Institutionalize obstructionism

In my previous comment today, I mentioned that the American Public has little stomach for the institutionalized obstructionism as is commonly practiced in the Senate. When some fear that they would lose a vote, especially one that has major ideological implications, they turn to obstructionist tactics. In the Senate, the ultimate obstruction is the filibuster, which takes a 2/3 majority to force to an end.

With the Senate, it happens pretty much in public. In the House of Representative, it happens pretty much behind closed doors. The major event in the House is to introduce legislation that everyone know will not pass, have it assigned to a committee that will not consider it, and then allow the Congress Critter to brag to their district that they had been fighting the good fight. BS.

The GPCA is no different. The tool here are the strict rules that we have on quorums for any action. At present the State Coordinating Committee is frequently prevented from taking effective action by the simple act of hanging up on a teleconference and then claiming that any further discussion or decisions were not valid due to the lack of a quorum.

In 1995, Newt Gingrich was prepared to allow the government to run out of funds in order to win a fight with President Clinton. The tactic appealed to his Contract with American base, but backfired when he actually tried to do it. It lead to to Democratic election gains in 1996. The American People have no stomach for this, and neither should members of the GPCA.

I am not so naive as to think that anybody is above gaming the system that we have in place. Some do it more than others. Others will cry foul whenever it suits their tactical objective to do so.

Is this all a sign that the GPCA has finally arrived as a political party, that we can play the same political games as the big boys... or is it a sign that we have not grown up yet and are still acting like kindergarteners.

Turning on the spotlight

As my previous post indicated, there are still people in GPCA who are fighing Cobb / Nader. Or maybe they are fighting Cobb / GDI. Or maybe they are just fighting David Cobb. I can think of nothing that we is more detrimental to the operation of GPCA than continuing this fight.

I keep hearing the term "future focus" in Green Party discussions, but when it comes to politics, we seem to be intent on invoking the past, even re-living it. When we should be dealing with the issues that most voters are worried about we spend too damned much energy in a circular game of Russian Roulette.

Now, the question du jour is one of which group of Regional Reps to seat for LA County. While this has been bottled up in Coordinating Committee, Bylaws Committee and other internal discussions, maybe it is time to shine a little light on it for all to see. This is rather like sending the Florida Election to the Supreme Court with the ByLaws Committee acting as the court. I am not sure that they have that power, nor am I sure that the outcome of such a decisions would be any more universally accepted by Greens than that of the Supreme Court decision of 2000.

In the mean time, this controversy is tying up the entire operations of the GPCA so that not even the next GA can be scheduled.

So, here is a suggestion to get past it. Everyone else in the State should shut up about GP in LA. All six of the regional reps should resign pending the election of a replacement. Then the LA Green Party should invite the Carter Center to supervise a new election as a guarantee of fairness. Let everyone campaign for the role.

Then, as is only fair, we should start holding all Regional Reps accountable for their performance accoring to the job description. It is clear to me that most Regional Reps fail to perform at least 50% of the tasks. I know that I could not, which is why I have not run for such an office. But I still have the right to criticize the performance of others.