Convention Blogging – National Committee

The National Committee is meeting this afternoon, from 1 to 5. There was some delay getting started, waiting for a quorum but Nebraska showed up and the meeting got on its way.

The only really interesting thing so far is the candidates for the GPUS Steering Committee.

The candidates:

Sanda Everette is a NC Delegate from CA, she is on the International Committee and the National Women’s Caucus. She is a teacher, active union maker, permaculture designer, co-creator of the San Mateo Ecovillage, and an all around hard worker. She is a self-described administrator.

Frank Young, Treasurer of the WV Mountain Party, spoke about his work with the Mountain Party, which affiliated with GPUS last year. He spoke about building party, ballot access. Young says he wants to “help our Green brothers and sisters have a better party from which to launch progressive candidates…”

Drew Johnson, from the disability caucus, the Media Committee, dispute resolution committee, and others. He said we need to grow by living our values, learn new techniques for communication, and become more “democratic” than the other parties. Drew is a delegate from California.

Craig Thorsen, another delegate from CA, worked to get Jesse Ventura elected in Minnesota in 98. Thorsen moved to CA in 99, and serves on the GPUS BRPP committee. Ballot access is a main issue for Thorsen and he volunteered with the Arizona and Virginia ballot access drives this year.

Jill Bussiere of Wisconsin was nominated from the floor. She says she is running to serve. She has been a member of the International Committee, worked on the Troops home now! Initiative inWisconsin in 06, ran for state senate in 06, former co-chair of the WIGP, local organizer, etc. Jill is often considered a calming and sane voice on the National Committee (and personally speaking she is a wonderful person).

Jody Grage is seeking (unopposed) a second two year term as Treasurer of GPUS. She says she looks forward to passing the job on in two years to someone else, but is still working on making the job and responsibilities clearer for future treasurers.

The vote is later this afternoon, I’ll report the results when I know them.

Ronald Hardy


  1. Anderson thanks. I wish the last clip hadn’t cut off. The ex peacecorps guy was just getting to why his Maldovan friends/colleagues liked Putin which I’dve liked to’ve heard. Good clips overall though.

  2. The Green Party had to borrow $15,000 in a loan just to do this convention. Cynthia McKinney to this date has had a poor fund raising abilities coming into the convention.

    At max, the GP will get 200,000 or less vote this election and it’ll be embarrassing for the party. They’re not going to break into the National debate and anyone who says otherwise, I’m sorry for being honest, but completely delusion.

    Goto: http://www.votenader.org

    Check out his fund-raising ability. The man is raising right now $10,000 a day and is inching closer to being put on the Google/YouTube debate.

    If the GP elects the Nader/Gonzalez ticket, that’s 20 extra states for Nader and he can focus his money elsewhere to get on 49 ballots just like Bob Barr this election cycle.

    It’s time for the Green Party to compete again, not splinter between themselves. It’s time for the Green Party to endorse the Nader/Gonzalez ticket.

    It’ll get on the mainstream-media (McKinney will get a small mention if elected). Once Nader gets into the National debates the Green Party will get consistent exposure this election cycle.

    I hope the delegates see the light and get Nader/Gonzalez as the Green Party nominees. They’re for the NI4d.us, they’re for ending corporate welfare, they’re Anti-FISA, Anti-War and pro-Solar/wind energy. What more can you ask for in a solid Green Party candidate?

    While Cynthia McKinney wants to talk slavery reparations.


    That’s not Green Party issues!

  3. I can ask that a candidate builds the Green Party.

    Create a national chair, and vice chair.

    Provide clear leadership. Recruit a full slate of 435 congressional candidates.

    Nader has failed the Green Party, and himself on all counts.

    The Green Party is better off with out him.

    Ralph Nader could have long along solved all the issues between him and Green Party leadership.

    It is sad that he has not.

    I support the Green Party move on.

    I will vote Green Party.

    And the Green Party will continue to grow.

  4. Cynthia McKinney’s views are entirely in keeping with the Green Party’s 10 Key Values. Cynthia McKinney’s views are entirely in keeping with the Green Party’s 10 Key Values. The Greens are running a social justice ticket this year. If you’re not into progressive politics and you don’t like strong black women, then the Greens may not be the ticket for you.

    It is an error to question Ms McKinney’s sincerity or to slander her with anti-Semitism. She has been outspokenly opposed to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Like President Carter, she has called for a balanced approach to the Middle East peace process, an approach that would look to create the best possible resolution for all parties. If you don’t think that’s possible, look to another candidate.

    Some people will be voting for Nader, because of his history and his more constitutionalist message. That’s fine. Some people will vote for Barr because they want to throw all the rascals out. That’s OK too I guess. Some people will vote for McCain or Obama and are already preparing themselves for the profound disappointment that is sure to follow. I can’t really get on board with that, but I understand it.

    At a time when income disparities and the grown of prisons have grown under both Democratic and Republican Presidencies, its time for a social justice campaign that will connect local activists with a national vision. The McKinney campaign will be an activists campaign, and will certainly help grow the Green Party after the disaster of 2004.

  5. Slavery reparations is not a GP issue?! Come on Kambayn, now you’re getting a bit ridiculous. Is it in the platform? I think there’s some mention of it actually, but I’ll go double check in a little bit just to be sure. You’re starting sound like a mantra now w/this “bow down to Nader/McKinney can only get us 200K votes” mantra now. Why don’t we focus on getting on the ballot w/the candidate who’s won the race.

    Now let’s be fair, Nader got more votes in California (before he said he wouldn’t seek our nomination). Since then, he’s a distant second, I think. The way you talk about delegates “seeing the light” implies they should ignore the popular will, which has consistently made its choice known for the last 5 months (i.e. since Super Tuesday). That doesn’t sound very progressive, intelligent or Green to me.

    And finally, stop assuming. What good does that do us? You’ve made your preferences perfectly clear, now go campaign for him rather than trying to tear apart the GP.

  6. Not to sound too legalistic, but I did check and yes, Chapter 2, Section A, Subsection 2, Point A of the 08 Platform says: “We support reparations to people of color. One form of reparation could be a guarantee that all children
    of color who graduate from high school will be fully funded for 4 years of college. Another form could be monetary compensation. The actual choice of reparation should be decided by the people to whom we owe it.” Now, granted, that doesn’t mention the word slavery but I think the term is implicit given the textual and historical context that we’re talking about. And it is explicitly mentioned in the Reconstruction Party/Power to the People platform which the party will effectively be endorsing when it nominates Cynthia (since she prefers we call her that) tomorrow. That should hardly be surprising either given that 80% or more of its proposals are already contained in our 08 platform, if not the 04 one, as well as many press releases the party has put out over the last few years. These are and have been “Green issues” for years.

  7. There was some contention over the balloting for the Steering Committee. The rule that Proxy votes must be for “named, but absent” delegates was contested by some California Delegates, who felt that the proxy votes shouldn’t have to be for named delegates. The National Committee basically over ruled their objections and the vote proceeded. Apparently this was an issue last year, but I wasn’t there so I wouldn’t know.

    Results will not be known until Sunday.

  8. And I should add that I think, I suspect, that the “splintering” is more or less done.

  9. Yes, last year California did contest this too and held up the proceedings for a very, very long time. Most of the contention, from what I remember (I was there last year) was internal, having a split within the delegation. There was lots of shouting and arguing. Finally the proceedings continued, but the plenary schedule had to be revised because of the disruption.

Leave a Reply to breaks5 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.