[WB-Discuss] Jill Stein

[Aram Falsafi]

I disagree with MacK, Jai, and especially with Jill on this one. Sure we can
cover our asses by making sure that after this election we will be able to say
"we didn't do it" (especially if Kerry loses). But then what? How long are we
going to say that we will only run candidates as long as it doesn't hurt the
Dems? Are we a third party, or an appendage of the Democratic Party? If we are
such kingmakers, how come the only thing they have to say to us is "don't you
dare run a candidate."

We need to take on this "spoiler" argument eventually, and transfer the burden
onto those who control electoral laws, and challenge them to change the laws to
remove the spoiler effect. Unless we're willing to remain a party that gets 3-5%
of the vote indefinitely, in which case what is the point? And the longer we
play into the hands of the Democratic Party hacks who make this argument, the
harder it will be to counter it.

Personally, my believe is that the Dems would rather lose an election or two
than open space for third parties that would take away their god-given right to
every progressive's vote. But let's call them on this one.

-Aram


"Edmund R. MacKenty" wrote:
> 
> musicandarts writes:
> >I spent most of yesterday working with Jill Stein at
> >the primaries.  ...
> >... She
> >doesn't support running candidates at national level,
> >which she believes will alienate progressives who are
> >also our base.  In this issue, I agree with her
> >wholeheartedly.  ...
> 
> I agree, to some extent.  We can't alienate progressives, because we'd
> probably kill the party.  Fortunately, today's third rail of politics,
> Mr. Nader, has chosen to run independently.  That's good for us, but only
> if we capitalize on it.  We need to do *something* at the national level
> that a) helps to build our party, b) doesn't help Mr. Bush, and c) clearly
> distinguishes us from Mr. Nader,
> 
> Running our own candidate might help a little with (a),, but it certainly
> doesn't do (b) and won't do (c) without a lot of careful media work.  We
> may gain valuable experience in the process for the next time around, but
> we won't gain any political power or much general public awareness.
> 
> Here's an idea that accomplishes all three goals: run an intensive media
> campaign promoting our candidates in state elections and our Green values.
> Focus primarily on the environment, security, and social justice.  And
> (this is the kicker): put Mr. Kerry on the Green ballot.  I know, lots of
> people within the party will scream at that idea, but take a look at what
> it would do for us:
> 
> 1) Builds the party.  We'll get tons of media attention.  We will have to
>    be ready to manage it carefully.  Voters unhappy with both major
>    parties, but mostly with Bush, will vote Green.  We must turn these
>    folks to voting Green in their state and local elections too, by
>    educating them about our party.
> 
> 2) Puts an end to any "spoiler" argument, and helps defeat Mr. Bush.  A
>    Green vote would be clearly an anti-Bush vote.  Period.  People who want
>    to vote for a third party but don't want to help Bush can now do it.
> 
> 3) It puts Mr. Nader out of the picture.  The media will drop him and pay
>    attention to us.
> 
> 4) We will gain political influence in the Kerry administration.  If we can
>    pull a decent percentage of voters, Kerry's win will be clearly due to
>    us, and we'll be a third party with some real clout in Washington.
> 
> There are three main obstacles to doing this:
> 
> A) I don't know if this is legally possible, but I recall some NY state
>    elections in which minor parties put major party candidates on their
>    ballots without permission.  Of course, if votes for Kerry on a Green
>    ballot don't count as Green Party votes, this whole idea is useless.
>    It's main purpose is, after all, to get more Green votes and thus
>    increase our percentage of voters.
> 
> B) Many Green members won't want to help the Democrats, and won't support
>    Kerry at all.  I think this should be a clear part of our media message:
>    we should make it very clear that we are all holding our noses and
>    voting against Bush.
> 
> C) The Democrats will try to spin this to position the Greens as being
>    under the wing of their party, and we must prevent that.  We must make
>    it crystal clear that we are independent and where we differ from the
>    Dems.
> 
> I would like to see us craft a media plan that appeals to everyone who is
> not happy with politics as they are now, no matter where they are on the
> accepted "political spectrum".  I've been told by ardent Republicans that
> there's no way in hell they'd vote for Bush again, because his policies
> are destroying the environment.  Hunters are up in arms (sorry!) against
> Bush's trashing of the lands they've protected and used for generations.
> 
> True, most folks on the right wouldn't vote Green right now, but that's
> because they think of it as being leftist, if not Communistic.  A strong
> media message promoting our core values in a "non-partisan" manner can
> change that.  If we go this route, we would have to be vocal.  VERY vocal.
> We'd have to be in the streets with signs, writing letters to newspapers,
> and flooding the media with press releases.
> 
> If we're going to build our party, we have to get attention, and lots of
> it.  This would sure do that, especially if announced relatively late in
> the campaign, like September.
> 
> Well, I may not have presented this idea all that well, or even
> completely.  There's lots of aspects of this I haven't mentioned, I'm
> sure.  Let's rip this idea to pieces and see what the good parts are.
>         - MacK.
> -----
> Edmund R. MacKenty
>     <mack at mackenty.com>     http://www.mackenty.com/mss/
>     Voice: +1-617-926-2131  Cell: +1-617-899-7653
> 
> Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
>         for they are subtle and quick to anger.
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
>         for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
> _______________________________________________
> WB-Discuss mailing list
> WB-Discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/wb-discuss