Towards a Green Future

From my co-worker "Would you ever consider running as a Democrat?"

The answer: no.

I will support progressive democrats and greens, but I will not run as a democrat. Reasons are:

1. The party machinery (not necessarily candidates or the democratic grassroots) is addicted to special interest money and would not be warm to my idea of blocking out as much special interest money as possible from the electoral process.

2. I am in favor of instant runoff voting - which the democrats are not. It threatens their monopoly on power.

3. The US electorate needs more parties, more choices, and more accountability from their elected officials.

Class is starting.....adios!

http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org//press/press.php?annc_id=271&section_id=2

Interesting press release from the DC Green Party - apparently not even the democrats favor statehood for the district anymore. Sad to see disenfranchisement perpetuated.

One wonders why - with the high minority population and the general liberal trend of the populace, the democrats would stand to gain seats in the Senate and House. Yes, it might be difficult and tedious to admit another state into the Union, but if democracy were easy and quick, the entire world would have become a democracy 1000 years ago.

But democracy is slow, ugly, and difficult. However, considering the alternatives, I will stick with democracy, thank you very much.

Of course, perhaps DC should secede from the Union and only rejoin if they will have full state status?

Free DC!

In a fearless defense of the status quo and special interest domination of politics, the PA democratic machine forced progressive candidates from the Green Party to withdraw their names from the fall elections. Why? Because "Democrats have complained of foul play because GOP donors helped bankroll Romanelli's petition drive, an appeal by Santorum produced volunteers for the effort and members of Santorum's campaign staff even helped gather signatures. "

Of course, in accordance with election laws (which are drafted by the republicans and democrats in state legislatures across the country) this is not illegal.
Because Greens are running on issues that resonate broadly with liberals and democrats, and the fact that we are not controlled by the special interest money machine that bankrolls the two corporate controlled parties - Greens are attacked from a legalistic route.

"GOP donors helped bankroll..."  Interesting, the election laws (again, written by democrats and republicans) do not specify that you can only give money to the party you belong to. Hmmmmm......I wonder how many democrats gave money to Reagan considering his landslide victories in 1980 and 1984, and how many democrats have money to the GW campaigns in 2000 and 2004? The hypocrisy of the democratic party operatives in PA is complete, yet totally predictable. The fact is, no campaign dollar, and no campaign vote is pre-ordained to go to any party or campaign- it has to be given by individuals for their own reasons.

This is one of the many reasons I keep a lawyers phone number with the Iowa ACLU on speed-dial.

The Green Party has been growing steadily for the past 20 years in the face of rising opposition from the corporate controlled parties? Why? Because we speak directly to the people about issues they care about, and we are not bankrolled (and therefore controlled) by special interest donors and PAC's. In the struggle for social justice:

First, they ignore you
Then, they laugh at you
They, they fight you
And then, you win.

********

Green Party candidates for governor, lieutenant
gov., to withdraw

MARTHA RAFFAELE
Associated Press, August 11, 2006
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/15254377.htm


HARRISBURG, Pa. - Green Party gubernatorial
candidate Marakay Rogers and her running mate are
withdrawing their nominating papers for the Nov.
7 election because they cannot afford to defend
themselves against a legal challenge by
Democrats, Rogers said Friday.

Rogers, a York attorney, said she and lieutenant
governor candidate Christina Valente are asking
to have their names removed from nominating
papers they submitted jointly with U.S. Senate
Green candidate Carl Romanelli. Their lawyer, Sam
Stretton, said he filed their request by mail
Friday with Commonwealth Court.

The Democrats on Tuesday asked a court to remove
all three candidates from the fall ballot,
alleging that more than 69,000 of the signatures
they collected included fake names, names of
unregistered voters and illegible signatures. A
court review of the signatures is expected to
begin Monday.

Rogers, however, said she is not ending her
candidacy. She hopes that a federal appeals court
will rule favorably in a lawsuit filed by minor
parties seeking to overturn the state's signature
requirement for their candidates.

"As candidates, we have not conceded anything,"
Rogers said.

Minor-party and independent candidates for
statewide office had to collect an
extraordinarily high number of signatures -
67,070 - to qualify this year for the November
ballot.

Romanelli could hurt Democratic State Treasurer
Bob Casey's efforts to unseat Republican Sen.
Rick Santorum in one of the nation's most hotly
contested U.S. Senate races.

Democrats have complained of foul play because
GOP donors helped bankroll Romanelli's petition
drive, an appeal by Santorum produced volunteers
for the effort and members of Santorum's campaign
staff even helped gather signatures.

Romanelli, a railroad industry consultant from
Wilkes-Barre and a former family-court support
officer, said Friday he would fight for all three
of the Green Party's statewide candidates to
remain on the ballot. He said he would use money
collected from ongoing fundraising to defray
legal costs.

"I have confidence in our (signature) submission
... and I still submit we will prevail,"
Romanelli said.

Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney issued a
statement Friday urging Romanelli to withdraw
from the ballot.

"To continue with this charade is a colossal
waste of time for the court and does nothing to
inspire confidence in voters," Rooney said.

The signature requirement for those minor-party
candidates represents 2 percent of the ballots
cast for the top vote-getter in the last
statewide election. This year's threshold was
based on a record 3.4 million votes Casey
received when he was elected to his first term as
state treasurer in 2004.

An illegal, illegitimate, and pointless war in Iraq, massive domestic spying on law-abiding citizens without warrants, botched responses to natural disasters, illegal leaks of sensitive intelligence - that's the Bush administration in action. Looks like a "slam-dunk" situation for the Democrats to regain both houses of Congress, right? Maybe not. The article from The Progressive, listed in its entirety below, shows that Democrats may be looking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And, it's not just a defeat for their party, it's a defeat for every citizen in the United States.

Why?

Even if Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate, it will not be a progressive majority needed to turn this country around when it comes to foreign policy, health care, the environment, workers rights, etc. "The party leadership continues to promote caution on withdrawing from Iraq, criticizing the President, or taking a stand against the aggressive and unconstitutional policies of this administration. The conventional wisdom--that taking too clear a position might get in the way of letting the Republicans hang themselves—is only strengthened by the fact that the Dems' chances are looking better in the polls now, even as they shy away from appearing to be too strong an opposition."

We currently have, in effect, no opposition in Congress to the center-right corporate-dominated coalition that is the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The Green Party is working to change that. Across the nation, Green candidates are mobilizing electorates, and bringing a new message of hope, accountibility, compassion, and citizern power to the people of this nation. Do you want a progressive majority in Congress? Green candidates are those progressive that we so desperately need. For more information on Green Party candidates near you, visit http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_05_15.shtml

********************

Published on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 by The Progressive

The Democrats' Losing Attitude

by Ruth Conniff

Conservatives are considering sulking at home during the upcoming midterms. Apparently, two rightwing appointments to the Supreme Court and an evangelical crusader in the White House are apparently not enough. Meanwhile, the Democrats are, for the first time, actually looking at a fighting chance to take over Congress, according to a front page story in Sunday's New York Times. A simultaneous rebuke to Bush from the right and the left may break the Republican stranglehold on government this fall. But dramatic political change is not necessarily at hand. Even if the Democrats gain a majority in Congress in 2006, it won't be a progressive majority. The party leadership continues to promote caution on withdrawing from Iraq, criticizing the President, or taking a stand against the aggressive and unconstitutional policies of this administration. The conventional wisdom--that taking too clear a position might get in the way of letting the Republicans hang themselves—is only strengthened by the fact that the Dems' chances are looking better in the polls now, even as they shy away from appearing to be too strong an opposition. If stalling is a viable strategy, why be surprised that some Dems are even promoting losing as a winning prospect? Really. Last week Tony Coelho told Adam Nagourney that NOT gaining majorities in the House and Senate might be better for Democrats, since then they won't be blamed for the mess the country is in. "The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House and three or four seats in the Senate but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government," Coelho, a former House Democratic whip, told the Times. "We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut. This way, they get blamed for everything." So when, exactly, can we expect a change of direction? When the Republicans start governing responsibly, ending the deficit, reforming government, restoring domestic services, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts? It will be a cold day in Hell before the Democrats judge it a safe time to step up to the plate and take over. And if they manage to stumble into power, what are the chances that the Democrats will take bold steps to rescue the country from all the bad policies this Administration has brought on us? Not much, judging by the nervous attitude of the current leadership. Howard Dean incurred the wrath of House and Senate leaders when he declined to direct funds to the Congressional campaigns of the suddenly viable Democratic contenders, who are counting on the anyone-but-Bush-and-friends vote to get them into office. Instead, the DLC chair insists on continuing to fund state-level party-building activities. That sort of long term thinking is not particularly popular. But it might help cure what ails the Democrats. By bringing some grassroots candidates up through the ranks, it is possible that, in a few years, the party might actually have some candidates willing to take a chance on leading the country. Imagine. Ruth Conniff is the political editor of The Progressive. © 2006 The Progressive ###

......and rightly so.

Both Huffington and Ivins hit on the same theme in recent columns: copying failed and cruel neo-con policies leads to two primary outcomes- lost elections for Democrats, and monstrously bad policy for Americans and fellow citizens of the world.

Huffington makes the point about the Democrats, and liberals in general, losing the national security debate. Constantly accused of being defeatist, pacificistic, or weak on defense, Democrats have intellectually caved to the pressure, and adopted the neo-con strategy of sending the military everywhere and anywhere, whether it's a good idea or not. Instead of trying, however difficult it may be, to be "smart" on defense, Democrats have torn a page out of the neo-con playbook, and are just being "stupid" on defense.

Here's a question to pose the next time you, a patriotic liberal, are accused of being weak on defense: If most of our intelligence and military forces weren't being tied up fighting a guerilla war in Iraq, do you think Bin Laden and al-queda would still be in operation? Anyone with a remaining shred of logic in their minds would start to wonder just what the answer to that question would be?

An even better question is: Knowing that al-queda's primary goal is the overthrow of secular arab dictators, did we end up doing al-queda's dirty work in Iraq, now that an Islamic theocracy is likely to come to power? The same logic-retaining individual might start to go a bit pale at that one.......

Ivins does not support Hillary Clinton. or should I call her Hillary W. Bush-Clinton? Hillary continues with the bankrupt strategy of running to the right when election time comes. Here's a tip: this only works if you have the political savvy and amazing charisma of Bill Clinton.  No one else can sell this bill of goods to the American people. John Kerry tried, and failed. Instead, try forcefully and smartly advocating a new domestic and foreign agenda that puts people first, and restores our leadership in the world? Ivins quotes compelling statistics that show that people are against the Iraq war, in favor of universal healthcare, and deeply concerned about the environment. Work with that. Ripping off the W regimes platform of class-warfare at home, and unjustified wars abroad is not only a guaranteed failure at the ballot box, it is also immoral.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1118-33.htm

"The refrain of the Democrats about being misled into supporting the invasion of Iraq has become really tired. And someone other than the White House smearmongers needs to say it: The Democrats cannot be allowed to use faulty intelligence as a crutch to hold up their unforgivable support for the Iraq invasion. What is DNC Chair Howard Dean's excuse? He wasn't in Congress and didn't have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC's Meet The Press, "I don't want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. "Talks with people who were knowledgeable," Dean told me. "Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration."

A series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.

How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was misled by....the Democrats. Dean's candor offers us a rare glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of "rewriting history" on Iraq, he is right.

None of the horrors playing out in Iraq today would be possible without the Democratic Party."

********************

Never a truer statement can be said. The democratic party leadership was in favor of the war from day one, and even during the Clinton administration. The Green Party has been against the war in Iraq, knowing full well that the consequences would be disasterous, and that the case for war was at best very weak, and at worst, fraudulent. We know now, after the yellow cake/Plame affair, and the complete lack of WMD, and complete lack of connection between Saddam and Al-Queda, that the evidence was bogus.

So the question is now, how long will rank and file democrats who want peace and justice keep voting for representatives that want war and injustice? The lesson to take with you is: if you vote for the exact opposite of what you want, do not be surprised when that is what you get.

For more info on how the Greens differ from Republicrats and Demopublicans, go to http://www.therealdifference.com/issues2.html