Sorry to bore you. Gosh, tis one thing to be called boring (my spouse can testify to the truth of that). But to be called boring in CAPS!. Oh the pain! :)

I guess you’ll skip reading my piece in an upcoming Mother Earth News? Too boring. And you’ll probably pass over my piece in Homepower Magazine last month? (exhaustively boring).

This Stellar never wanted to be a star. And a sense of humor is a good thing. Let’s try and keep some of that. :)

Time for a nap.

Solarly yours,

allan

On Lincoln: There’s too little that our times have in common with his times to draw from his experiences…and make such points about today.

On “bringing in Afro-Americans”: As I recall I was trying to make a point about how out of touch Greens probably are with what would be needed to recruit in realms other than what they’ve tapped deeply to date.

On marginalization: Neither Ralph nor Cynthia –together or individually, as “attractive” as they are– will be able to rise above the fact that the powers that be will not allow them on a level playing field.

On seeds: Seeds are not being sown for the future…with the various efforts taking place…efforts which are designed to build numbers so that a given party can crack the stranglehold of the powers that be.

On systemic change: Of course such change is required to make inroads, but to penetrate where we have to go for that…we must first acknowledge that progress has not been made in that direction…and is not slated to happen…working with the limited means, the narrow parameters we’ve accepted.

Again, it is highly instructive that Peter Camejo garnered only 5% of the gubernatorial vote in the supposedly “liberal” community of Santa Cruz, CA. There’s a HUGE observation to be made there. He doesn’t have dirty laundry, he was quite eloquent on the stump, and was given loads of air time. The general voting public –the profile of such– has deteriorated since then…which is why a new paradigm must be ground out of the earth and thin air. Which is to say, quite sincerely, that it is time for all of us to get much more creative.

Blessings in solidarity, Marcelle Cendrars
P.S. I guess Dan read my “Anti-Medea” piece. Did I send it to you? Please let me know at moc.oohaynull@ardnecb. Also, anyone who’d like to see my Ron Paul piece posted…maybe it wouldn’t hurt to let the DVoice editors know….in case it isn’t up by tomorrow.

Your comments are insightful as usual especially your observations about Nader”s “rightward” strategy in 2004. Your experience of the racism on the right reflects the dubiousness on certain members on the “left” who flirt with supporting Ron Paul. You are right to point out that Nader should have moved further to his left rather than run to the right in 2004.

As you astutely point out, the nature of Liberalism is to fake left and run right. Nader never really built a core constituency among oppressed groups and the disenfranchised. It is the people from these groups that catalyze progressive change and it is disturbing when such an important topic gets dismissed as a “digression”.

Thanks again,
Deadbeat

The Military Commssions Act was signed on October 17, 2006, a few weeks before the Democrats took power (the timing was most likely not coincidental).

Allan Stellar: turns out you ain’t no star either, in fact you’re BOOOORing. All that long slow curve just to give us the fast break: Al Gore! Yes yes, “A little humour is always good”! I do agree on one point: the GP needs a “do-over”. But not in the direction you seem to have in mind:)

Marcelle: four & a half stars for not buying Media B’s act. Half a star withheld because you failed to mention MB’s statement in support of the Let’s Mourn For Poor Benazir vigils called by CodePink & duly supported by all the Progressive Democrats including the Demo-Train’s caboose, aka the CA PNF party.

John Murphy: I get the impression he’s really very bummed out by Elaine Brown’s withdrawal from the race, I mean the contest for the GP nomination. Which in spite of EB’s sourgrapes rap, appears to be mainly due to McKinney’s decision to contend for it too.

I can’t help wondering if Murphy’s looked into any of the charges that have been levelled against EB’s performance in office by former Oakland BPP members? Of course it ‘s possible they’ve all been hoodwinked by FBI operatives, but before I give credence to his speculations re McKinney becoming a tool of the pro-Israel Demogreens, I’d like to know why he seems to buy EB’s side of the story without even checking out the other side.

Deadbeat,

I’m having a hard time finding sthg to cuibble about, but maybe the Nader fiasco in 2004 will do. I took over as local Nader “coordinator” after the Reform Party campaign pro hired for the job turned out to be a flaming anti-Latino racist & had to be peremptorily fired. I passed the job on to a GP regular at the first oppty, but still wound up named to be a Nader Delegate had he begun his Petition for ballot status in time.

In my view, what destroyed the momentum left from the 2000 campaign was Nader’s decision to respond to that (cussword deleted) Cobb’s machinations by reaching out to his Right, to the racist Reform Party, instead of reaching to his left.

“As the Liberals Turn”:) Vacillate, Vacillate, Toujours Vacillate. Mr Nader seems to be a nice well intentioned fellow, but unable to escape the Liberal fantasy world of his childhood. Wdn’t follow him around the block. Yes, I’d support him if Cynthia wanted him on the ticket for the VP slot. Otherwise I’ll stay home.

Take it easy DB, ketch yawl ona rebound,

Dan

I wouldn’t characterize an discussion of that very important voting block as a digression from the discussion especailly since the author is arguing that Ms. McKinney represents a “negative” to the Green Party.

Confronting such criticism, I believe, is important as well as articulating what Ms. McKinney represents and the impact her participation in the Green Party will have on both the Greens and the Democrats. In addition, McKinney is an advocate of women issues so she can also attract yet another importing voting block.

Nader is best when articulating economic injustices and McKinney is best at articulating social injustices. The two IMO makes quite a powerful combination.

You were spot on about his need to apologize for the crimes he commited…must be nice for criminals like Carter and Gore to be exalted above God’s throne without need for redemption.

I’m interested in the piece you’ll be doing on Paul. From what I bothered to research, he’s a libertarian nut who doesn’t just preach that he believes in Adam Smith economic principles, but truly believes in them.

Now those policies wouldn’t be too bad compared to the unregulated cronyism and goose killing we have witnessed in place of what Smith actually called for, so my biggest problem with Paul after I found the racist quotations to more than likely not belong to him, is that he’s a friend of Kucinich and when his time comes to demand platform concessions, he’ll do the same thing as his buddy and hand over his broken hearted supporters to Rudy—

Other than those concerns, if there’s a wave of racist, disaffected working class whites who could never vote for a librul, homo tree hugger carrying this guy t0 the front, well…we may just get some of our words back but with different names and Repubs will start acting more like liberals when “their guy” calls it populism.

I stated that the Green Party is built for the 21st Century. That’s not hype or fantacy or smoke and mirrors. It’s based on all we know now that the other 2 parties didn’t know when they came into being and because of their behaviorial responses turned into collective memory, they cannot “reinvent” themselves to meet the 21st Century paradigm. The Green Party is free of that legacy, and it’s founding is based on how we are shifting away from what got us in this hole. More…

A 21st Century party is based on a different sensibility around the human races limitations. The old industrial/corporate/endless growth paradigm spouted by Dems and Reps has given us endless war. They can’t shake it and if you listen to Obama – their “change” guy all you hear is how we’re going to grow our way out of…well…you name it. It’s the same old narrative that the young Obama has inherited from the legacy of his old, tired party.

But, Marcelle Cendrars, let’s think about this a bit. The Green party has incorporated a paradigm (through the bs that seems destined whenever 2 or more humans congregate) which reflects fundamental change – not rhetoric. That doesn’t make them the ultimate organization, just a shot at the possibilities.

As far as “dream party” I think the issue is not “party” per se. The Green (or any party) is necessary but not sufficient. The “sufficiency” is to acknowledge the problem is systemic. Marginalization is systemic, not about a party or individual. Only fundamental changes can break up the duoply. Those changes? Get rid of privatization of campaign funding. Implement proporational representation and instant run-off voting. But first the power must shift. That is done through grass-roots wins by third-parties such as Greens at all levels.

I don’t dismiss the idea of a third party thinking differently about how to insert change than the pattern baked into the hardened structure. I just don’t think it’s all about a person or party, there are structural and systemic changes required to allow for the change you are looking for.

(Lincoln ran over 50 times before getting elected and was a long shot for Presidency back when you could put a coalition together – systemic problem today.)

Weird to include the word “militant” to describe the direction of a party which is peace loving and granola sharing– and certainly not militaristic.

JM doesn’t state who these “militant populists” are. I have no clue who they are. I wish John Murphy had expanded that part of his article.

The one time that the Green Party was a force in American Politics was when they had a “Superstar” (2000 with Ralph Nader). And it is precisely because of that semi-success that the Green Party died. When is the last time you saw Ralph Nader continue to advocate for the Green Party? Or participate in party building activities?

Third parties are either ideological (the Socialist Workers Party), or driven by a candidate that has some appeal due to his/her status: “Ross Perot”.

The Libertarians, this year, might have both ideology and status with Ron Paul (assuming he takes his cash and makes a Third Party attempt). And frankly, he just might be the best protest vote this election cycle.

The Greens do better when they have a dynamic person, who can be a star at the top of the ticket. We do not have that now. Which leads us to just being a party of ideology.

Would Cynthia McKinney be seeking the Green Party nomination if she had won the nomination of the Democratic Party for her old House seat back in 2006? I think not.

Being Green is now a lifestyle, and no longer a Party.

As for a superstar to run in 2oo8? I propose an anti-war, reputable, overweight, Nobel Peace Prize Winner who rather eloquently scolded the US into accepting the “Roadmap” in Bali: Al Gore.

Now wouldn’t that be ironic?

There is no such thing as a “Democrat Party” or a “Democrat candidate,” folks. A decent respect for the language we all speak, it seems to me, requires one to use the apparently hateful word “Democratic,” with a capital D.

Max

I did above. Furthermore Cliff Thorton ran for Governor of CT last cycle on the Green ticket (he’s African American). He has been promoting such a run – Nader/McKinney. There is no “superstar” in politics; nor, in my opinion, should we be looking for one – it’s a phony (and perhaps dangerous) label.

I agree that the grass-roots Greens need to focus at all levels of government where power is avaiable for change. Third party candidates at the presidential level will be marginalized. The point is not “winning” but increasing alternatives and building the base on sound values along with the pragmatics of getting on the ballot.

The Green Party is the only party built for the 21st century. The others have a 19th century legacies that they are incapable of overcoming.

If Nader is yesterday’s news than why aren’t his policies (the ones acknowledged by millions) in place? What would Lincoln have done as yesterday’s news? Not bothered?

Why do so few get the fact that people like Cynthia and Ralph deserve a better world? A better approach. A newer paradigm. They don’t even seem to get that notion. Trying to make inroads vis-a-vis the model we are all straining to make fit here is doomed to catastrophe ad infinitum. Yes, IMPEACHMENT should be shouted from the rooftops by all candidates. That and several other potentiall self-destructive positions should be highlighted by all worthy candidates. “Self-destructive” because the U.S. public swine are not slated to accept pearls of wisdom or “pearls of people.”

Years ago Peter Camejo — a gem of a candidate — garnered only 5% of the vote in Santa Cruz, California…running for the gubernatorial slot. Why aren’t facts like that acknowledged? We aren’t laying down seeds for the future by continuing to bang our heads against the U.S. electoral wall; we need to provide another way to approach The System…for the likes of Cynthia and Ralph. That is much harder work than bragging righteousness on this or that point in the commentary at DVoice.

The answer, I assure you, does not lie in finding another “Superstar” in lieu of McKinney or Nader.

Blessings in solidarity,
Marcelle
P.S. I loved the comment which put Medea B. in a less the loveable light; I trust DVoice editors will choose to post my recently submitted “Is It Okay to CONSTRUCTIVELY Criticize Medea Benjamin Just A Little Bit?”.

I think John Murphy mentioned Ms. McKinney’s liabilities quite well within the article above.

And what are those “liabilities”?
JM: The best thing to happen to the demogreens since the safe state strategy is Cynthia McKinney

So Mr. Murphy is inferring that Ms. McKinney is a stooge for the Demo-Green faction. Not only is that insulting it clearly makes no sense because if that was the case all Ms. McKinney had to do was kiss Nancy Pelosi’s ass, like John Conyers, and remain a “loyal” Democrat like much of the current Black Caucus membership.

JM: While Cynthia may have name recognition with many members of the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) she is virtually unknown to 98% of the voting public. At a press conference earlier this month in Madison, Wisconsin which has over 600,000 voters, only 30 people turned out to hear her. She got almost no press coverage at all.

So 30 people turned out to hear a stump rather than go Christmas shopping and we are to draw a sweeping conclusion about Ms. McKinney appeal. What a nonsense argument.

However Mr. Murphy makes no mention of the upcoming Green Party debate in Alameda County, CA on January 13, 2008 where she will have a forum to debate her position among the other candidates.

JM: Tragically, when she does get any press coverage she is smeared by the corporate media as a “cop slapper”, “conspiracy theory nut” and has even been accused of anti-Semitism.

Yep I agree with Mr. Murphy, that is exactly how the mainstream press will smear Mr. McKinney. Yet Mr. Stellar proclaims that to be a “negative”. But since Mr. Stellar liberal privileges affords him to possess a myopic view of the world he has no clue how such smears can be viewed as a positive.

Oppressed communities from who Ms. McKinney draws her support know and understand how the mainstream media works because they are the most SMEARED by mainstream media.

In fact these folk support “mavericks” like McKinney who is being smeared as an “anti-Semitic” because she supports Palestinians rights. Oppressed communities are not afraid of the “anti-Semitic” smear since they too have experienced it when they’ve expressed their affinity for the Palestinian resistance. Having a Cynthia McKinney in the Green Party who can reach out to oppressed communities IMMUNIZES the Green Party from these smears and therefore STRENGTHENS the Green Party position as an inclusive progressive party.

Therefore Mr. Murphy analysis regarding Ms. McKinney are full of contradictions. Another contradictory argument against McKinney being a stooge of the Demo-Greens is that they could not afford to take a change with McKinney critical stance of Israel because it risks opening dialog regarding the influence that the Israel Lobby has on the Democrats.

Face it: Nader is old news at this point. As much as I love the man and his principles. And having Nader on the ticket again, will just lead the party further into irrelevance. In 2004, Nader only got 300,000 votes. Do we really think he will do better this time?

Again, Mr. Stellar offer no analysis of why Nader got 300,000 votes. I already explained that occurred because of the internal sabotage by grinding the process until June 2004 which force Ralph to run independently of the Greens. Unfortunately, many Greens bought into the ABB/Safe-state argument promoted by celebrity “leftist” like Michael Moore and ZNet’s resident “anarchist” Michael Albert. But like any good elitist Liberal, Mr. Stellar never has to provide analysis. All that is necessary are thoughtless assertions and proclamations.

The Greens need a do-over. It’s in danger of becoming the party of disaffected, discredited (if not bizarre) Democrats. Let the Greens run local candidates. And if we are to run a National candidate, let’s find a real Superstar.

And who is that “Superstar” in your mind? That’s right you have none. You have only empty rhetoric otherwise you would have offered a name. That “Superstar” in 2004 went by the name of “David Cobb”.

The point of a Nader run or a McKinney run is to build a campaign around progressive issues at the NATIONAL level because NATIONAL Presidential politics energies the electorate. A national campaign also aids local races. They should not be thought of as mutually exclusive activities.

The Green Party will only become a viable challenge to the Democrats by attracting the most loyal and most disaffected voting block from the Democrats — African Americans. As well as signing up attracting disenfranchised voters who sit out elections.

But it sounds to me like your real concern is “[the Green Party is] in danger of becoming the party of disaffected, discredited (if not bizarre) Democrats” should McKinney bring her core supporters among oppressed communities into the Green Party.

Thanks,
Deadbeat

You ask why I am so “cold” to a Cynthia McKinney bid on the Green Party ticket? I think John Murphy mentioned Ms. McKinney’s liabilities quite well within the article above.

In politics, as in life, you don’t really get a second chance at a first impression. Need I say more?

Face it: Nader is old news at this point. As much as I love the man and his principles. And having Nader on the ticket again, will just lead the party further into irrelevance. In 2004, Nader only got 300,000 votes. Do we really think he will do better this time?

The Greens need a do-over. It’s in danger of becoming the party of disaffected, discredited (if not bizarre) Democrats. Let the Greens run local candidates. And if we are to run a National candidate, let’s find a real Superstar.

As for the Sierra Club. I love my free backpack. Sure, they capitulated on some logging issues in the 90′s. But they did have some decent campaigns on suburbia, habitat destruction and clean energy. Besides, I love to hike; their twenty dollar membership is well worth it.

I’ve also given money to Counterpunch. Even though I don’t agree with all the views expressed there. I’m a Psychiatric RN, and I find Counterpunch’s coverage of medical cannabis to be quite misleading. I take the position, from twenty years of occupational experience—and also from increasing empirical evidence, that cannabis abuse is causitive of psychotic breaks. I can’t remember the last time I’ve worked with a 20ish- first- psychotic break -youngster, who wasn’t positive for THC. It gets old after awhile. Lives ruined.

And Alex Cockburn’s recent critique of global warming and his support for abiotic oil is reminescent of his other quirky sidetrips he likes to take. Remember his defense of the militia’s in the 90′s? Life isn’t black and white. And I still send my check to Counterpunch for the many other incredible gifts that web-site gives us.

Deadbeat brings up some many important and decent points through out this discussion. I don’t particularly like to be called names…nor to be neutered thru some holier than thou Lefty Political etiquette that jumps to some rather goofy and irrational conclusions (such as me not wanting the Green Party to succeed, or be INCLUSIVE). But hey, it’s fun to read. Fire at will, Deadbeat.

peace,

allan

Cindy Sheehan is running as an Independent in the 8th Congressional District.

Lloyd Rowsey

What is good about the McKinney announcement is that both her and Nader strengthens the Green Party field preventing any David Cobb-like sabotage.

Both Nader and McKinney will make good candidates. I do believe that Nader has greater national recognition and that McKinney represents the future direction of the Green Party. So I would be extremely excited by a Nader/McKinney ticket. Almost half of the electorate do not vote and most of them are among the oppressed groups that McKinney speaks to and must bring into the Green Party.

African Americans are the Democratic Party most loyal voting block and the most abused. The Green Party must attract African Americans in order to detach this voting block from the Democrats in order to make a serious challenge.

There will be ridicule of course by the Democrats that Nader/McKinney cannot win. However Nader/McKinney brings is an ongoing campaign that speaks directly to the needs of the disenfranchised and build a progressive mass movement whereby those political aspirations are expressed through the Green Party.