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

Thu Feb 4 21:49:42 CST 2010

I'm afraid neither of you will be around to collect the wager by the time the USA military leaves Afghanistan and Iraq. 

--mkb

On Feb 4, 2010, at 4:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> If one were to extrapolate from the history of the Greens in Germany, one would
> conclude that it would be safe to take Bob's bet.
> 
> In fact, I think I will.  You're on, Bob.  --CGE
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>> 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>
>> 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> 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> 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> 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 To: kmedina67 at gmail.com CC: 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 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 https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org 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 https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org 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 https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> -- 
> 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

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.