[Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!

Matt Reichel mattreichel at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 4 20:06:37 CST 2010 

I doubt that on Super Bowl week any spooks would bother with a mere $200 in action.

As a Green Party organizer in Chicago and a candidate for the seat once held by the likes of Blago and Rahmbo, I must say that I believe we will elect a Green in November. Saying anything else would be just plain stupid. Greens must act composed and behave as if they have just as much of a chance as anyone else.

Some people might say that Greens will NEVER win in the states (despite their resounding success in other countries.) People also said that a Republican would never win the Kennedy Senate seat. Whoever these people are, maybe we should stop listening to them?

With a ruling Democratic Party that is this bad, anything can happen. We will see that anything this November.

And I guarantee that the bloodbath in Iraq and Afghanistan will be ongoing.

-
Matt

P.S. - There is no doubt that the implosion of the anti-war movement had everything to do with the Democrats, primarily John Kerry and Barack Obama. I was around in 2004 to see people disappear from meetings and rallies, only to turn up at Obama for Senate organizing sessions or Kerry fundraisers. It made me so sick I had to leave the country for a few years. 

> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:40:32 -0600
> From: galliher at illinois.edu
> To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
> CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100204/99dd4dfd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list