On the Virginia Senate election
Please feel free to forward this message to any appropriate online forum. Do not re-forward this message after 22 November 2006. Thank you.

Friends,

Most of us have been following the election results from yesterday. I wish to thank all of the voters out there who bravely and unashamedly made their choice for true, positive change in our country by voting for Green candidates.

One race of note from yesterday is the election for U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia. In that race, with over 99% of the precincts reporting, Democrat Jim Webb currently holds a lead of about 7,000 votes over Republican incumbent George Allen. A candidate from the "Independent Greens of Virginia", Gail Parker, gained a bit over 26,000 votes out of over 2.3 million cast - about 1.1% of the total. Since that time, the Green Party of the United States has gotten emails and phone calls asking about, or expressing an opinion about, Ms. Parker. The media has added to this association; for example, James Carville last night on CNN, said, "If the Green hadn't been running, the Democrat would have won easily."

However, the "Independent Greens of Virginia" are a separate entity from the Green Party as it is known to the majority of voters. They are a conservative group which does not share the values of the Green Party of the United States, and their platform seems to be focused almost entirely on railroad expansion in northern Virginia, at the expense of other issues of equal or greater importance to Greens and other Virginians. Our affiliate in Virginia is the Green Party of Virginia <http://www.vagreenparty.org>, not the "Independent Greens" or "IGVA" <http://www.votejoinrun.us>.

Unlike the major parties, particularly the Democratic Party, we respect the right of any party or citizen to run for any office for which they are qualified, and to have votes for that campaign tallied fairly. And as Greens, we prefer to run on the merits of our ideas, and leave it to our affiliated state and local parties to determine the best specific ways in which to do so. Sadly, however, major media outlets and the major parties themselves perpetuate a content-free, "horse race" mentality between candidates who often have few distinguishing differences save the color used for them in television news graphics. (This Senate contest, between a conservative Republican and a former Republican, is an illustrative example.)

Rather than blaming people or parties for exercising their democratic rights in challenging this duopoly, Democrats and others should give serious consideration to a long overdue reform of the electoral system. Alternatives such as ranked choice voting (where voters rank their choices in order, 1-2-3 style) and proportional representation (where legislatures are populated based on the proportion of the vote received) empower voters, ensure broadly supported candidates, make governments look more like the people they represent, and do away with the so-called "spoiler factor". Fairvote, the Center for Voting and Democracy, illustrates many of these choices at <http://fairvote.org>.

The Green Party will continue to stand for peace, justice, democracy, and our precious environment in future elections. We invite all voters to visit us at www.gp.org, and read about, support, contribute to, and vote for our candidates. A Greener world is possible - and we can do it with your help!

Sincerely,

Steve Kramer
Co-Chair
Green Party of the United States

(13 Comments |Comment on this)

The "numbers" of Tony Snow
Recently, a friend was lamenting the words of Tony Snow, the propagandist currently employed by the White House as Press Secretary. (One of the advantages of being Green is that we may, and do, speak the truth...one can scarcely use another word to describe Snow after examining his record as a Fox News Network flack or any of his previous occupations.) He was questioned as to how the President felt about the fact that, now, 2500 U.S. troops have been killed in the war in Iraq. His reply began, "It's a number," and continued that the press "wants something" every time a multiple of 500 was reached.

The vicious callousness of such a statement drove my friend to despair. In a way, I'm almost relieved that it did. Every day, it seems that this Administration sinks further into the depths of what would formerly have been considered unreasonable for civilized people, much less governments; we are so inured to their atrocious actions that we have become numb, and our justifiable outrage is muted. Historically, similarly outrageous regimes have used this human response as a tactic to justify that which cannot be justified, even to the point of inhumanity.

In any case, my friend asked if, indeed, others saw this as wrong as she did. My reply was thus, and I wanted to share it because I feel that this is one of those illustrations that supports our efforts as we try to turn this global Green movement into electoral success in the United States:

Entirely. But there's a grander theme behind this: as long as elites continue to be isolated from those they govern (by their own preferences), and conduct themselves with imperial pretensions, as I believe the Bush administration has (by no means singularly in American or world history), they can continue to justify war as a means of foreign policy. They treat the rest of us as "numbers", in other words, because they feel they are entitled to.

It is this, more than anything else, that must be remembered when walking into a voting booth, circulating a petition, or exercising the admittedly small but still quite important amount of power we have as citizens.

(Comment on this)

Statement on impeachment of the Steering Committee
Some of you may be aware of the impeachment proceedings which a small group of Greens has pursued against the Steering Committee. These proceedings have come to their final vote this weekend. To my supreme disappointment, I've found myself in a quasi-judicial role for the entire time.

As the vote concludes today, I have waited until this time to give my personal view of the whole matter. I wanted to publish it here because I feel that "sunshine" is best at all levels of the Green Party. No matter how painful, you deserve to know my thoughts and actions as a Green leader.

I hope that you'll agree with me that our goal should be to fair and decisive with regards to our internal proceedings, and progress from there without recrimination to the business at hand: getting Greens elected and getting this country back on the track it deserves to follow.

Steve

( text of the statementCollapse )

(Comment on this)

Berg for Congress, and more on the "Populists"
Michael Berg recently addressed the meeting of the Green Party of Chester County, Pennsylvania; if you haven't caught up with Michael yet, do so here. He's running for the Congressional seat of his new home in Delaware. Michael has a much more personal perspective on the war in Iraq and the lies which the Bush administration perpetrated in order to pursue it - you see, Michael's son was Nick Berg, who was gruesomely beheaded by Iraqi captors. It is a testament to Michael how he has turned his grief at his son's death into action for the betterment of all. I would encourage all Americans, and particularly all residents of the great state of Delaware, to read and to listen to what Michael has to say, and make sure to vote for him in November.

( By contrast...Collapse )

More on this story as it develops, I would imagine.

In the meantime, I would encourage Greens and all others to donate generously to the Michael Berg campaign for Congress in Delaware. We can make it happen!

(5 Comments |Comment on this)

Populist Party moves into Pennsylvania
Interesting news today from Pennsylvania, as the Populist Party of Maryland has opened a branch in that state. John Murphy, who did not receive the nomination from Pennsylvania Greens for his candidacy for Congress in the 16th District, has as a consequence left the Greens to become the marquee candidate for the new party.

Equally interesting is that Peter Camejo, a Green candidate for Governor in California, and his group, "Greens for Democracy and Independence", have become the first to endorse Murphy's candidacy.

This appears to be part of a continued new direction for GDI. In addition to Murphy, a prominent GDI member who joined several state Green lists following the convention in Milwaukee (and just as promptly was expelled from them for behavioral reasons) bolting the party, GDI organizer Steve Greenfield has left the Greens to run as a Democrat against Hillary Clinton in the New York Senate race. And recently, Camejo's runningmate, Donna Warren, circulated a fundraising appeal which included Democrats (and excluded some Greens).

No statement yet from GDI how this satisfies their goal of "independence" for the Green Party.

(14 Comments |Comment on this)

More on Israeli divestment
Recently, there's been some traffic arriving in the leadership's mailboxes about our Proposal 190, which calls for divestment from Israel due to their repeated violations of the human rights of Palestinians. It's safe to say that we've hit a nerve concerning this, and if ever I might have wondered about the reason why politicians refuse to handle this issue - not that I'm particularly that naive - I wonder no longer.

The Party is not taking a stance which is particularly radical or representative of a new direction with regard to Middle Eastern issues. It's no more radical than the stance of, say, the Church of England or a number of other churches, which, unlike the Green Party, had actual assets in companies doing business in Israel. It's in line with other actions we have taken against other countries, such as China for its treatment of the people of Tibet, and South Africa for its apartheid policies. And it's not out of line with earlier pronouncements for peace that the Party has made, including the categorical denouncement of the dangerous and provocative saber-rattling and hate speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nowhere have we said that are in favor of the destruction of Israel; nowhere have we taken any stance at all on Zionism; nowhere have we wished anything but peace through non-violence for the region and all in it.

However, that's not precisely what one would figure from the (relatively small) amount of press and direct contact we've received. In fact, individuals and groups from around the country and the world have taken it upon themselves to "set the record straight" - despite having no background in the Green Party or any of our stances, and being somewhat loose with the truth and heavy on the vitriol in the process.

One has been Lorna Salzman, a Green candidate for President in 2004 (as a surrogate for Ralph Nader, interestingly) who was actually hissed from the podium at the Green National Convention. Her reaction has been a study in half-truths, untruths, and hate: she and others singled out our International Committee for wrongdoing (it was the National Committee which adopted the resolution), and have accused the Greens of being dues-paying members of the American Muslim Association (we're not). Not deterred, she then accused the Greens of supporting "Arab scum", and approached David Horowitz's extreme right-wing Web site FrontPageMag - a sort of Weekly World News for undereducated reactionaries - and became, not surprisingly, the sole Green interviewed in an "exposé" of the Greens that was remarkably devoid of fact.

Another has been Gary Acheatel, an Oregon Green who began bombarding the National Committee and other Green leaders with various pronouncements claiming how wrong we were in doing what we did. One of Acheatel's contacts came in the form of an emailed "professional memo" which included statements such as the following:

Non-Violence: Israel takes countless measures to defend itself without the use of violence. If it deems violence necessary for self-defense, it carries out its actions with minimal civilian casualties in difficult environments....

I have no wish to discuss anything with anyone who could make the foregoing statement and believe it to be truthful.

Outrageous statements aside, there was a general bit of confusion over one thing: who was Gary Acheatel? How could he be so misinformed about not only about the issue, but the Party itself and what we stood for? Why is it that we hadn't heard of him before? Well, with a bit of digging, we found the answer to those questions. It is somewhat gratifying to realize that we are now powerful enough to be infiltrated.

This is not to say that we have not had some reasoned and principled dissent on this matter. It's an extremely difficult issue, and not one that we have undertaken lightly. Israel's history and self-identification as the Jewish state, not to mention the opposition to the state by terrorist organizations, and some fairly one-sided press coverage, have caused many to view our resolution as provocative. But it's one of many provocative stances we take in the name of principle. Sooner or later, we must view the state of Israel with the same eye that we regard the actions of other nation-states. It is those actions, no more and no less, that we consider in such a resolution.

As for Salzman, Acheatel, and others who have agitated against, it's been my experience in politics that the more violent the words, the weaker the cause. One must raise one's voice to be heard, but must be silent to listen - and these are voices which have long since ceased to listen to reason.

(Comment on this)

Lots to talk about
Friends,

Things have been kicking into a different gear around the Green Party of late. It's an election year, and there are multiple things to address, both in the larger political arena and right in our own backyard. So expect to see multiple updates to this blog - yes, I know, pretty rare, but such are the times we find ourselves in.

I want to take care of the hearts of my fellow Greens, because that's where it all begins. Gregg Jocoy, who styles himself "the Green Rush Limbaugh" (though it's not much to say that he's much, much more intelligent), has had to take a break from his blog, Green News and Opinion, due to a number of difficulties, including an auto accident. I've posted to Gregg's blog multiple times; it's a marvelous service for the Green community.

Owen Broadhurst, a member of the National Committee from Massachusetts, has been forced to resign from that body due to personal issues, including multiple deaths in his family - though astonishingly, and to his credit, he is continuing with a planned run for local office in Agawam, Massachusetts. These are two remarkable Greens, and our thoughts and prayers are with them.

(1 Comment |Comment on this)

What conservatism is, and isn't
A friend recently posted a link to a blog entry by a self-described conservative, Glenn Greenwald, on how "conservative" has been re-defined by neo-cons as "loyalty to George Bush"...or perhaps it's more accurate to say that the now-long-time Republican curse word of "liberal" has been re-defined as those who do not have the religion of Bush-worship. (And that analogy, btw, is depressingly apt...do read the section of the article where Greenwald discusses a colleague who talked to Bush supporters, and how they felt he was, quite literally, sent by God.)

A comment was made to this that "big government" has been a hallmark of Republican administrations for quite some time now, so one wonders why there's such a hue and cry being made about it being "not conservative" now - and that's quite the case. The Presidents who have presided over the largest U.S. governments in history in terms of expenditure have been Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, in reverse order - and guess where all that money went?

I kept going on that theme, however, because I don't think the discrepancies necessarily ended there:

( more on conservativesCollapse )

This leads to another point, one that I didn't make when I posted this comment. I do feel that there's a sea change in world politics coming - and I'm concerned about where the Greens may be in that new order.

My feeling is that Greenwald has identified the leading edge of what is a split between the rational and the fundamentalist: those who use logic, science, and reason as opposed to those who use faith and absolute pronouncements.

Already, we're seeing the very beginnings of similarities between the fundamentalist elements. Take any proclamation by Pat Robertson and you can rather easily change it into one by Osama bin Laden by just changing the supposed targets of God's wrath. And the fundamentalism I'm speaking of isn't necessarily restricted to religion - the rantings of Ann Coulter, who advocates killing those of a different political belief as a matter of course, or Michelle Malkin, who is in favor of concentration camps, are fundamentalist in nature. So are those of a radical black nationalist who says "kill whitey". So is the Zionist Jewish settler. So is the Palestinian suicide bomber. An absolute belief; a hatred and denial and dehumanization of the "other".

These beliefs are seductive, especially with more chaos in the world, because they offer answers - easy and uncomplicated answers for those who lack education or analysis.

There is a coming and subtle shift in what would ordinarily just be the sort of hate-mongering that has plagued our race for centuries. Fundamentalists are beginning to unite behind the idea that reason itself is the enemy. They railed at John Kerry for "flip-flopping" - not being absolute in one's beliefs - and derided him as acting or looking "French" - lumping him in with the "other". They assail scientists and their theories for being "just theories", while they purport to have the facts. We've even seen it on a small scale in the Green Party - one must run a "revolutionary", "all-out" campaign in all fifty states at once in order to be considered a Green. This ignores the fact that not even the Republican or Democratic Parties do such a thing, but facts are not central to the fundamentalist philosophy. Anything less and you are a "Democrat" - you are painted as one of those "others", the objects of their hate.

This shift is going to take place across the currently drawn boundary lines. The left will have its fundamentalists, the right will have its fundamentalists...there is even talk of the "radical middle", symbolized by Howard Dean or John McCain.

Standing against such a philosophy will not be easy. Conventional methods of convincing by arguing a superior position will not be effective; the fundamentalists reject facts on their face. (Recall the comment of the "reality-based community" that was sneeringly coined by a zealous Bush administration official. How does one deal with those who literally refuse to face reality?) In opposition, we will have to become as dogmatic and unlistening as those we oppose - but that, in turn, is an acceptance of their paradigm. We will become as rigid, and our efforts will dissolve into tribalism. We're going to have to come up with new and different ways of establishing our points, and governing ourselves.

(Comment on this)

On this occasion
It is, by about an hour, the day after the birthday celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is difficult to come up with superlatives that have not been written about Dr. King; it is not sufficient to simply say that his efforts have resulted in a more just American society. I would like to think that our Green Party carries on this tradition in only some miniscule way, knowing, especially in our climate of hate and fear, that even that would be a tremendous amount of fresh air, delivered in an existence which is, in itself, an act of courage.

I am struck by the following passage from King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" as a telling bit of wisdom that describes some of where the Green Party is today:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Were we discussing the white man's attitude toward the black man in 1963 or the attitude of the Democratic Party's progressives toward the Green Party in 2006, it would not change the sentiment of the words at all.

(Comment on this)

Why bad laws happen
I hope that everyone is having a wonderful holiday season!

A friend of mine recently posted a question about why we get bad laws - or more to the point, the process thereof. Most bad laws, he observed, occur as a result of being tacked onto an otherwise decent bill as a "rider"; either to kill the decent bill or sneak through because no one would oppose the more decent part of it. That he knew; his question was, why do we, the voters, put up with this?

My answer:

Having been in the trenches, somewhat, in making policy for a diverse political party, and trying to get people elected for that party, the only thing I can tell you is that nobody has clean hands in such a scenario.

The easiest thing to do would be to prevent Congresscritters from doing tack-on riders to a bill - but then of course you would have to define what a "rider" should be, and whether or not it's related. And if you are sitting on one side or the other of the aisle, the definition is simple: if you propose it, it's related; if your opponent proposes it, it's not related. The process fights would just get more and more ugly from there.

The idea of using a rider to kill a bill, or to sneak something through, works because the workings of Congress are arcane enough that many voters have no idea what happens there. They are that way necessarily, because simplifying the process would mean that a slight majority could simply run roughshod over the entire government - even moreso than they are doing now.

And with electioneering, as I've seen firsthand, you cannot take the high road and expect to win, because the voters will not understand what the hell you are talking about. (Confusing the voters is much worse than pissing off the voters. At least if you piss them off enough, they'll still tell somebody about you.) Many voters will base their votes on something absolutely unrelated anyway - your hair color or skin color, how you come across on TV, their own particular pet litmus test issue (abortion being the canonical example). I don't know how many voters I've convinced about the Green Party's issues, only to have them vote for somebody else who doesn't hold those issues, because, well, their daddy voted Democrat, so...

If there is any hope of changing this whole thing, I'd say start with the voters. Organize them and educate them so that they are not voting for Congresscritters who do this - or threaten recall efforts or referenda if they do.

And what a coincidence, that's kind of what I'm trying to do...

(Comment on this)

The Greens weigh in on the Middle East
First of all, we've lost a significant voice in the Green community. Ken Sain has taken a new job, which required him to discontinue his blog. Ken provided an active, critical voice for Greens to look at issues in the country and the world, not to mention at the leadership of the Party. Speaking as one of those leaders, I can say without a doubt that he will be sorely missed.

Recently, the GPUS passed a resolution that called for divestment from Israel. As Co-Chair, I've received a trickle of email on the subject, mostly from people who show no particular inclination to support anything progressive, or indeed anything at all beyond their narrow focus on Israel. It has also prompted some pundits who are more or less in this category and would ordinarily ignore anything we say to suddenly become experts on all things Green. Had they been paying any attention whatsoever, before or since, they would realize that we are not a one-issue party, and would not be questioning why "an environmental party" would be "dabbling" in international affairs. (The question is, considering that the Green Party, as opposed to the political parties of the United States and Israel, is international in scope and wishes to enact policies for the betterment of the entire world, how exactly can we avoid international affairs?)

One of the more thoughtful questions I received on the subject was from a Green who asked how we could "stand up and say who is to blame" for the problems of Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East. I wanted to share my response with everyone, not only to give my personal thoughts on the subject, but perhaps also to start a respectful dialogue on the matter among Greens and those interested in Green politics.
( Read more...Collapse )

(2 Comments |Comment on this)

Hate mail
Every so often, you receive hate mail that is so very over-the-top that you know that you're doing something positive.

Recently, I took exception to Peter Camejo's latest missive in support of GDI. On the Green Party of West Virginia list (I'm a member as I came from out-of-state to help them set up their first meeting), I mentioned that I thought it was sectarian and full of innuendo and ad hominem attacks. A bit harsh, perhaps, but truthful.

I got a response on that list by one of GDI's main spokesmen, John Murphy of Pennsylvania. Murphy has become famous for some rather colorful metaphors - his report on Tulsa, one of the first to be disseminated after the meeting ended, contained the phrase "Ich bin ein Utaher", and he later coined the term "Cobbuncle" to describe those with whom he disagreed. (Apparently, this was the de facto winner of a contest on the GDI list for pejorative terms by which to call those who do not agree with GDI. Greens everywhere are in GDI's debt for this important contribution to the advancement of the Green Party.)

In any case, Mr. Murphy took exception to my characterization of Camejo's latest letter. Here's his reply in full:

Hi Steve,



I don't wish to seem insulting but The Anti-MoronT software on my PC went
crazy when I started to read your comment. If you're going to say something
that ignorant, you could at least fake a stroke. Nice to see that you are
still so clueless that if you dressed in clue skins, doused yourself in clue
musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues at the
height of clue mating season, you still would not have a clue.




Steve, if you call the Suicide Hotline they'd say "go ahead, do it".



Your pal,



John

Geeze - just can't wait to watch you "sparkle" again! Looks like I'm going
to have to respond to your Tulsa analysis after all -- analysis -- did I say
"analysis"? You are no more capable of analysis than a neocon is of
honesty.





"It's notable that much of the reportage I spoke of previously ignores these
important points of camaraderie, consensus, and good will. The sole focus
seems to be on four votes that the NC took which dominated the plenary
session."

- From Steve Kramer's Tulsa report (corrected for spelling but not
incompetence)

After such incisive commentary, I can't imagine why people would not listen to GDI when they tell us what's wrong with the Green Party. Can you?

Current Mood: amused

(1 Comment |Comment on this)

Update on Green Party relief efforts in the U.S.
Folks,

The Green Party has set up a refugee camp for Greens and others
displaced
from the Gulf states by the hurricane and subsequent mismanagement.
Also,
Pat LaMarche is in New Orleans right now - I might be able to get a
message to her.

Right now the city is under evacuation orders...we are looking to get
people from N.O. and other places to the camp in Florida. Please let
us
know if you know of anyone who needs a place to stay.

Steve

(P.S. Below is from Rebecca Rotzler, my fellow member of the Steering Committee of the Green Party of the U.S. Also, Pat LaMarche, our VP candidate in 2004, is in the city with the Red Cross. I have her contact info and may be able to get a message to her. Serious messages only, please!)


( from RebeccaCollapse )

( from Andrea GarlandCollapse )

(Comment on this)

What happened in Tulsa
Been a long time, yes, I know...but given some of the circumstances, it was the best I could do. Perhaps I'm not cut out for delivering profound expositions on the Green Party on a regular basis! Or perhaps I'll regain the talent now that the GPUS has had its meeting, and after my personal life (and the busy lives of my family) have wound down a bit.

In any case, here's a report that I delivered recently to the Maryland Green Party. As I figured it would be disseminated far and wide shortly afterwards, I've decided to make it public.

( the reportCollapse )

(I should point out that some of the "old guard" members of the Green Party have taken issue with the historical context that the report gives. Memories being what they are, each of these older members has corrected it in a completely different fashion! I considered just leaving it off - after all, I joined the Party in 2001, and shouldn't be considered authoritative on things which happened long before. However, my point was, and still is, that many of these older Green members were not as concerned about the conflicts from the meeting, having seen and dealt with matters very similar in our past. And my feeling is that these various conflicts we have had are indeed related to each other, and result from some fundamental differences in our vision of the Party. This doesn't mean that they are mutually incompatible; only that we will have to continue to make the extra attempt to understand each other as we move forward.)

(10 Comments |Comment on this)

Right there in plain black and white
This is a bit after the fact, but it's always interesting for me to follow up on those news items that broke out a few weeks ago and are already fading from the public consciousness.

Some of you may remember the ruckus caused by Dan Rather's and 60 Minutes's pursuit of George Bush's military records, such as they are. Suddenly, every rant-wing blogger and talking head became a textual critic of the highest order, and knew all about things like "kerning". As it turns out, the documents that 60 Minutes brandished were no more genuine than, say, the yellowcake forgeries. Embarassing, to be sure, though not entirely surprising given some other high-profile goofs that CBS has been guilty of, such as the report on Gen. William Westmoreland. (It should be noted, however, that like the Killian memo on Bush, the premise was never doubted, only the methods.)

In any case, flash forward to more recently, when Dem-turned-Rep (but who's counting?) Sen. Norm Coleman decided that he would draw some fire away from the abject failure that his President's foreign policies were by convening a Senate committee to rail against the problems with the UN Oil-for-Food program in pre-occupation Iraq. Baiting the UN in a state where resident Republicans consider "foreign affairs" could mean a basketball game in Madison is a sure vote-getter, and had to have been easier than admitting the truth about Bush's illegal war and torture scandals (particularly since the Downing Street memo hadn't made The Times just yet).

Coleman's first target was George Galloway, the former Labour MP who broke with Blair's party after having had enough of the PM's poodle imitation in the run-up to war. Galloway started his own party, Respect, and promptly won back his seat from Labour. He'd previously won a libel case against the last two newspapers that accused him of corruption in reference to the Oil-for-Food program, rejecting an apology from the last along the way and pushing for the settlement. Somehow, Coleman thought this would be a nice soft target to start with. I'll go on record as saying that Sen. Coleman may not be the brightest chap on Capitol Hill.

In a scene that recalled the shark in Jaws leaping from the water to bag some tossed chum, Galloway owned Coleman thoroughly, proving that with enough moxie, one could actually show that the Emperor had no clothes and that the American people were being lied to...in other words, something that the Democratic Party could never do, almost by definition.

But to tie things together, let's get back to the textual experts we mentioned before. What exactly did they have on Galloway that gave Coleman the bright idea that he would be easy pickin's? What did the Republicans, so sharp-eyed in their analysis of the Killian memos, think was proof positive that they could roast Galloway in the committee chambers? Let's take a look.

Looks like somebody in occupied Iraq (for that's when these documents were found) decided it might be a good time to put Mr. Galloway's name on a document in fuzzier, smaller, and off-kilter text and say they caught him red-handed (so to speak). But that's just me of course; as the co-chair of a political party like the Greens, I can't hope to be as savvy on such matters as Senator Coleman. (Or, for that matter, the Daily Telegraph or the Christian Science Monitor; the latter of which was successfully sued for libel thanks to their publishing of this nonsense.)

This would follow the yellowcake and Killian forgeries in the same fashion (the former of which are likely, according to a CIA and NSC source, to have been forged by Michael Ledeen, an Iran-Contra luminary and sort of administration Boris Badenov who is one of the clearest cases yet for my assertion that "neo-conservative" actually equals "proto-fascist").

In the final analysis, I would suggest that everything one hears from the neo-conservatives - or, for that matter, from the Democratic "opposition", and especially from the "mainstream media" - should be considered similarly until one has had a chance to not only square it with their own knowledge of the facts, but verify it independently.

(Comment on this)

The survey
Folks,

If you are a member of the Green Party, either state or Local or both, then please take some time and fill out this survey, sponsored by the Green Party of the U.S. The survey was made by our Strategic Plan Working Group, and seeks to gather an idea of what strategy we should be following in 2005 and beyond. It takes about thirty minutes to fill out, and will be available until June 19. Please do so! This is your chance to have your opinion counted!

(Comment on this)

Prosper with Principles
If you haven't seen me update this page in a while, you're about to find out why. This was a very easy essay to write, but a very difficult one to release; I wrote it over breakfast about two weeks ago, spurred by a bit of early morning musing on our condition as a Party...then realizing what I had written, I spent the balance of the time since proofreading, changing, modifying, and fiddling with it. It's one of the dangers of attempting to pull something out of context to study it closely - you realize then it is attached to everything else.

I'm still not entirely satisfied with the end product, but I hope it gives an insight into a vision that I have for the Green Party in the coming years.

( Read more...Collapse )

(5 Comments |Comment on this)

Having a party
I work with a local group every so often called Alliance for a Better Columbia; they're involved with city governance (such as it is) issues. During our meetings with them, when it's mentioned that the local Green Party is the only political party to have endorsed their positions, they very quickly go to great pains to point out how "non-partisan" they are. At one meeting, they described it more or less as such: "We're not a political party. We're just a group of concerned citizens who feel the same way about issues in local governance, and have decided to band together to do something about it."

At that point, my wife leaned over to me and whispered, "Okay...so what do they think a political party is, then?"

Fast-forward just a bit to now, when ink is beginning to be spilled saying that we are divided as Americans. The political landscape has devolved into a "culture war", with ideologues such as Michael Savage on one side and Al Franken on the other. The rhetoric coming from the Republican right is increasingly hostile and unhinged, while at least some Democrats are digging in for a ideological showdown, electing the sometimes volatile Howard Dean as their DNC Chair and creating groups such as the Progressive Democrats of America. (The CBC had an excellent show on this divide, highlighting, among other things, the plain lies told by Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly.)

This has been decried in some circles, and listening to Air America or Rush Limbaugh, it's easy to see why. The overwhelming majority of these pundits wouldn't know good government if it jumped up and gave them a haircut. Their sole purpose is to sow hate for the "opposition" among less educated listeners; practical and creative solutions to our nation's problems, such as those espoused by the Green Party, are lost in the noise.

But what I find interesting are the "moderates" who do express problems with such things, such as E.J. Dionne and (lately) Dana Milbank. When they do, there's no real mention of what makes good government, or that ranting probably isn't the way to do it. What they seem to long for is a (mostly mythical) past where political parties were simply convenient teams in which to group voters. There was no animosity between them because they had nothing to be particularly fighting over. Oh, give us the days when the Republicans and Democrats didn't stand for anything.

Frankly, I think one of the things which has led us to our current Faux News/Daily Kos-dominated discourse is that American voters were longing for actual political stances from their parties. The Republicans switched to an unabashed far-right conservatism under Reagan and haven't looked back, while the Democrats have risen political wishy-washy-ness to an art form, with the past several Democratic Presidential candidates quite willing to say one thing on the trail and another in the chamber. The problem is that when you consider the "old school" idea of a political party - that they actually have some sort of political belief - it quickly becomes apparent that having only two parties does not represent the spectrum of even "mainstream" America.

This is one of the true problems with the two-party system as it exists today. The extremes of both sides are being argued as if they are the true stances of the parties themselves - and as if they are the best ways to govern the country. We are seeing the fruits of that system with the extreme-rightist regime of Bush and the neocons, which is an unmitigated disaster.

It's time to reframe the debate "between" the parties, and let people realize that simply acknowledging only two parties, and therefore two points-of-view, is not enough. Principled parties such as the Greens must be considered in the debate. It is through our actions that we can break through the duopoly and entertain truly democratic methods of bettering our country.

(Comment on this)

The halfway report
There's been a great deal of talk lately concerning internal democracy and such in the GPUS, particularly when it comes to the recently completed Presidential contest and its implications for the future (such as 2008). So I expected to hear a great deal about our interim report, which the Presidential Nominating Process Working Group (of which I am a co-facilitator) released last week. But surprisingly, I haven't heard much of anything about it. Granted, it's fairly dry stuff, and I'd recommend it if you are having trouble sleeping...but, well, that is the substance of a lot of internal politics, both intraparty and in public administration at large. There's not a lot of glamour there.

Anyway, if you are interested, you can read an M$ Word version of the report here or an Adobe PDF version right here. And I'm certain that your state representatives to the GPUS would want to hear your opinions.

(Comment on this)

Headin' out West where the numbers are
Some people who realize that I'm in the GP have asked me before about who might run for President for us in 2008. And there's sort of the consensus names that might be in the works...but it's always a bit gratifying to pull out the name of a "dark horse" - someone who has the chance to succeed despite not being immediately known to those outside the Party.

For me, the name that I would always choose was that of Jonathan Farley. That's Doctor Jonathan Farley, a Professor of Mathematics from Tennessee who was at last check serving as an Associate at MIT in Massachusetts. It is safe to say that Dr. Farley is extremely intelligent; also, he is, from what I have read of him, committed to the Ten Key Values, and, from what other Greens have told me, an erudite and dynamic speaker. He even gained a few Delegate votes at the Convention in 2004, mostly from Louisiana.

As it turns out, Dr. Farley has a new gig, and it's in Hollywood, of all places. According to Slashdot, he will be advising CBS on matters of science and mathematics. Here's the article.

Especially given the Governor of the state that Dr. Farley is moving to, I still wouldn't count him out of a run for higher office in the future.

(3 Comments |Comment on this)