Greens Gone Wild

Toward a Militant Populism

(Editors’ Note: This article was first attributed to John Walsh, but was in fact written by John Murphy. Our apologies for any confusion this may have caused.)

When Congress came into session with a Democrat Party majority, left leaners of every stripe and not a few conservatives hoped that, at the very least, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would come to an end and the more egregious assaults on our civil liberties like the USA Patriot Act would be repealed.

After one year of a Democrat Congress we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Democrat Party gives every indication that that our stay will be indefinite. Instead of repealing egregious pieces of legislation like the USA Patriot Act even more brutal attacks on our civil liberties have been passed by the Democrats through such legislation as the Military Commissions Act which actually undercut one of the cornerstones of Western democracy; habeas corpus.

With the Democrats showing themselves to be as bloodthirsty and as cavalier as the Republicans in destroying our civil liberties the American voter might want to begin looking for an alternative to the Democrats. The Green Party has maintained, on paper, that it has been opposed to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan since those invasions began and that it is similarly opposed to any legislation which restricts our civil liberties. But what exactly is the Green Party doing to advance this agenda?

Instead of preparing to deal squarely with the problem of the Democrat Party through a fission strategy, tragically the Green Party is setting itself up to run a presidential campaign modeled on the mindless strategy of 2004. By any measurement, the Green Party’s 2004 strategy to run an unknown candidate, who had no funding, nor any way to raise significant funds, and to run him in only those states where he would not present a threat to the Democrat’s candidate was a disaster. The Green Party’s candidate, David Cobb got 100,000 votes (as opposed to their 2000 presidential candidate Ralph Nader who got 3,000,000 votes) lost its ballot status in nine states; it lost 50,000 members; its rate of growth has now become a rate of decline; its treasury is empty and it has gone from running 400 candidates a year down to running 100 candidates a year.

Any normal organization would have gotten rid of the officers responsible for such a devastating strategic failure. But the Green Party is not just any normal organization! Not by a long shot! Not only have they kept all of the failed officers in place but they have even promoted one of the leading demogreens, Phil Huckelberry, to its Steering Committee. In fact Jim Coplen, Budd Dickinson, Jason Nabewaniec, Jody Grage, and Holly Hart all worked hard to destroy the independence of the Green Party in the 2004 election and were rewarded by the members of the National Committee for this horror show by being elected to the Steering Committee and now remain in total control of which proposals the National Committee will consider and whether those proposals will require a simple majority threshold for passage or a supermajority threshold of 66.6%.

As if that weren’t sufficiently suicidal, the National Committee has put the entire electoral process of the Green Party into the hands of a man with the highest record of failure in the entire party; Greg Gerritt. Mr. Gerritt is in charge of what the Greens call their “CCC” Coordinated Campaign Committee and their “PCSC” Presidential Campaign Support Committee. The Green Party’s failure over the last four years can be laid at the feet of David Cobb, John Rensenbrink, Ted Glick, Ben Manski, Dean Meyerson, Jody Grage and Greg Gerritt. While Cobb may have been the only one who understood the entire mechanisms that segregated the party’s membership from its decision-making processes, we have Gerritt to thank for the continued decline of the party without any effort to bring this decline to a halt. He even mismanaged a major contribution which cost the Coordinated Campaign Committee $25,000.

The Demogreens

Every party has factions. The Green Party is no exception but the factions in every other party, especially the Democrat and Republican Parties manage to put their differences aside in favor of one key value “party unity”. Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party has a faction which actually wants to bring about the end of that party in favor of strengthening some other political party. Not so the Green Party.

One of the major factions in the Green Party is called the “demogreen faction”. It is also referred to as the “lesser-evil-greens faction”. A more lengthy but rather more descriptive title would be “Democrat Party Accommodationists”. These are the people in the Green Party who believe that the function of the Green Party is to improve the Democrat Party and by all means to avoid hurting Democrat Party candidates. Phil Huckleberry, one of the leaders of this faction, made this demonstrably clear at the 2005 Green Party convention when he stood up and screamed while pounding the table: “I did not join an independent party, I joined the Green Party; I did not join the Green Party to fight the Democrat Party”. Huckleberry continues to warn Green Party members not to criticize “progressive” Democrats.

The faction in opposition to the demogreens is usually called the Independent Greens. These are Greens who see the Green Party as independent from both of the corporate owned parties. They do not see the role of the Green Party as having anything to do with helping the Democrat Party. The Independent Greens also insist that the Green Party be democratically organized. They want each state to be proportionately represented with respect to the number of Greens in each state. The demogreens, which are the right wing of the party, reject the concept of “one person one vote” which is the very cornerstone of democracy. In essence they would favor a system whereby a Senate would be given legislative power instead of a House of Representatives. The logic of the demogreens emerged in the 18th century and gave rise to the Electoral College and the United States Senate.

The demogreens have actually taken this antidemocratic philosophy further than the landed aristocracy which gave us the United States Senate. The demogreens seek to bar democracy of any kind within the Green Party. They seek to keep the membership fully divorced from the decision-making process of the national party leadership. The disproportionate size in state delegations is the mechanism by which this system is created and perpetuated.

Green Party Corruption

One of the paid administrators in the Green Party is Brent McMillan whose history of failure as Political Director goes hand in hand with the failure of his supervisor Greg Gerritt. Simply being a failed Political Director however, is not the end of McMillan’s difficulties. Recently McMillan (a demogreen) insisted that Elizabeth Arnone, the only Independent Green who sits on the steering committee with eight demogreens, and John Murphy, delegate from Pennsylvania were heading up a “fifth column” effort to destroy the Green Party!

Continuing in this insane vein, McMillan then, in a state of prejudicial rage writes a letter to the Green Party’s steering committee slandering one of its presidential candidates, Elaine Brown, by writing that she “is paranoid delussional (sic) and is also a late stage alcoholic”. Ms. Brown is a long time activist, a former leader of the Black Panther Party, a Green Party candidate for mayor of Brunswick, Georgia in 2005, an author and college lecturer, a community organizer and an incredible asset to the Green Party. This is how she is maligned by a Green Party hired gun!

Most normal organizations would have thrown McMillan out on his butt for making such a groundless, prejudicial statement before getting sued for libel, slander and defamation of character. But the Steering Committee, eight of whom are demogreens, has come to his aid and instead is calling for the resignation of Liz Arnone for blowing the whistle on McMillan.

Adding injury to insult, John Murphy who has been working for four years in the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition to help rid Pennsylvania of the egregious ballot access laws which prevent minor party candidates like the Greens from running for election was, himself, actually denied the ability to run for election to a position on the Coordinated Campaign Committee in an effort to ride herd on Gerritt.

Murphy’s own state party chair, ignoring the rules, would not even permit him to run for election to obtain a seat on this committee. There was only one criterion for evaluation: did Murphy have campaign experience? But instead of simply writing a note to the party secretary, demogreen Holly Hart, informing her that Murphy indeed had the required experience, the Pennsylvania chair set up her own version of the Star Chamber and, after receiving a communication from Greg Gerritt begging her not to permit Murphy to run, Murphy was denied ballot access! Denied the very ability to run for office within his own party!

Preventing worthy candidates from running for office is as grievous a sin against democracy as preventing people from voting. But acting in an antidemocratic fashion has never bothered the leaders of the Green Party. It was precisely that kind of behavior which gave the Green Party the strategy failure of 2004.

The corruption continues with delegate Hugh Esco from Georgia. Georgia is the former home state of Cynthia McKinney. As it turns out Green Party National Delegate Esco was on the payroll of the Democrat Party. Apparently, this delegate from Georgia may not even reside in the United States! He appears to hold an administrative position in the Green Party of Canada. Curiouser and curiouser!

The Arrival of Cynthia McKinney

The best thing to happen to the demogreens since the safe state strategy is Cynthia McKinney. The former congresswoman from Georgia is a great asset to the Green Party and with a bit of luck could be our vice presidential candidate but not if the demogreens get their way. 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. 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.

The demogreens plan to use Ms. McKinney as a surrogate for safe states. Unlike Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney has no national constituency; no ability to raise significant funds. This makes her virtually another David Cobb minus the devious intentions. The Green Party has only 19 ballot lines remaining. McKinney may be able to pick up another half dozen but after that, there is little she will be able to do with no name recognition, no money and no loyal following to build organizations in states where the Green Party has no ballot line.

The Paper States

To ensure that McKinney becomes the presidential candidate of the Green Party the demogreens under the leadership of Greg Gerritt engineered the failure of a recent proposal which would guarantee that the apportionment of delegates to the national convention would be at least a rough approximation of the concept of “one-person one-vote” or in this case “one green one-vote”. It is very likely that we will go into the convention with states like Indiana which has a total of 47 Greens (yet Jim Coplen of Indiana managed to engineer himself a seat on our steering committee) getting eight delegate votes along with a group of 16 other states known as “paper states”.

The “paper states” came about as an artifact of Nader’s presidential campaign of 2000. Several states across the country established Green Parties during the Nader campaign but they fell apart soon after the election. Those state Green Parties nevertheless remained “on the books” and were quickly taken over by the demogreen faction. This means that 16 states with less than a thousand Greens have 32 delegate votes in the Green Party’s National Committee enabling them to outvote states like Pennsylvania which has 15,000 Greens yet only eight delegate votes. Those 32 delegate votes also offset California’s 41 votes yet California has 150,000 Greens — 40% of the total Greens in the country. The delegate apportionment rule being favored by the demogreens will put a cap on California’s delegates at 20% meaning that 50% of California’s Greens will not be represented!

The Grassroots: Now or Never

It may be too late but unless the rank and file; the grassroots Greens, awaken and insist upon the resignation of every member of the steering committee with the exception of Liz Arnone, the book will close on the Green Party of the United States. Unless the rank and file Greens in Maine, Illinois and Wisconsin ousts every member of their national delegation the book will close on the Green Party of the United States. Unless the rank-and-file members of the Green Party of the United States insist upon a democratically organized political party which is completely independent of the Democrat Party, refusing to support Democrat candidates directly or indirectly, the book will close on the Green Party of the United States. The time for doing this is now measured in months, perhaps even weeks. It is likely however, that no matter how the time is measured it may have already expired.

The Unknown Factor: Ralph Nader

If the demogreens’ e-mail messages to the Green Party’s National Committee could be heard instead of read they would sound something like whining dogs, cackling hens or screeching cats. These are the same people who have been saying for the last four years “if only Nader had come to our convention, he would have gotten the nomination”. They behave as if they had no idea what Manski and Meyerson did back then. Now their cackling, whining and screeching is taking the form of “well Nader hasn’t even bothered to tell us he’s a candidate”.

Any 12-year-old with a modem could’ve told you why Nader didn’t announce a couple of months ago. It was clear that he was about to get a tremendous amount of publicity as a result of the movie “An Unreasonable Man” being broadcast all over the country by PBS from December 18-24. Clearly had Ralph announced before that time PBS would not have been able to show that movie since it might have been considered promoting a presidential candidate. If the whiners, cacklers and screechers had paid any attention, they would’ve heard that Ralph said publicly several times he would make his announcement around the end of December. No one would throw away the kind of publicity he received during that week in December coupled with the publicity he received as a result of his lawsuit against not only against the Democrat Party but the law firm which sued him in the first place.

If the leaders of the Green Party were thinking strategically they would be focused on one objective: obtaining 5% of the popular vote so that they could qualify for matching funds in 2012. Certainly there are other objectives to be achieved such as growth in membership, return of lost ballot lines and the resulting increase of funds in the Green Party treasury. Only Nader can get the votes required to return their lost ballot lines. Only Nader can get the necessary 5% they need for federal matching funds in 2012. Only Nader has the national constituency required to raise sufficient funds to run a presidential campaign. Only Nader as the infrastructure already in place to organize those states where the Green Party has no ballot line. While there are indeed many well intended Greens supporting Cynthia McKinney, the real support for McKinney is steeped in corruption and driven by the desire to do minimal damage to the Democrat candidate as in 2004.

The Horizon: Militant Populists

As the tidal waves of history come crashing down on the crumbling walls of the Green Party washing away even the stains of Cobb, Gerritt and Huckleberry, a new movement is already beginning to take shape. As the bearded, braided, crystal gazing, alternative dress, let’s-everyone-make-nice, politically-correct-language-obsessed Greens are reabsorbed into the political environment, a militant form of populism is beginning to make its voice heard. A zeitgeist, if you will, spreading slowly but inextricably from the south is taking hold of the angry, frustrated, politically and economically disenfranchised Americans who long to make their voices and their will heard in the United States. This spirit is beginning to embody not the doctrinaire Democrats of The Nation Magazine bellowing the trite catch phrases of a hollow liberalism but the tens of millions of Americans who know only intuitively that something has gone very wrong and that if there ever was an “American Dream” it could only come with the futile purchase of the next lottery ticket.

John Murphy was the independent candidate for House of Representatives in Pennsylvania's 16th district in 2006 and 2008 . He is a founding member of the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition where he represents the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader. He can be reached at: Read other articles by John, or visit John's website.

40 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Tom Yager said on December 31st, 2007 at 5:55am #

    This is identical John Murphy’s “Greens Gone Wild” article in Counterpunch. So who actually wrote this?

  2. john walsh said on December 31st, 2007 at 6:15am #

    John Walsh writing here. “Greens Gone Wild” is NOT my article and I do not know how my named got on it. Seems like some electrons got tangled up somewhere.
    The article is by John Murphy as one can tell by his inimitable style and by his name signed to it yesterday or the day before on
    I hope the correction will be made promptly – or it may cause a lot of confusion.
    Happy New Year to one and all.
    John Walsh
    p.s. I guess it is easy to confuse two Irishmen – a Murphy with a Walsh. 😉

  3. john walsh said on December 31st, 2007 at 7:25am #

    This is John Walsh writing.
    The article “Greens Gone Wild” bearing my name is NOT mine at all.
    It was written by John Murphy and it originally appeared in
    I hope that the editors soon correct this error.
    Happy New Year
    john walsh

  4. Eric Patton said on December 31st, 2007 at 7:45am #

    Yager is correct. Perhaps someone has simply made a clerical error?

  5. John Murphy said on December 31st, 2007 at 8:59am #

    I have written to all three editors and left a voicemail with one of them explaining that my article has appeared with John Walsh as its author. Since both of us have contributed to Dissident Voice in the past, I’m sure it was a simple clerical error.

    John Murphy

  6. Allan Stellar said on December 31st, 2007 at 10:54am #

    Now that being Green is hip (just watch HGTV for a day for the truth of this statement), it is unfortunate that there is no political outlet for this increased consciousness. A sad state.

    So, how to shape this Green Movement into a real Green Party? Well, if the movement is there, the leader should emerge. When the pupil is ready the teacher appears, so say my New Age friends. If so, where is he/she? I’m sorry, but Cynthia McKinney is not the new Green Guru.

    In a way, The Greens did their job by helping Al Gore to lose in 2000. Al could then make his movie, testify before congress, go to Bali. If Al would only acknowledge the errors of his past (running as a democrat) and stand up for his principles by running as a Green.

    What is needed is for a new Nader to emerge. A principled person to lead this burgeoning movement. Paul Hawken hangs out with Bill Clinton these days, while parading the new Green movement (with a capitalist bent). Bill McKinney writes great books…but only advocates on issues. Writers we have. National leaders we don’t.

    It’s a sad day for Greens. I guess all we can hope for is for some leader to have “enough” of conventional political parties…and to jump ship and lead this new movement (present at Green Festivals and Renewable Energy clinics).

    Til then, buy solar. Decrease your footprint. Read Mother Earth News and the New Society Press. Live well. Slow down. And hope for the best.

  7. Allan Stellar said on December 31st, 2007 at 11:10am #

    Oops…I meant Bill McKibben in the prior post. My apologies to Bill.

    Looks like incorrect attributions run rampant within this piece. Too many McK’s and not enough coffee on this end…

  8. Deadbeat said on December 31st, 2007 at 12:19pm #

    Allen Stellar writes…
    The Greens did their job by helping Al Gore to lose in 2000.

    The Greens (Ralph Nader) was not responsible for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. This is an excuse that the liberals and Democrats promulgate. The reason Gore loss was because he ran a terrible campaign and it goes to show how the liberals and Democrats do not take responsibility for their own lousy message. Gore is a member of the corporate and racist wing of the Democratic Party. Gore was a founding member of the DLC which was a reaction to the progressive wing of the party. Another founding member is the Zionist, Joe Lieberman, who was Gore’s running mate in 2000 and an avid supporter of neocon’s Middle East policies and domestic lock down.

    Notice how these irresponsible blame shifters totally forget Gore’s record as Veep such as his support for NAFTA; support for the repeal of Welfare; the privatization of Social Security; the Iraqi sanctions and regime change; the awful telecommunication bill; relaxation of the accounting rules that led to Enron, etc…

    These are the things that Mr. Stellar wants readers to ignore and not consider. But the most important assumption is that if Gore was President during 911, that the U.S. would not be mired in Iraq. That is extremely dubious as the Veep would have been the Zionist Joe Lieberman and like Chaney would have been a major advocate for war and would have reminded Gore who signs the campaign checks.

    Clearly Mr. Stellar is disingenuous when the blames the Green for Gore’s 2000 loss.

  9. Deadbeat said on December 31st, 2007 at 12:52pm #

    Allan Stellar says…

    So, how to shape this Green Movement into a real Green Party? Well, if the movement is there, the leader should emerge. When the pupil is ready the teacher appears, so say my New Age friends. If so, where is he/she? I’m sorry, but Cynthia McKinney is not the new Green Guru.

    Mr. Stellar see the Green Party as restricted as an extension of the “Green Movement” what does that mean. Ms. McKinney has been vocal about environmental racism. Is that not part of the “Green Movement” or his Mr. Stellar vision of the “Green Movement” a primarily narrow and white “Sierra Club” organization. The Green will never grow as a party if they want to remain an exclusive club.

  10. john walsh said on December 31st, 2007 at 2:00pm #

    Thanks to the editors for making a quick correction and attributing the article to John Murphy. Clearly the editors of DissidentVoice do not rest even on New Years Eve.
    Happy New Year to them all. They run a great online journal. Wish we had more like it.
    john walsh

  11. Allan Stellar said on December 31st, 2007 at 3:11pm #

    Yes, Deadbeat is correct. I am a card carrying member of the Sierra Club. I’m also married to a former Earth First! tree-sitting Felon.

    We Greens haven’t recovered from the 2000 vote. The party died. The movement lives on. I’m curious as to where all these Militant Populists are, mentioned in John Murphy’s article?

    As for the bad Gore/good Gore dichotomy? I think Al Gore has done much to redeem himself since losing the 2000 election. Let’s give the guy a little credit.

    Where I live, here in northern California, the Mustard came up seven weeks early. The earth is changing. I’m thankful for people like Paul Hawken, Bill McKibben and others who tirelessly try to make a difference. I don’t think we give those “Green Economy” intellectuals their due. I welcome this new green consciousness. Maybe Ralph Nader was right back in 2000 when he said (something to the effect) that in twenty years we all would be Green.

    It’s time to get over the 2000 vote and move on. Do we succomb to Green Piety and buy that “off the grid” home? I think that is part of the answer. And yes, I did that. When the green revolution comes it will be our lifestyles that are changed. Even more so than our votes.

    Every party needs a superstar. Cynthia McKinney is not that superstar to resurrect the Green Party. Rascism has nothing to do with that. Where is that Militant Populist that John Murphy cites?

  12. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 31st, 2007 at 4:21pm #

    I don’t know squat about Green politics, but I think nothing would revive a strong environmentalist movement in this country like a meaningful campaign to IMPEACH Bush or any subsequent president who continues the war in Iraq.

  13. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 31st, 2007 at 6:06pm #

    Well, John Walsh. I just searched DV’s search box for your name, and I found a very complimentary post you made to an article by Cindy Sheehan. Possibly, you’ve read my foregoing post and you realize from it that I am a Cindy Sheehan supporter, as evidently you are also. That is, you may share my opinion that various strands of 3rd party politics at this point in time and place, should be joining forces around immediate IMPEACHMENT of George Bush, and prospective impeachment of his successor in office if that president intends to continue the war in Iraq.

    Or in your opinion is this “great online journal” presently unready for a discussion of this issue among its posters?

  14. dan elliott said on December 31st, 2007 at 6:29pm #

    Well, I give Alan Stellars credit: at least he signs his own name. That IS your real name, right?

    But I’m interested in how you arrived at your oracular pronouncement that Cynthia McKinney is “not a superstar”. What is it about her that leaves you so cold? Not enough hollywood style “charisma”, whatever that is?

    I’m sorry, Mr S., but in my opinion Cynthia McKinney IS a superstar. I can’t think of anybody involved in the Electoral Arena who even comes close to offering what she does. Good god, man, here’s a person running for President who actually has a clue.

    BTW, from all I’ve run across, the Sierra Club is Part of the Problem, a nest of hypocrites. Of course that’s just my opinion; the outfit never interested me enough to investigate it in depth.

    But I would be very interested in exactly how you arrived at your decision to dismiss Cynthia McKinney’s candidacy out of hand. I should tell you that your comment has given rise, in my mind at least, to a number of speculations. But I won’t jump to any conclusions; I will assume nothing & wait to see how you explain yourself.

    Thanking you in advance,

    Dan Elliott

  15. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 31st, 2007 at 6:39pm #

    Dan. Does Cynthia speak to the anti-war movement?

  16. Deadbeat said on December 31st, 2007 at 6:56pm #

    We Greens haven’t recovered from the 2000 vote. The party died. The movement lives on. I’m curious as to where all these Militant Populists are, mentioned in John Murphy’s article?

    Ralph Nader won 3 to 4 millon votes in 2000 and expanded the Green Party ballot lines. The “Demo-Greens” such as the phony Medea Benjamin, who take Soros dollars, and Ted Glick sabotaged the Green Party by adopting the “Anybody But Bush – Safe State Strategy”. They used the piss-poor balloting rules that gave smaller stated a disproportionate about of power in order to install David Cobb as standard bearer in 2004. Because of the in-fighting caused by the demo-green meant that Nader would not be able to start his campaign until June 2004 — deliberately too late to obtain ballot access in most states. This is the reason why Nader ran and an “independent” in 2004.

    Cobb only amass 100,000 votes and lost ballot lines in a number of the states that Nader won in 2000. The reason why the Greens hasn’t recovered is due to the shenanigans of these reactionary Greens. These reactionaries are also why Elaine Brown recently renounced the Greens and the Green Party.

    While I may agree that Cynthia McKinney may not be as well known as Ralph Nader, she stance on the issue makes her the MOST PROGRESSIVE candidate among the field. In addition she will attracts Blacks and Latinos into the Green Party. Methinks that this is the reason why Mr. Stellar is critical of Ms. McKinney. Cynthia McKinney has been outspoken against environmental racism however the Sierra Club has been silent on this issue and their organization has supported the so-called “environmental veep” Al Gore who as well documented by Jeff St. Clair has been very detrimental to the environment. In fact during the early part of the Clinton Administration, Gore cut deals with Waste Management. So Gore’s record on the environment is dubious and is advocacy of “global warming” is more to push nuclear energy which is heavily tied to his home state of Tennessee. Again refer to CounterPunch, Alexander Cockburn, for more info.

    Mr. Stellar, advocacy, is for elitist whites liberal having no desire to really see the Green Party become an all INCLUSIVE progressive force that seriously challenges the Democratic Party.

  17. Deadbeat said on December 31st, 2007 at 7:30pm #

    Does Cynthia speak to the anti-war movement?

    Ms. McKinney has spoken at anti-war rallies and supports bringing the troops home immediately.

  18. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 31st, 2007 at 7:40pm #

    Deadbeat. How can the Green Party become an “all inclusive progressive force” seriously challenging the Dems w/o escalating from the mantric “bringing the troops home immediately” to Impeachment Now?

    Hast thou eyes but can not see?

  19. Deadbeat said on December 31st, 2007 at 7:54pm #

    The Greens support the impeachment of Bush

    Both Nader and McKinney are on record demanding the impeachment of Bush and I think Cindy Sheehan is running as a Green. I do hope she receive the support needed to defeat Palosi.

    The problem with the Greens however is structural and have been infiltrated by reactionaries who want to limit the Green Party as a Democratic Party pressure group rather than an all inclusive independent progressive political party.

  20. Max Shields said on January 1st, 2008 at 10:31am #

    Deadbeat, thank you for your analysis of the Green Party and putting some good context to the Presidential side of the GP.

    Nader is a person I have and will continue to support. I recently ran for a city council seat and McKinney spoke eloquently at my HQ in the final leg and I recently received a very nice personal note from her.

    However, I don’t think the aim of the Green Party is to win the Presidential election. The aim should be to run a candidate – if at all – to obtain as many votes as possible. The goal should be to regain the ballot standing (Cobb who???) lost and create a power base. The latter is only possible if Greens run in every local and state race possible. A grass-roots Green Party is the goal. Here is where real decision affecting people happen. Take over the City Council. Become a force in the Congress. Greens have been successful at the local level, continuing to gain elected positions throughout many states.

    Nader is suited for pulling in the voters on a national scale. McKinney would be a good second choice (VP) for the reasons you gave and to shake this non-sense about the Green Party being a hippy/white bread Party (which it has been). There are a good number of people of color of the 7 candidates the Greens have running.

    The real transformation is to get representative government. State by state implement Instant Run-off Voting and Proportional Representation. Get as many parties in the mix as possible. With this people will come out to vote – their Vote will not be for lesser of two evils – they can actually vote their conscience and know it matters. But these changes can only begin to happen when there is a breakdown in the duoply that has a strangle hold on this corporatized government.

    Let’s, then, get rid of the lawyers and send in the poets, philosophers, bus drivers, farmers, school teachers, artists and give this country a real jolt of representative government.

  21. Deadbeat said on January 1st, 2008 at 12:01pm #

    Max, I’m in total agreement with you. Having Nader and McKinney in the Green is a powerful combination. McKinney presence is a repudiation of the Democratic Party and will encourage people of color and women of all stripes to consider bolting from the Democrats. I supported Nader’s run in 2004 and was disappointed with the Green Party internal shenanigans. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the same policy makers are still around.

    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.

  22. Lloyd Rowsey said on January 1st, 2008 at 1:16pm #

    Thank you for responding, Deadbeat and Max. I’m surprised to learn that the Greens support impeachment, although in light of John Murphy’s critique, I wonder about the relevance of this “support.”

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

    Lloyd Rowsey

  23. Allan Stellar said on January 1st, 2008 at 5:14pm #

    Hello Dan… and yes, I post with my real name. I’ve also enjoyed some of your prior posts, so I’ll take this invitation for dialogue to be somewhat avuncular.

    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.



  24. Deadbeat said on January 2nd, 2008 at 1:39am #

    Ok, Allan, when you don’t have strong arguments to make ridicule and cynicism are excellent substitutes. You go onto say the following…

    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.


  25. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 2nd, 2008 at 6:49am #

    Someone above said something about this blah blah being “fun to read.” Well, yes…and no. The latter mostly because of the waste of heartbeats. I think we must admit that most of what’s going on above has to do with theoretical notions, and little to do with facing the challenges on organizing “in the street.” Especially when the talk digresses to “bringing in Afro-Americans.” That OR the spine of the commentary props up dialogue devoted to ego-centered attempts at gaining the spotlight. Neither Ralph nor Cynthia have spent their public service lives to have their heartbeats come to all this. Why isn’t there more talk about the possibility of having them run together? Let me answer: Such talk, for the most part, doesn’t fit well into the molds I’m suggesting are being put to work above. Certainly, one can’t be concerned with how this or that candidate is vulnerable to criticism. Playing that card only keeps one “safe” in initial stages. Eventually, all principled candidates standing up for unpopular positions will be inundated with unfair, killer critiques.

    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,
    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?”.

  26. Max Fields said on January 2nd, 2008 at 11:03am #

    Marcelle Cendrars “Neither Ralph nor Cynthia have spent their public service lives to have their heartbeats come to all this. Why isn’t there more talk about the possibility of having them run together?”

    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?

  27. Max Fields said on January 2nd, 2008 at 11:06am #

    Marcelle Cendrars, btw it’s apparent that we agree, and my last post is really a reinforcement of yours.


  28. David Gaines said on January 2nd, 2008 at 1:32pm #

    Am I the only one who noticed Mr. Murphy’s seemingly deliberate use of the word “Democrat” as if it were an adjective at every opportunity, the way conservative Republicans do, for some unknown reason (maybe they can’t distinguish between parts of speech, I dunno)?

    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.

  29. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 2nd, 2008 at 5:11pm #

    Thanks, Max. I did notice that there was a single (I believe) ref to the imagined combined effort. Part of the point is that there’s not more of such talk. As far as the Greens being the only party built for such and such, I submit, again, that ANY Third Party going about things in the usual way is getting sucked into the delusion that progress can be made by playing the Electoral Game according to the traditional rules. Not to beat a dead horse, but an example –only an EXAMPLE– of trying something “new” can be found at DVoice in the form of my article on The Dream Party. People are not getting the obvious fact that the “marginalization” prevents even growth of a given party beyond anything piddling. Nader and or McKinney need to focus on another paradigm other than the one they’re employing. When I mentioned that “they” didn’t “get it,” I was speaking about THEM. I’m not sure I get the reference/point regarding Lincoln. Blessings, Marcelle

  30. Allan Stellar said on January 2nd, 2008 at 5:56pm #

    In the article by John Murphy, he points toward a “militant populist”. It’s the title of the piece.

    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?

  31. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 2nd, 2008 at 6:42pm #

    I was going to comment on Allan’s entry in full…until I came to his last couple of paragraphs. That POV deserves its own space. I do think that the scorecard’s in on Gore –if Allan was serious– regarding the fact that he has too much VERY BAD baggage to head any well-meaning…ANYTHING. Once a major opportunist always a major opportunist…unless apologies respecting the horrific past are forthcoming. They are not. Joshua Frank did an excellent job here at DVoice delineating…the baggage. Green may be a lifestyle, but it’s not a lifestyle that Green Party members are consistently living, and it’s definitely not a lifestyle that the general U.S. public is embracing…a few pluses here and there (too little too late and too ambivalently put in place) notwithstanding. I’ll close by noting that I hope the editors at DVoice will post the article I’m going to submit tonight…”Five Negative Reasons for Voting for Ron Paul.” I trust it’ll do –in a way– for Ron…what Joshua did for Al…albeit from a very different angle. Best, Marcelle P.S. “Superstar” consideration should no longer be a factor in discussions of this type. High profiles, ultimately, have very little to do with what is going to be necessary to draw out a winning majority of voters; and, again, there’s too much energy being invested in the party building along traditi0nal lines.

  32. Max Fields said on January 2nd, 2008 at 6:50pm #

    Marcelle Cendrars,

    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.)

  33. Hue Longer said on January 2nd, 2008 at 7:15pm #

    Hello Marcelle,

    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.

  34. Hue Longer said on January 2nd, 2008 at 7:30pm #

    And I heard Mike Malloy being a beggar for the funded effort to bring Gore into the mix…Please God, come save us from Republicans–only a man of your integrity can do so, blah blah blah

    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.

  35. Deadbeat said on January 2nd, 2008 at 8:00pm #

    Especially when the talk digresses to “bringing in Afro-Americans.”

    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.

  36. dan elliott said on January 2nd, 2008 at 9:43pm #

    Okay, let’s start with David Gaines? Sorry: David Loses. Some of us use the spelling “Democrat” because it’s shorter than the more precise orthography “Dummox-rat”;)

    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.


    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,


  37. Brian Koontz said on January 3rd, 2008 at 12:08am #

    “Instead of repealing egregious pieces of legislation like the USA Patriot Act even more brutal attacks on our civil liberties have been passed by the Democrats through such legislation as the Military Commissions Act which actually undercut one of the cornerstones of Western democracy; habeas corpus.”

    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).

  38. Deadbeat said on January 3rd, 2008 at 12:58am #


    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,

  39. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 3rd, 2008 at 1:18am #

    A lot to respond to, but here are a few soundbites:

    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.

  40. Allan Stellar said on January 3rd, 2008 at 5:53pm #


    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,