I said above, I don't see us getting anywhere close to important goals with such a campaign.
Unless a candidate comes forward who can increase or match 2000 vote totals and increase party registration and not be divisive within the party, I see no good reason to run a quixotic campaign. Especially with the limited resources available to us. We need to regroup and continue building locally where we do best, run credible campaigns and get folks elected who make a positive impression for the party by effecting positive changes through legislation or other means. That will grow the party and actually get something done.
I followed Pat LaMarche's gubernational campaign in Maine very closely from down here in good old Kentuck' and thought she was outstanding and represented the party extremely well; nevertheless, we need to focus on getting her elected to public office in Maine before we tout her as a presidential candidate. Based on her showing in that election, this is something that is well within our grasp, a goal worth pursuing and one that could most definitely pay future dividends for the national party as a whole.
Promoting fringe candidates for national office is a total waste of resources and won't achieve the goals an overwhelming majority of Greens wish to accomplish.
We should definitely try to surpass them, yes but I'd avoid an all or nothing approach. As I said above, we can not afford to not run a candidate because we'd lose ballot access in a number of states.
Technorati Profile
We should definitely try to surpass them, yes but I'd avoid an all or nothing approach. As I said above, we can not afford to not run a candidate because we'd lose ballot access in a number of states.
Technorati Profile
You need to read her book. Left Out in America
She combines activism with campaigning: sending messages to the voter that illustrate the REAL issues facing this country.
Go to Amazon, buy the book, draft Pat!
As I sit here starting my day, wearing my Cobb/LaMarche t-shirt from the last election,
I think if next time Pat's name was first on
the ticket.
YA! I have her book, "Left out in America"...wow...that will open your eyes. She is an amazing writer.
I live in Maine, it was wonderful to see her start the conversation on things like heathcare and good jobs last year in the governors race.
... Pat spent a number of nights at homeless shelters across the country. She left a very good and deep impression with many here in Detroit. I'd love to support her run for the Presidency. Has she expressed any interest or desire?
(laughing) I mean seriously...
David Cobb or anyone else adopting a safe states strategy. Certainly the Green Party candidate will not win in the Electoral College. We should avoid another damaging race getting blamed as spoiler.
Welcome to Green Commons, orvalosborne.
It's guaranteed that we will be labeled as spoilers, regardless what we do. Therefore, we should do what is best for the Green Party. After, of course, the simple little matter of deciding what exactly that is.
The 'spoiler' argument is the brainchild of those who already gave up on democracy.
Nader didn't defeat Gore; Gore defeated Gore. How anyone could command that much star power, and that much money, and still fail to carry his own home state, is unfathomable.
And Cobb didn't defeat Kerry; Kerry defeated himself. The American people were so thoroughly unimpressed with him, that they actually regarded Bush as the lesser evil.
We need to stop complaining about how unfair the process is -- we don't have that kind of time to waste. Get in there and fight.
Can't get into the debates? Then screw the debates; take our rebuttals to the media and the people. Can't get on the ballot? Then write it in.
My name takes eight seconds to write.
Take eight seconds to take your country back.
:08 in '08.
In Oklahoma, where I am, write-ins are not permitted. The only non-duopoly option is to leave it blank.
And Greens do not otherwise have ballot access here.
You are the first and only person I've heard support safe states this time around -- and I talk to the folks who supported it in '04 all the time. I said at the time it was a mistake (despite working for David Cobb's campaign), and pretty much everyone else has come around to that point of view.
how a successful campaign can be organized based on a safe states strategy. At the same time, I'm also not prepared to actively support a fringe candidate as I see nothing to be gained from this either. This is the reason I've consistently maintained that there would be no shame in passing in 08 if we can't produce a credible candidate the party can rally behind. By focusing on local races and actually laying the groundwork for a future presidential candidate, Greens should see their future fields of potential candidates swell.
It makes a big difference. Our presidential campaign is very important in bringing forward our values and issues and raising the profile of the Green Party. Creating new Green Parties in states where they don't exist and getting ballot access in states where we don't have it. All these things hang on our presidential race. Its very important! Its not an either/or choice between local & state v national its a both/and proposition. We need to grow up and become a mature party competing on all levels, complete with our own infrastructure to support our candidates.
Technorati Profile
So the rest is just wishful thinking. You can say safe states is a non-starter. I say any Green Party candidate for US President is a non-starter. We should not even mess with this race. We should try to get someone elected to the state Assembly. Anything else is just fooling ourselves. Get a soapbox and shout it out at Hyde Park. But don't alienate those most likely to join our cause with a quixotic, underfunded impossible campaign for which we are not equipped.
Cynthia McKinney spoke recently in Harlem NYC about her potential campaign. She says she wants to do "something" in 2008 and talks about the "Revolutionary Love" theme of such campaign. She has been and continues to work VERY CLOSELY with the Green Party.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2508693105235438933
Ah, the sweet scent of victory (*laughing*)...
;) --A²
(I take the issues very seriously... myself, somewhat less so...)
I think DKos adds an option "No friggin' clue!" to their polls. Not that that's a site I want to be emulating, but NFC is about where I am on this. My whole being is protesting having to deal with this so early.
So, I'm NOTA at this point, rather than pick one of the present choices -- not that there's anything wrong with them.
Having worked with Cindy Sheehan, I think she would be a great candidate (assuming she'd join the party). But I also think that, everything else being equal, a woman who has been committed to GPUS for a long time deserves the spot more than an "outsider."
And am I only talking about females as possibilities?
Why yes, I am. Why do you ask?
If the Green Party nominates a female or a person of color as their choice for President, I'll definitely respect and support that.
However, I sincerely hope that that person is smarter and better-qualified than myself. Sexism is not remedied by more sexism.
I didn't ask to be born with white skin and a Y chromosome -- and I can tell you, thus far they have not served me in the least in terms of privilege. I do not believe that I have 'less right to run' than any other.
Once again, though, lest anyone misinterpret my position, I will respect and fully support the GP's nominee.
Thank you -- A²
A: First, there was, nor is, nothing personal towards you in my comment. It certainly is your right to run, and good for you for the effort. But, it is hardly "sexism" to expect the party who has "feminism" as a core value to run a woman at the top of the ticket once in a damn while, and saying it is, is really not going to get you far in this campaign.
Furthermore, I could insert a very pointed remark here about your claim that your skin color and Y chromosome have never done you a bit of good, but I'll let the obvious take care of itself, and leave you to the mercy of other commenters. I'm sure there are Y carriers around here who know better and will clarify the matter for you...
Hello:
No, I didn't take your comment personally; I was only clarifying my personal position as it seemed an appropriate thing to do just then. But I thank you for caring enough to reply.
Again, I'm only running because I honestly felt I had to. I too believe that we're ready for a woman or a person of color to be President. And I'd *much* rather that President were pushing the Green agenda.
But there are momentous things going on, right now, in America and worldwide. And all our candidates need to be on the front lines, fighting the advance of American fascism.
I hope our minority candidates will take this as an encouragement, not a criticism, and remember my pledge of support once the Delegates have had their say.
Best Wishes.
This is an historic opportunity for the GP. Though the "fed up with the Democrats" waves ebb and flow, this one is tossing a lot of people out of the party and up onto the beach. Do they see that big Green Party tent?. Hmmmm.
I would say someone with a big name that lots of progressives already know and love - like Gore Vidal, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, or yes, Ralph - would do a lot to pull people over. Cynthia McKinney is, rightly or wrongly, seen as an off the wall nut case and I don't think she would help. I'm sure there are good solid Greens who deserve it, but this is not just a "deserve it" position if the GP is really serious about winning and not just sitting on the sidelines tossing out nice press releases (imho).
So, big name candidates to lead the ticket. Strong state candidates. And please please please - the Dems and Repubs have already started having their debates. If the GP waits until summer 2008 to nominate a candidate that will be idiotic. The GP needs to start fostering some high profile events with high profile people NOW to get the publicity that will show disaffected Dems and non-voters that there already is a third party and it's serious.
The next nominating convention must not be like the last one - terrible press and just looked plain silly. Time for an image remake starting with high profile events this summer.
I wish folks would use their names here but...
Who thinks Cynthia McKinney is a nut case? And why?
Having said that, I concede that our job of running a candidate for PoTUS is 'easier' if we have a known name. But the men you named as credible possibilities - all men, I might point out - are not Green. Gore Vidal, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Ralph Nader.
We need a Green or someone so committed to Green values that Greens feel a sense of integrity in their conversations with their friends, families and neighbors in this conversation we will be having. These men are all well in good for who and what they are but... every single one of them has serious drawbacks in speaking on behalf of Greens and Green values.
I'm not saying that I could not be convinced that one of these is a possibility, but none of them are even close to a first choice for me right now.
I would be curious to hear this stuff about McKinney being a nut case. The only folks I know personally who still believe that are not progressive or Green.
--
Lee (Green Buddhist) in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"The way we are, we are members of each other. All of us. Everything. The difference ain't in who is a member and who is not, but in who knows it and who don't." W.Berry
become a Green (a prereq for getting the Green Party nomination)??? I seriously doubt it. McKinney still hasn't and everyday she keeps us waiting makes me more and more convinced she can't put down the Dem $$$ needle.
Technorati Profile
Greens, I think Peter Camejo would make a great candidate and will campaign hard for our Green Party.
You mean the way he did in 2004? Collecting delegates and then asking us to endorse someone else?
I find NanGarrett's response interesting and maybe Elaine Brown may want to respond too.
I also find Nan's comment interesting. Well said, Nan!
but I find it at least a bit flippant to reply, without any analysis, as Lawyer Garrett has. She conveniently forgets to mention that Camejo won a HUGE majority of the CA Green vote in their primary, and won almost no delegates as a result. The anti-democratic inclinations of the Cobb campaign leadership left the results of the CA primary vote off the national party website for weeks after the CA primary. She also forgets to mention that the last Presidential campaign did absolutely nothing to build the party. Point to even ONE local or state chapter created and still standing as a result of his campaign and I'll admit my error and apologize here, but I doubt that Lawyer Garrett can point to one.
Let's not allow ourselves to be impressed by one-sentence off the cuff remarks. If those who write here can't take the time to put thought behind their posts then I am left to wonder if s/he should be trusted with party leadership. I can't help but wonder why those who "lead" state and local parties which have shown no progress under their leadership are considered leaders at all...and I do include myself in that group.
At least that's better then receiving the nomination and then calling for Greens to vote for Kerry. And by the way, he asked delegates to endorse a ticket he himself was on.
In point of fact, there is a long tradition of candidates asking their delegates to support another candidate in the race for the nomination.
I believe he said after his lackluster campaign and horrible showing last year in the California governor's race that he would never run for office again.
While I would not want to dissuade any Green from seeking our nomination, I feel compelled again to point out that thus far the Green Party has nominated for president:
An Old Male White Lawyer...twice
A Middle Aged Male White Lawyer
Now we are faced with the prospect of nominating another Lawyer (Brown, McKinney, perhaps others), another Man, or another White person. From my perspective, been there, done that. The Green Party should nominate a solid, well qualified female non-lawyer who can grow the party nationally and locally, or nominate "favorite daughters" who can carry the banner in those states where we must run a Presidential nominee to maintain or secure ballot status.
When one considers the success Rich Whitney had in the IL governor's race, it's not impossible to imagine that he, and others who are willing to duplicate the effort he and his supporters put forward, could win enough votes to secure ballot slots for us. Without identifiable and measurable goals like these, no presidential bid is likely to be worth the money and effort required to make it happen.
We need to get past running White Guys, and run a well qualified woman for president in 2008. Surely no Green would deny that such candidates are out there. We must identify them and try to persuade them that running for president with us will bring them closer to reaching their goals, and ours. Again, I suggest Cindy Sheehan. While she may not be qualified to be president, she is qualified to seek our nomination, as she can help us build state and local chapters, and perhaps even secure some ballot lines for us by winning enough votes in some states.
Since I am a member of the GPCA and can only share what I know about the women in the GPCA and we have a lot of women who could be great candidates and we need for them to step up and say "I WANNA RUN FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE."
I am going to mention only the women I know personally and do not mean to exclude anyone. So, for example, Jo Chamberlain, Laura Wells, Donna Warren, Beth Haines Moore, Nanette Pratini, Emily Dale who is in North Carolina, Sara Amir, Gayle Mclaughlin, Pat Gray, Karin Jennings who is in Maryland, Lorna Salzman from New York, Cecil Sorensen would be great reps for our Green Party and I am grateful for what these people have given to us.
Elaine Brown is not a lawyer. Yes, she has some law education, but is not a lawyer and you may as well call her a concert pianist as her education in that (from what I see on wikipedia and her homepage) is as broad as her law education. Could be wrong and would be interested in more information on that from someone who might know?
Also, on party leadership being called leaders despite any progress for their respective groups, amen brother. Talkin' the Green talk is not as important as walkin' the Green walk.
I'll concede that I can't confirm that Elaine Brown is a lawyer. If I am wrong, and I'll look into it, I owe her an apology and will reconsider her possible candidacy in that light. I know that I will not support running another lawyer with no prospects of growing the Green Party. If we're going to run an unknown, let's run a dish washer or mechanic or farmer or cashier. At least we would be able to lay claim to running a working stiff.
BTW, thanks Commoner, for this space. Glad you and the site are back. I have a few emails to catch up on, but visiting here came first.
according to her website, ElaineBrown.org. It says "Brown has attended Temple University, UCLA, Mills College and Southwestern University School of Law." and that "Brown is Executive Director of the Michael Lewis Legal Defense Committee, supporting the legal appeal of Lewis ("Little B"), who, arrested at the age of 13 for a murder he did not commit, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison (1997)." I, apparently mistakenly, took this to mean that she is a lawyer. In fact, her site makes no such claim.
I apologize for referencing her as "Lawyer Brown" when she is apparently not a lawyer.
Perhaps more importantly, as I referenced here earlier, her site no longer includes information about a possible run for Prez. My email message to her goes unanswered, but I assume she gets many emails every day. I do think she would have something to offer the party here in South Carolina were she to run.
Her intentions become much more obvious in this recent video of her speaking in Harlem, NYC. I think she intends to run. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2508693105235438933
If Bloomberg runs, all bets are off. It would make a GP candidacy irrelevant and invisible.
It would also be a travesty of the major order. If you think Corporate Power is being unduly influential on the duopoly, think what it would be the head of a major media corporation as President. I am proud of the fact that my daughter is out protesting the way that Bloomberg and his developer friends are utilizing eminent domain to raze whole neighborhood in Queens and Brooklyn and replace them with developer money manchines financed with public subsidies and winks at the law.
Here, she listens intently to former NY City Planning Commissioner, Ron Schiffman and here she introduces Council Member Letitia James.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
I'm not thrilled with any of the choices presented. My idea of a viable candidate is one who has been a long-standing member of the Green Party with a strong political career and good ideas. I don't care what the identity of that person is: I just would hope that he or she is a real progressive that can challenge the status quo. I don't know who that person could be, but it would be nice if it was a local Green politician who has worked him or herself up through the ranks so to speak and proven to be good leader.
Pat LaMarche is the closest to this description. Perhaps if she had more grassroots and netroots support she could establish a winning chance and voter base. It would be good if we had more Greens winning local and state elections. A Green governor, senator, representative or mayor would be a good start in my opinion! Let's show that we can lead on a smaller scale and work our way up! We should still compete for federal offices, of course.
On a related note, Ralph Nader was an independent who wasn't committed to the Green Party. Likewise, David Cobb was a weak candidate who was too divisive. No more Naders or Cobbs!