[Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Feb 4 19:40:32 CST 2010
I'm staking my two Benjamins not on the notion that there'll be a Green
representative any time soon, but on the conviction that the US won't leave
Afghanistan (or Iraq) short of a war of more than Vietnamese scale (60,000
Americans and 4 million Asians dead, many more maimed) - unless it's forced to
politically, here at home. And I'd gladly pay $200 in that event. --CGE
Robert Naiman wrote:
> If anyone rats us out, we can argue that the stakes are too small to be
> considered real gambling. By the time any of us gets to collect, we won't
> even be able to take each other out to a nice dinner on it.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>> Which side of the bet do you want, Ricky?
>>
>> The same as Bob? If so, I've got you faded.
>>
>> We're going to get chambana.net busted for making book...
>>
>>
>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>> I agree with all this, and I'll also bet anyone the same $100 on the same
>>> terms.
>>>
>>> Ricky
>>>
>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>
>>> --- On *Thu, 2/4/10, Robert Naiman /<naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
>>> Pull a Green Party Ballot Today! To: "Morton K. Brussel"
>>> <brussel at illinois.edu> Cc: "Peace-discuss List"
>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 3:31
>>> PM
>>>
>>> I certainly agree with Mort that there is no "pat resolution" to the
>>> dilemmas that we face.
>>>
>>> But some of the logic here escapes me.
>>>
>>> Cheryle Jackson didn't fail because she was "caught in the Democratic
>>> party web." She failed because she didn't get enough votes in the
>>> Democratic primary. If more people had voted for her in the Democratic
>>> primary, she would have won. How people who are anti-war can be
>>> indifferent to this escapes me. Jackson was competitive in the City of
>>> Chicago. If there were a real statewide anti-war movement that was
>>> prepared to intervene in Democratic primaries, the outcome could have
>>> been different.
>>>
>>> It seems odd to me to punish anti-war candidates running as Democrats by
>>> not voting for them, for the failure of other Democrats to be anti-war.
>>> Are the Green Party representatives in Congress doing a better job of
>>> opposing the war than the anti-war Democrats? No, because there are no
>>> Green Party representatives in Congress. And it is extremely likely that
>>> there will never be any in our lifetime. Is voting for the Green Party an
>>> effective strategy for ending the wars, when Green Party candidates are
>>> unlikely to ever be in a position of voting on it? I'll bet anyone on
>>> this list $100 that the last U.S. soldier will leave Afghanistan before
>>> any Green Party candidates are elected to Congress.
>>>
>>> If Green Party activists can figure out a way to undertake their
>>> long-term - and quite uncertain - project of transformation without
>>> getting in the way of here-and-now efforts to address the wars and other
>>> social ills, then I have no dispute with them. But if they insist on
>>> trying to obstruct more practical efforts, then they have to expect some
>>> push-back.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu
>>> </mc/compose?to=brussel at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>> One votes Green, as I did, with the hope (Always with hope, even
>>> if laced with pessimism) that this party may gain in stature and be able
>>> to effect future progressive change in the national politics. Yet, one
>>> regrets not being able to also vote for candidates like Cheryle Jackson,
>>> who, because she is caught in the Democratic party web, has small
>>> (negligible) chance of winning.
>>>>
>>>> Question: Is it important to keep the Green party going and to
>>> increase its visibility, or is it more important to vote for possibly
>>> progressive candidates in established parties that fail the test, over
>>> all, of effective progressivism (anti-war, anti-militarist, socially
>>> conscious, egalitarian, etc.)? The evidence indicates that the
>>> Democratic party in recent times has not been a counterforce, au
>>> contraire, to the conservative corporate establishment. Can it be
>>> improved by voting for someone like Cheryl Jackson when even getting
>>> someone like her on the ballot is unlikely, given the nature of the
>>> D-Party. This is a symptom of the utter corruption of our political
>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> We need a complete turning around, i.e., a revolution, of that
>>> political system. Can voting Democratic achieve this? Can voting Green
>>> better achieve this?
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be no pat resolution to these dilemmas.
>>>>
>>>> --another 2¢ worth.
>>>>
>>>> --mkb
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, at a meeting of Gill supporters, Gill unequivocally
>>> stated that he would not support the AfPac or Iraq wars/occupations…, or
>>> the budgets that sustain them. He did this in the face of Democrats who
>>> were uncomfortable with his position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom, do you agree with Matt's view that
>>>>>
>>>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was
>>>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in
>>>>> this rigged election."?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, does this statement also apply to Green candidates? If it
>>>>> doesn't also apply to Green candidates, why not? If it does also
>>> apply
>>>>> to Green candidates, does it apply forever, or only until some
>>>>> particular reform(s) of the "rigged election" are achieved? If the
>>>>> latter, what reform(s)? What is the Green Party strategy to
>>> bring such
>>>>> reform(s) about?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Abram <tabram at gmail.com
>>> </mc/compose?to=tabram at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Obviously, the Illinois Green Party, its candidates, and active
>>>>>> members are going to encourage their members to vote for Green
>>>>>> canididates. That's kind of the point of building a party. To
>>> get
>>>>>> candidates of our values elected and influence public policy.
>>> Just
>>>>>> like the Dems and Reps, but our values are far more progressive.
>>>>>> Would you really expect the Democrats to advocate their members
>>> voting
>>>>>> for a Republican candidate? Why should we? We gain absolutely
>>>>>> nothing from this and further distort the power dynamics between
>>>>>> ourselves and the corporate parties. When Greens have stepped
>>> aside
>>>>>> from an election due to pressure from "progressive Democrats" they
>>>>>> have gained absolutely nothing, furthering the acceptance of such
>>>>>> candidates and marginalizing the Green Party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If an individual wants to vote in a different primary to
>>> influence the
>>>>>> outcome, I can understand that. However, I personally feel it's a
>>>>>> stronger statement to vote Green. I have been criticized for
>>>>>> advocating voters to pull a Green ballot. To expect one party to
>>>>>> kowtow to another and encourage their members, supporters, and the
>>>>>> public to vote in another party is ludicrous. When Republicans
>>> cross
>>>>>> over in the primary to vote for Dems (like the 2006 District 9
>>> County
>>>>>> Board race and the silly Rush Limbaugh effort to nominate Hilary
>>>>>> Clinton) they're called infiltrators by the Dems. But these
>>> same Dems
>>>>>> encourage Greens to cross over. No thanks. We are not a subset,
>>>>>> splinter, or sect of the Democratic Party. The law and media have
>>>>>> already treated the Greens inferiorly (even though we're now a
>>>>>> recognized established party in Illinois). We don't need our
>>> activist
>>>>>> allies to do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Abram
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
>>> </mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I find Matt's argument here quite striking. I wonder how many
>>>>>>> activists in the Illinois Green Party share the views that Matt
>>>>>>> expresses here. If it turns out that these views are
>>> widespread in the
>>>>>>> Illinois Green Party, I think it should affect the calculation of
>>>>>>> folks who are interested in promoting progressive change in
>>> the world
>>>>>>> in which we actually live about whether the Illinois Green
>>> Party is an
>>>>>>> institution whose influence in public affairs they want to
>>> promote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt argues that it actually doesn't matter who Cheryle
>>> Jackson is or
>>>>>>> what views she espouses:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was
>>>>>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning
>>> in
>>>>>>> this rigged election."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presumably, Matt is acknowledging here that he actually
>>> doesn't know
>>>>>>> anything about and doesn't care to know anything about Cheryle
>>>>>>> Jackson, a remarkable position for someone who presumes to
>>> educate
>>>>>>> others on public affairs. But in Matt's worldview, that
>>> information is
>>>>>>> irrelevant, so why bother acquiring it? All you need to know
>>> about the
>>>>>>> world is that you should vote for the Green Party.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, one presumes that according to Matt's logic, so
>>> long as
>>>>>>> the election remains "rigged," no Green Party candidates will
>>> ever
>>>>>>> have a realistic chance of ever winning any election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, in Matt's worldview, the call to vote for the Green
>>> Party
>>>>>>> is essentially a call for a boycott of the election. The only
>>>>>>> difference between voting for the Green Party and staying home
>>> is that
>>>>>>> if you vote for the Green Party, there is an official record
>>> of how
>>>>>>> many people participated in the Green Party-initiated boycott.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the similarity between Matt's argument and the old anarchist
>>>>>>> slogan, "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." Of
>>> course,
>>>>>>> anarchists with this view are generally electoral
>>> abstentionists. The
>>>>>>> only difference is that the anarchists generally don't exhort
>>> you to
>>>>>>> go the polling place on election day and vote anarchist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other folks here are more familiar with the Illinois Green
>>> Party than
>>>>>>> I am. Are these views widespread in the Illinois Green Party?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Matt Reichel
>>> <mattreichel at hotmail.com </mc/compose?to=mattreichel at hotmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Of course, I couldn't disagree more with the analysis that it
>>>>>>>> is worthwhile pulling a corporate party ballot. If Cheryle
>>>>>>>> Jackson or
>>> anyone else on the
>>>>>>>> corporate ballots was actually any good, then they had no
>>> realistic chance
>>>>>>>> of winning in this rigged election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The act of pulling a Green ballot in itself was a vote
>>> against the system
>>>>>>>> of corporate bribe-taking candidates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the end, over 5,000 people in the state pulled a Green
>>> ballot: a 60%
>>>>>>>> increase over 2008 numbers, despite turnout being about 1/3rd
>>> of 2008
>>>>>>>> across the board. (Champaign County was the only major county
>>>>>>>> that saw
>>> a
>>>>>>>> decrease, in large part due to the graduation and relocation of
>>>>>>>> several
>>> active GP
>>>>>>>> activists from there)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most of the increase occurred in inner-city Chicago, where
>>> residents have
>>>>>>>> the benefit of clarity that those of you in the cornfields
>>> might not have:
>>>>>>>> choosing among corporate bribe taking candidates in one of
>>> the corporate
>>>>>>>> bribe-taking parties is an act of futility. In the land of
>>> Blago, Rahmbo,
>>>>>>>> Stroger, Daley, Burke I and II, Dick Mell, and so on, this
>>> couldn't be
>>>>>>>> clearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Solidarity,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0600 From:
>>>>>>>>> galliher at illinois.edu
>>> </mc/compose?to=galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>>>>> To: kmedina67 at gmail.com </mc/compose?to=kmedina67 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> CC: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My experience exactly. Without the kiss.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Karen Medina wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Election judge to Karen: "Would you like a Democrat or a
>>> Republican
>>>>>>>>>> ballot?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Karen: "You are not offering a Green ballot?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EJ: "Would you like a Green ballot?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Karen: "No. But aren't we offered a Green ballot?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [... ] [Karen was voter 110 at her precinct at 10:30am
>>>>>>>>>> today.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Karen to 3 EJs in an otherwise empty poling place: "Have a
>>> wonderful
>>>>>>>>>> day! Hope you have a great turnout!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EJ1 blows a kiss. A heartfelt good-bye.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>>>>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with
>>>>>>>> powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
>>> now.
>>>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>>>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>>>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> </mc/compose?to=naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal
>>>>>>> and Political Negotiations
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> </mc/compose?to=naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and
>>>>> Political Negotiations
>>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>>>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>>>> list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> </mc/compose?to=naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>>
>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and
>>> Political Negotiations
>>>
>>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
>>>
>>>
>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>> list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be
>>> clean.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
>
>
>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list