16 responses so far ↓

• 1 Tim Oliveira // Aug 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm

  Right on Really Rick!

• 2 Nexus // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  What about Nader? He stands for everything you do. He will be on more ballots than Mckinney and polls much higher, yet you didn’t even mention Ralph Nader.

• 3 Robb Black // Aug 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  Because Nader is so 2000. This is 2008. Nader is a great ally in the cause, but his campaign structure/style is not very organic and not designed to create any sort of lasting change.

• 4 breaks5 // Aug 26, 2008 at 2:09 pm

  Because he isn’t committed to the party. So he’s now talking about creating his own. Why, when our organization already exists.? That’s putting aside the fact that we have a better candidate.

• 5 Nexus // Aug 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  “Nader is a great ally in the cause, but his campaign structure/style is not very organic and not designed to create any sort of lasting change.”

  He isn’t? He has the California Peace and Freedom Party nomination and has helped expand that party into Iowa. From what I’ve been told, he plans to help the PFP expand nationwide. Wouldn’t that create the lasting change your looking for?

  “Because he isn’t committed to the party.”

  So your support of Mckinney is based on Green Party Loyalty.

  “So he’s now talking about creating his own. Why, when our organization already exists.? ”

  I believe he’s already tried that route and found the infighting in the GP not to his liking.

  “That’s putting aside the fact that we have a better candidate.”

  I’m curious as to why you find Mckinney a better candidate.

• 6 Ronald Hardy // Aug 26, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  Both McKinney and Nader are great candidates. I would have loved to see them on the same ticket, the Green Party ticket. That didn’t happen though.

  Just as Ralph Nader brought new people into both the Green Party and into politics in 2000, Cynthia McKinney is doing the same thing in 2008. Just as Nader brought new blood into the Green Party in 2000, McKinney & Clemente are doing the same in 2008.

  Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente have energized the Green Party much as Nader did in 2000.

  I believe that most activists at this point are already in either Nader’s camp or McKinney’s camp. The votes we are both looking for are not each others.

• 7 Dave S // Aug 26, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  I support Nader running, even if his platform and McKinney’s are basically alike, save for emphasis. His message that more candidates and more parties should be able to run needs to be heard.

  That being said, it would make no sense for Nader to work on building the Peace and Freedom party in the current political climate. There are few differences in the goals of the Greens and P&F - save that the latter is committed to socialism, which is unfortunately a dirty word in American politics. So, we’re going to overcome the two-party system by dividing the Green left from the green Left? While the Green party is growing on every continent?

  I just hope Matt Gonzalez can convince Nader supporters that the Green party should be their political home. I personally think we should try to get Ralph to run as a Green against Joe Lieberman in CT.

• 8 Nexus // Aug 26, 2008 at 6:53 pm

  I don’t think that is going to happen Dave S. Nader won’t have any more to do with the Greens. The party infighting was too much for him.

• 9 step aside // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  “The party infighting was too much for him.”

  Well its lightened up since his vocal and feisty supporters left the party.

  Just sayin’

• 10 Nexus // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  ’sigh’…..
  Your falling into the same trap the Socialists and now the Libertarians did. All the bickering and infighting among socialist have caused them to fracture into 4 or 5 different socialist parties that are lucky to get on a dozen ballots and get 5000 votes each. Bickering over Bob Barr has caused the Libertarian Party to fracture into 3 parties(The Boston Tea Party and the Objectivist Party) which has lead to the loss of ballot access in Maine, Massachusetts, West Virginia, and possibly New Hampshire. And now you Greens are going to fracture over Nader? Don’t fall into this trap. Your more alike than you are different.

• 11 step aside // Aug 27, 2008 at 12:21 am

  I don’t think there is a fracture.

  The “Nader or Nothing (and you suck if you don’t agree with me)” people have left the GP, and the Green Party survived just fine.

  There is no fracturing. The Peace and Freedom Party is not an off shoot of the Greens, they are a legitimate third party in and of themselves. Goddess bless them for what they do.

  Greens are not fracturing over Nader as much as you and others would like. Why not? Because we have a ticket that is more relevant in 2008, that has a base, a message, and a mission. The Green Party is not the “alternative, it is the imperative”.

  What other third party in America is capable of stepping into the role of “opposition party”?

  Peace and Power to Nader and his mission to open up the Presidential Political System in America, and Peace and Power to McKinney for growing the Green Party and restoring its electoral relevance!

• 12 Nexus // Aug 27, 2008 at 8:15 am

  “I don’t think there is a fracture.”
  I hope you keep it that way.

  “The “Nader or Nothing (and you suck if you don’t agree with me)” people have left the GP, and the Green Party survived just fine.”

  So your saying the infighting that drove Nader out is his fault? The GP may have survived, but I don’t see you prospering. When you achieve the vote totals and fundraising you achieved with Nader, then you will be headed in the right direction.

  “There is no fracturing.”
  I didn’t say there was, I was warning you against it.

  “The Peace and Freedom Party is not an off shoot of the Greens, they are a legitimate third party in and of themselves.”

  Yes, I know. The PFP has been around longer than the Greens. Congresswoman McKinney herself, as I understand, tried for the PFP nomination. This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. You’re more alike than you are different, but for some reason the collectivist are divided.

  “Goddess bless them for what they do.”
  I’m an atheist, so that wouldn’t do much good

  “Greens are not fracturing over Nader as much as you and others would like.”

  I don’t speak for others, but for myself I certainly haven’t said anything to indicate that fracture is something I would ‘like’. On the contrary, I’m trying to convince you that you and your ilk should be more united.

  “Why not? Because we have a ticket that is more relevant in 2008, that has a base, a message, and a mission. The Green Party is not the “alternative, it is the imperative”.”

  How do you define relevance? What would you need to achieve to be considered relevant in the US political process? Are you outpolling Nader anywhere? Are you doing a better job than Nader at fundraising? Have you been able to generate any national media attention?

  “What other third party in America is capable of stepping into the role of “opposition party”?”

  Is this the role you want for the Greens?

  “Peace and Power to Nader and his mission to open up the Presidential Political System in America, and Peace and Power to McKinney for growing the Green Party and restoring its electoral relevance!”

  I wish you all the best of luck but I still think you’d have a greater chance at success if you did it together rather than seperately.

• 13 joell // Aug 28, 2008 at 6:12 am

  Nexus
  “The GP may have survived, but I don’t see you prospering…”

  you don understand! many Greens don’t view success solely in terms of ballot states, vote totals & fundraising.

  “other factors” indicate that 2004 & David Cobb were very successful and the party is growing, in relation to 2000; the same principle applies to the 2008 campaign

  only they understand this strategy called growth thru shrinkage.

• 14 Nexus // Aug 28, 2008 at 9:04 am

  joell
  “you don understand!”
  You got that right.

  ‘growth thru shrinkage’….interesting concept.
  Does anyone have any hard numbers of GP membership in 2000, 2004, and now? Are there signs of real growth?

• 15 Agreed // Aug 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  I agree that McKinney and Nader should have formed a joint presidential ticket for the Green Party. That would have really helped build opposition to the current regime.

• 16 David Gaines // Aug 28, 2008 at 6:29 pm

  {{ There are few differences in the goals of the Greens and P&F - save that the latter is committed to socialism }}

  It would be more accurate to say that there are few differences in the goals of the Socialist Party and the P&F Party. They’re both democratic socialist parties with only structural and personality differences, as far as I can tell. Not sure why Nader chose them as the party he wants to grow nationally, since they are fiercely committed to socialism and Nader……..well, isn’t.

  The Green Party is not a socialist party and has a very different organic structure and set of fundamental principles.

Leave a Comment