Big News from Green Convention
Ken Sain has been doing an awesome job of keeping people up to date on the happenings at the Green Party’s national meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Some major news that he’s just broken includes…
Peter Camejo, past candidate for California governor and Ralph Nader’s 2004 running mate, will most likely make another run for governor in 2006.
Neither Camejo nor 2004 nominee David Cobb will seek the 2008 Presidential nomination. Both men hugged and spoke about their respective 2004 campaigns.
As for the 2008 nomination, many delegates are apparently convinced that the party must run a woman next time around. Several names have been floated, but nothing too solid yet.
July 24th, 2005 at 4:57 am
I wish Camejo would run for President, he would be the party’s best bet for 2008.
July 24th, 2005 at 5:09 am
I like the idea of running a woman candidate for President, rather than just Vice President. I hope the LP does that, too.
July 24th, 2005 at 11:03 am
I think the wise move for the Green Party would be to go into talks with John Kerry. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008 (and I hope that she doesn’t), I think that the Green Party should offer Kerry the opportunity to be it’s candidate.
I don’t think that the Green Party would actually make that offer to Kerry, but I think that it should. Kerry cares about things such as the environment and worker rights. He also got more than 58 million votes in the 2004 election. Having Kerry as it’s presidential candidate would help out big time in making it a party eligible for matching funds.
I would prefer that Kerry be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2008, because I want to see him actually win the presidency. However, if Hillary wins the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2008, and if Kerry wins the Green Party’s nomination, I would definitely be voting Green.
July 24th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
John Kerry as the Green nominee? Excuse me?
Sen. Kerry voted for the invastion of Iraq. Sen. Kerry voted for Fast Track. (At least he voted against CAFTA.) The Green Party will not soon forget these votes.
Sen. Kerry should count himself lucky if the Greens don’t do their best to get him kicked out when he comes up for re-election in 2008.
July 24th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
If Kerry was the Green candidate…
1. He’d have no chance of winning, so he wouldn’t waste his time.
2. He’d split off several million Democrats and hand the election to the Republicans.
3. Someone would egg Teresa’s SUV.
July 24th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Well, Brent. If the Green Party is thinking like you do, they can just go on as just another minor party. My idea (if they could pull it off) would help them to get matching funds in the 2012 election.
Austin, if the Democratic Party turns it’s back on John Kerry, they don’t deserve to win the election in 2008. Especially after he got all those votes in 2004 against the incumbent president. I know one thing: I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:17 am
QUOTE: “Kerry cares about things such as the environment and worker rights. He also got more than 58 million votes in the 2004 election.”
He also voted for NAFTA and war and the USAPATIOT Act and the REAL ID Act.
QUOTE: “(At least he voted against CAFTA.)”
Doesn’t excuse him for voting for NAFTA.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:20 am
QUOTE: “Austin, if the Democratic Party turns it’s back on John Kerry, they don’t deserve to win the election in 2008.”
John Kerry was almost as bad as Bush. He votes for funding Israel, and probably various other nations, with our tax dollars. Basicaly the only substantial difference that makes Kerry better is that he’s pro-Choice. :
QUOTE: “...I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.”
Neither will I.
I’m planning to write an article sometime next week on why Liberals should vote against Hillary.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:27 am
QUOTE: “John Kerry was almost as bad as Bush. He votes for funding Israel, and probably various other nations, with our tax dollars. Basicaly the only substantial difference that makes Kerry better is that he’s pro-Choice.”
John Kerry wanted a raise in the minimum wage. He also wanted unemployment compensation to be extended. He also wanted changes made to the Patriot Act so that Americans’ civil liberties would be better protected. There were a lot of differences between Kerry and Bush.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Why liberals should vote against Hillary?
Well… she wants to bring back the draft, and she wants to put video games under federal oversight. The Democrats were the party of personal freedom, I always thought… so how on Earth did THAT happen?
And if you’re a classical liberal like I, you’d also chafe at the fact that she’s trying to get national healthcare put in place. Even modern liberals should be distrustful of the federal government these days… if eight years of Bush teaches you guys nothing else, it should be that whatever stuff you pass when you’re elected will begin sucking once the GOP takes the government back. If you modern liberals want government healthcare, it’d be happier for both you and classical liberals like me to keep it at the state level. That way there’s more oversight by the citizenry and more accountability… and that way the half of the country that thinks NHS is a load of crock won’t be continually trying to scrap it or de-fund it.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:29 am
As I said on the dream debate thread, Cynthia McKinney belongs at the top of the Green ticket.
July 25th, 2005 at 11:39 am
QUOTE: “I’m planning to write an article sometime next week on why Liberals should vote against Hillary.”
I’m looking forward to reading that article.
QUOTE: “The Democrats were the party of personal freedom, I always thought…”
That’s what I also used to think. I hope that the Democrats will get back to that.
July 25th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Ken Sain (http://www.kensain.com/) suggests Susan Sarandon…That’s got some name recognition.
Kerry is not Green, it’ll never happen. Kucinich however – he’s got Green.
There is debate as to whether or not a big name candidate at the top of the ticket helps or hurts a third party. Linking a party’s fate on one person (Nader, Perot, for example) can result in a crash after the person is gone, and hurt grassroots efforts. On the other hand, if you can get the 5%, thats a whole nuther story.
As a Green myself, I’d like to see continued focus on local elections, local campaigns. The Green moto at one time was “Think Globally Act Locally”, right?
July 26th, 2005 at 2:25 am
the problem with Kerry was that he gave plenty of reasons to vote against Bush, but damn few reasons to vote FOR him.
he tried to coast into the white house on the “lesser of two evils” bit.
he’s no green, and the green party shouldn’t even consider him.
July 26th, 2005 at 8:06 am
QUOTE: “the problem with Kerry was that he gave plenty of reasons to vote against Bush, but damn few reasons to vote FOR him.”
That’s your opinion. I know of quite a few people (including myself) who went out and voted FOR John Kerry.
July 27th, 2005 at 3:50 am
I’ll probably be able to get md.lp.org to host my article if and when I get around to writing it. They’ve already hosted two of my articles. http://www.md.lp.org/editorials.php
I gave up hope on the Democrats back in the 9th grade, while watching Lieberman adocate on C-SPAN the censorship of music, television, video games, and movies. I’m very much a classical Liberal. (In fact, classical Liberalism is what my third article was about. I haven’t submitted it yet to md.lp.org, though.)
QUOTE: “There is debate as to whether or not a big name candidate at the top of the ticket helps or hurts a third party. Linking a party’s fate on one person (Nader, Perot, for example) can result in a crash after the person is gone, and hurt grassroots efforts. On the other hand, if you can get the 5%, thats a whole nuther story.”
Well, Perot got 20% (or somewhere around there) in his first election. The Reform Party has since basically collapsed into nothing, but then again, Perot was the Reform Party, so it’s not surprising how far it’s fallen without him.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
QUOTE: “I’ll probably be able to get md.lp.org to host my article if and when I get around to writing it. They’ve already hosted two of my articles. http://www.md.lp.org/editorials.php”
Thanks. I’ll have to keep an eye out for it. When I get a chance, I’ll also have to look at some of the other articles you wrote.
QUOTE: “I gave up hope on the Democrats back in the 9th grade, while watching Lieberman adocate on C-SPAN the censorship of music, television, video games, and movies. I’m very much a classical Liberal. (In fact, classical Liberalism is what my third article was about. I haven’t submitted it yet to md.lp.org, though.)”
Joe Lieberman is not exactly the best that the Democrats have to offer. He’s too much like a Republican for my taste. I prefer Democrats that are more like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. I also like some third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader, Walt Brown, Bill Van Auken, Janice Jordan, David Cobb, etc.
Now don’t get me wrong. There are also some conservative candidates that I like and respect (such as Michael Peroutka, Al Moore, and Earl Dodge). It’s just that, when it comes to politics, I usually agree more with the liberal candidates than I do with the conservative candidates.