Time to turn in my Green card
I'm done.
As an ex-democrat I joined the Green Party with great expectations and felt I had finally found a party that I could believe in. The 10 Key Values of the Green Party and its platform convinced me to not only join, but reach out to other disaffected democrats to invite them to join as well.
But DAMN, Greens are every bit as loony as the democrats and run the party like children. How in the hell can anyone expect to take Greens seriously when they nominate candidates for president who haven't even said they want to be your presidential nominee? WTF is that about?
So Nader is on the ballot for president .. what if he says he doesn't want to run? How many times are Greens going to be played the fool by Nader?
Trying to build a party on Nader's celebrity tells me this is not the party I thought it was as there is no intelligence in such a course .. which explains why the Green Party is stcuk in mud and can't get out of its own way.
This political climate presents tremendous opportunities to expand the party .. that is, if there really was a serious party to expand.
Technorati Tags: 
Although I am not ready to leave the Party, and try to see, and work for, the better side of the Party, I share your sentiments regarding Saint Ralph.
On his "exploratory" site, the Green Party isn't mentioned...NOT ONCE!
I don't think it is a matter of Ralphie not wanting to run, I just feel that he is shooting for a Indy campaign. He will use the Greens for ballot access, and whatever he can get from them WITHOUT REGARD to the future of the Green Party. He is not a member, so he has no allegiance to the Party and may or may not benefit from the future success, or be stained by the failure of the Party.
Some have told me that we shouldn't "alienate" Ralph and his supporters...well...if he runs as a Green, we get him and his supporters...if he doesn't run PERIOD most of his true Green supporters will stay with us...if he runs an Indy campaign...we lose his supporters anyway.
With that said...Ralph...it's time to S#*t or get off the pot.
Well said indeed.
but don't expect me to follow you lemming-like to change parties. I don't find your arguments persuasive.
Perhaps you were unaware of how the state of California proceeds in these matters. As I understand it, anyone mentioned in the media as a potential candidate may have his or her name placed on the primary ballot. For example, the state party could have placed Lou Dobbs, Mumia Abu-Jamal, or Mike Gravel on the ballot as all of them have been mentioned at some time in some media as possible candidates. Heck, they elected to leave Elaine Brown on the ballot even after she left the party and denounced us on her home page.
So, I am not sure that you can lay that one at the feet of Nader.
I am fully behind Cynthia McKinney and her run for President as our nominee. I do think that adding "Uncommitted" to every state ballot might have brought a different result in CA. Nader has such high name recognition that anyone who might want to vote uncommitted might vote for Nader because they know he won't be an embarrassment. I would have preferred that CA's ballot be more restricted in some way, not to the exclusion of Nader, but to include only those who are actually seeking our nomination.
If Nader thinks an independent campaign will bring different results I believe he is dead wrong. If he believes that another Green Party run could bring different results, I believe there is a chance that he would be correct.
But what I do know beyond a doubt is this: If McKinney is our nominee for President, and Nader our candidate for Veep, we would be assured of securing enough votes to get federal dollars to build the party, and any negative feelings most Greens might have towards him would disappear.
I hope for such an outcome. Either way, I believe Cynthia McKinney is our best choice to build the party anew.
Please support Green Commons with a donation.
I have no argument with your sentiments, what I expressed were my own. I have no desire to change anyone's mind about being Green, nor how THEY should interpret politics.
But there are some clearly obvious truths about the inability of the Green Party to attract others to the party .. in the midst of what should be the most opportune time in recent history to do so.
Irrespective of what I don't know about California proceeds, what I do know about politics and common sense is that you don't vote, elect, or put someone on your ballot who has not even said he wants to be there. Stupid is stupid and different semantics don't change stupid.
It is unfortunate because there is great potential in the Greens. America has changed and is morphing towards all the principles, ideas, and beliefs that many Greens hold dear. The unfortunate part is that Greens have no idea, no clue how to take advantage of this movement.
We are standing in the midst of history.
While I support Green Party, I believe for the time being it will be hard for the Green Party to attract other party since the government does not fully support environmentalism. Just take a look at the fact that US does not sign the Kyoto Protocol meanwhile there are more than 170 countries sign it.
As usual we prefer the corrective action over preventive action.
----------------------------
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the United States in all immigration and naturalization matters http://www.e-us-visa.com
F.Y.I. I have been talking up Cynthia McKinney for months. I voted for Cynthia McKinney in the California Presidential Primary.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Green Party voters voted for Ralph Nader in the California Presidential Primary. So, am I supposed to say "I know better" than 64% of the voters? Should I say "to hell with democracy!" and pick up my little marbles and go home?
I do not understand this peculiar hostility some people have for Ralph Nader (e.g. such sarcasm as references to "Saint Ralph"), as if we don't get enough of that from the mainstream media. Compared to 90% of the crooks, hacks, and playboys in US politics, Ralph Nader *IS* a saint. The man has been "On the Case" for more than 40 years. He has forgotten more about what's broken in this system them most of us will ever know.
Let's get real here. The Green Party presidential nominee is not going to be the next President of the United States. It's good to have a prominent person at the top of the ticket to raise our issues in a national election campaign and help maintain statewide ballot access.
In the final analysis, the real work of party-building will take place at the state and local level. I notice Brother Richard is writing from the State of Georgia. I don't know since I am way over here in California, but has Georgia become such a workers paradise that Richard has nothing better to do than worry about presidential politics? Or maybe, since Sen. Barack Obama won big in Georgia, Richard is having second thoughts about leaving the Democrats and needs to rationalize slouching back to "Brotha" Barack -- advocate for the death penalty, increasing military budgets, a dubious health care plan, gasification of coal, and nuclear power -- because "Brotha" Barack makes us all "feel" so good with his big smile, his pretty wife, and all that speechifying about "change" and "hope."
As for myself, I intend to support the 2008 nominee of the Green Party whoever she or he may be. If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama and the Greens nominate Kat Swift, I will have no problem campaigning for Ms. Swift in South Central Los Angeles because I believe in the 10 Key Values of the California Green Party and I ain't never going back to the one corporate party with two names. Los Angeles is a One-Party Democratic town just like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. The big city Democratic Party Machines are not part of the solution. The big city Democratic Party Machines are part of the problem. The Los Angeles Dems are nothing but a nest of cronies, crooks, and incompetents, poisoning themselves and the rest of us in their own filth.
I am an African-American. As an African-American I am very happy Barack Obama is doing well. He’s bright and he’s a good guy. He’s brought a lot of new young voters into the process and that’s great. If we can turn those energetic new young voters into Greens that would be even better.
There is hardly a dime’s worth of substantive difference between Barack and Hillary; I have no confidence in the corrupt and incompetent Democratic Party; and at age 58 I am too old to get carried away with speeches, symbols, and candidates being "The First" whatever.
Alex Walker
Los Angeles Greens
Please don't take my comments as being against Cynthia McKinney for president.
I have a different perspective on "brotha" Obama then you do, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for McKinney in the general election. It does however mean that I won't vote for Nader. Two words for Nader .. self-serving .. or is that one word? :0)
Unless the Greens grow up .. those new voters are out of reach. The same out of reach that prevented them from becoming Greens in the first place.
...I hope you'll consider a couple of things.
First, it's the nature of "third" parties to sound like all things to all people. That is to say, folks with a wide variety of ideas think they've finally found Their People, and that once they join, The Revolution is imminent. Such is not the case, and never was, but people continue to think that way, out of stubborn optimism, or whatever. The reality of third parties is that we are democracy in action, and democray is messy and inefficient. Greens bring a variety of backgrounds, expepriences, and expectations. To practice democracy, we have to hash these differences out in agonizing detail, and try to find solutions we can all support. That means talking to people honestly and patiently... including about who we want to run for President.
Second, I'm not a Nader supporter, though I recognize he's done more for working Americans than any other individual in generations (Rachel Carson places a respectable second). The reason I can hold these two ideas in my head without it exploding is a lesson I've learned from Nader himself: power requires accountability. The sheer moral force Nader exerts is power, which could manifest itself on the political field, as it did gloriously in 2000. But he has avoided making himself accountable to grassroots Greens by joining the party and running for our nomination. I spell this all out because it sounds like it aligns with your analysis. Plain and simple, we need to keep people like you in the party, because... who else is going to fly this banner? Someone who comes along tomorrow, when there's one fewer people to back them up?
Third, to tie the first two together, you don't win an argument just because you end it. There are Greens you and I disagree with, but don't write the whole party off because of that. You won't find a place where no one disagrees with you, and even if you could, you'd quickly get bored. In short, this is still the best game in town, even if it doesn't look like it up close.
There's more that could be said, but this is quite a long comment already...
First, I must tell you that I'm not a political novice and I've been involved in politics and community almost all of my adult life. This isn't about looking for a perfect party, but looking for a political party that makes sense. Nader makes no sense, especially given that he hasn't even declared.
Irrespective of what Nader has done in the past, this election .. a historic and critical election .. is not about Nader. He does not bring credibility to the Green Party and we do ourselves no good by allowing him to toy with the party at will.
Is the Green Party a social club or a serious political party that seeks to be a strong voice for the values we all profess to believe? I we are dangled by celebrity then we are a social club and we will be percieved as a social club.
Greens have paid scant little attention to the mechanisms required to expand the party .. evidenced by the fact that the party has not expanded even in the midst of great upheaval within the major parties.
If the party is unable to recognize these simple truths, then how in the hell can we be an effective force in this country?
It's not only time for Nader to sxxt or get off the pot .. it's time for the Green Party as well.
I will consider your thoughts.
thanks
Three other people have posted, and I agree with all or part of every reply. I feel like I am in a family squabble. In reality I see this as a good thing.
Richard, again I agree with your sentiments regarding Nader, and in a later reply you gave me an idea for an article in my blog..."We are standing in the midst of history." I would like to say that you and people like you, are needed in the Party. Express your ideas, concerns, and opinions openly and honestly. At the end of the day, even if the "other side" wins, the Green Party is the best political organization in our Country. We work under a set of values that will bring Justice, Equality, and Peace.
Alex, I too have been talking up Cynthia McKinney for months, which makes the current situation even more troublesome for me.
My hostility and sarcasm would stop!...Right now!...If Nader would declare himself a candidate for nomination...or...step back, and put his name, supporters, and organization behind a declared candidate. In other words..."Ralph...it's time to S#*t or get off the pot."
IF Nader were to declare, get the support to win the nomination, and ACCEPT the nomination, then I would support him in the general election. I am, and will remain, a McKinney supporter, and will do everything I can to see she gets the nomination, but as Alex points out, we are a democracy.
I also agree that our focus should be at the local and state level. We MUST gain members and support at the local level to ever expect any impact at the state or national level.
I plan to run for office in 2008, and I can say it will be much easier, and I will be more successful at the county level, if I am not having to constantly defend the name at the "top of the ticket". We as a Party need a Presidential candidate who will devote their energies, and campaigns, to building and growing the Green Party, and leave personal aspirations and egos at the door.
I wholeheartedly support Gregg in his comment "...I believe Cynthia McKinney is our best choice to build the party anew."
In closing I will repeat, if Nader DECLARES, WINS, ACCEPTS, AND RUNS as a Green Party candidate, I will support him. I will speak in his support and defense, I will put out his signs, and hand out his buttons. But ONLY IF ALL of the conditions above are met. Otherwise I will have to wait and see what the Green Party does, and what Ralph does. Depending on the situation I will offer full out support, or a single lonely vote.
.. what Greens lack is the direction and will to become a serious political force for change.
Accepting the lessor of two evils is what the democrats do and part of the reason that I'm not a democrat. Accepting Nader is not what I'm going to do irrespective of what might be in the best interest of the party .. I thought this was supposed to be about what is in the best interests of America.
We are indeed standing in the midst of history and as American citizens, not subjects to the Crown, we'd all better get in where we fit in with regards to the history before us.
Cynthia McKinney would be the perfect candidate for Greens as the democrats argue over a woman and an African-American, Greens offer both at the same time.
However, my comments are not about Cynthia McKinney .. rather, I question the maturity and intelligence that is leading the Green Party today. I question if Greens are even capable of recognizing the harm Nader is doing to the perception of the party.
I respect and consider your thoughts sincerly.
Most of it is posted at my other blog site, California Greening.
I started out with the point that a campaign based primarily on an anti-corporat rant is not going to work. It did not work for John Edwared. It will not work for Nader. It will not help the party.
Then, when Nader announced that he had formed an exploratory committee, I was back at it.
Then, when Feb. 5 came around with its media focus on Obama / Clinton and our attention on the California Primary, I tried to develop a few lessons out of what happened.
I am also not sure what others expect from McKinney. I will offer the suggestion that her ongoing focus on 9/11 will maintain the enthusiasm for those already convinced but will not attact one more vote. Just as in the case with Nader, she needs to be going out with an optimistic message of Green Change, one that can challenge the rhetoric of Obama with the facts of real world living. Some would call that telling truth to power. I would call it good campaigning. I have not yet seen it, though those who have heard her speak in person are much more enthusiastic that i am.
Be that as it may, I would still vote for either, even though I think that most Greens are so wrapped up in the fading star power of Nader and McKinney that they have ignored the candidates who are articulating the messages we need. It is a triumph of the celebrity over the celebral.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
Dear Green Friends,
I rarely disagree with Wes Rolley on Green Party matters, but I must express my disagreement on this point.
In his comment Wes writes:
What "fading star power?" And when has being "cerebral" had anything to do with presidential campaigns?
Let's get real here. We are talking about a national campaign for the presidency of the United States. You can't beat somebody with nobody. With all due respect to the "minor candidates" for the nomination, the awful truth is that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Elaine Brown were the only candidates on the California ballot who could seriously wage a national campaign. We have other well-known members of the Green Party, including Peter Camejo, Wynona LaDuke, Matt Gonzalez, and Medea Benjamin, but for various reasons they will not run.
Kent Mesplay is a brilliant scientist in San Diego County, California. Unfortunately, (and again with all due respect), nobody outside a few party activists have ever heard of him even here in Los Angeles. The awful truth is that nobody in New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, or Montana is going to pay any attention to anything said by Kent Mesplay.
I've said it many times before and I'm saying it again. A Green activist like Dr. Kent Mesplay should not be running for president. That's ridiculous! He should be running for a partisan office as a Green in San Diego County, California -- and winning. He could use an issue like the Southern California wildfires and the gross irresponsibility and outright corruption of your greedy corporatist developer scum to get elected as a Green in San Diego.
In 2003, almost five long years ago, San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez came within a hairsbreath of being elected mayor of San Francisco. It was a very dramatic race with national attention. Since then, Matt hasn't done a damned thing. I don't know why, but I guess he has his reasons.
In 2000, Medea Benjamin was our Green Party candidate for U.S. Senator against the really, really, awful Diane Feinstein. Ever since, Medea has been busy running around the world and getting herself arrested with Code Pink. She should be the one running against Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco instead of Cindy Sheehan taking on another crushing burden, but I guess the nuts and bolts of organizing a serious campaign for a serious office is not as much "fun" as jumping up on television screaming "Stop The War" in the back of congressional hearing rooms and getting on "Tee-Vee" for 10 seconds.
* * *
I've been told there is an old Chinese proverb:
I can say all the Greens who have something going for them are fools, if I had as much going for me as those Greens, I would sensibly be running for partisan office in Los Angeles, and maybe I'd already be a fool.
I actually agree with much of what Richard as said about Greens not taking themselves seriously as a party. I have asked Greens in Los Angeles about campaigns for offices and all they care about is who is or is not running for the Los Angeles County Council. Nineteen percent of registered voters in California are "Decline to State," that is, they are independent voters who refuse to declare a political party. The Republican primary election was a "closed" primary. Only registered Republicans could vote. The Democratic primary election allowed independents to obtain and cast a Democratic ballot (oh, those Democrats are s-o-o-o liberal). On Super-Tuesday many independent voters were denied the right to do so. Furthermore, the early mail-in ballots for more than a hundred thousand Edwards and Kucinich voters were, in effect, thrown into the trash. If Sen. Barack Obama is kicked to the curb by the Democratic Party Establishment thanks to "Super-Delegate" status for Bush-enabling scum like Diane Feinstein, there will be hell to pay. Meanwhile, at the state level, we are facing yet another grueling budget process thanks to the gross incompetence of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled state legisalature. As Wes Rolley has pointed out many times, we have a very serious water crisis on top of our chronic environmental problems on account of California's uniquely delicate ecology.
California is ripe for revolution!
Unfortunately, The California Green Pary is forever bogged down in squabbling about who is or is not on some damned committee. California Greens have done nothing to appeal to the fast-growing Latino community (half the time our stuff isn't even translated into Spanish), and next to nothing to appeal to the huge numbers of African-Americans who will be enraged if Barack Obama gets kicked to the curb.
We Are Not A Fringe Protest Movement -- We Are a Political Party
The crux of the problem is the refusal to see ourselves as a political party. The Green Party is not a religious cult. We are not a fringe protest movement (like A.N.S.W.E.R. whose one and only activity is shouting "All Out!" for the next march). We are a bona fide political party with a historic mission.
Past time to start thinking like one.
... and I rarely disagree with you .. but celebrity doesn't mean anything if there is no real political party underneath. Nor does celebrity mean anything if that celebrity isn't taking about the issues that will attract Americans to the message.
In the case of Nader, his celebrity is a detriment because many see him as a self-serving con-man. I'm Green and I see him as a self-serving con-man.
Beyond the perception of Nader, there is no getting around the fact that putting someone on your ballot who has not clearly stated that they want to be there is the macinations of fools. There is no sane or rational explanation why ANY political party would do such a thing.
Greens suffer as a party because everyday Greens will not rise up, take control of the party, and demand that the leadership engage in the real mechanics of how to build a party. What is the point of even having a presidential candidate when the party that candidate represents operates like it's being run by children?
How many years does it take for Green leadership to recognize the tremendous opportunities that exist in the latino and African-American communities?
Are you sure Greens can pompously admonish democrats or republicans about how they ignore America's minorities? I don't think so.
Who is the highest ranking Green office holder? Any in Congress?
Libertarians have been more successful in getting their message out than Greens, even though Greens have a better message.
We can continue to ignore the problems that keep this party stuck in mud and we can all pretend that we really matter .. but ignore and pretend is not the course I wish to take in this incredible time of change in America.
I agree with you .. start thinking and acting like the intellectuals we claim to be.
You've nailed my own thoughts across the board Alex. California is a different planet compared to Kentucky but I've stated too many times to count on this board that political decentralization is a fantasy. Political unity to achieve economic decentralization is desirable.
The Green Party currently appears to be bogged down with too much internal bureaucracy to become a functional opposition party to the corporate parties. That is unfortunate; however, it's not a reason to quit as the corporate parties are not an acceptable alternative.
Kent Mesplay is an outstanding Green but it's a waste of time and resources pretending he would be a legitimate presidential candidate. It's McKinney or nothing on this end. She's the only candidate who has the name recognition and experience to possibly have the desired impact.
Otherwise, Greens should pass and focus on local elections in regions where the party is competitive. We shouldn't forget that there are outstanding Green candidates seeking local offices who could possibly stand to benefit greatly from a potential monetary windfall if the party passed on this presidential cycle.
Great picture Alex. Thanks for sharing.