[Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 5 07:28:40 CST 2010
Indeed. Carl, you want to spit in our hands and shake, or let that be virtual? By the way, I do hope both happen ASAP, but I suspect the meal will have to be one of those specialties at the old folks' home if we don't all of us get back to work.
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: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 7:24 PM
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.
>
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100205/72800d48/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list