Gary Kamiya: Jeremiah Wright Isn't the Problem

Read Gary Kamiya's excellent essay posted on www.salon.com. It is one of the best I've read on the silly Jeremiah Wright "controversy." Kamiya raises the spectre of President John McCain. I have deleted my entire essay on this subject from the Green Commons Web Site and substituted Kamiya because I think this so important. Please note the powerful quote from Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

Posted on Salon, Tuesday, March 25, 2008.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright Isn't the Problem

The hysteria over Obama's former pastor's attacks on America shows we're still in thrall to knee-jerk patriotism.

by Gary Kamiya

Maybe we really are doomed to elect John McCain, remain in Iraq forever and nuke Iran. Nations that forget history may not be doomed to repeat it, but those that never even recognize reality in the first place definitely are. Last week's ridiculous uproar over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons proves yet again that America has still not come to terms with the most rudimentary facts about race, 9/11 -- or itself.

. . .

We are now five years into a war that may outrank Vietnam as the most pointless and disastrous one in our history. George W. Bush and his neoconservative brain trust conceived that war, but they were only able to push it through because the American people, their political leaders and the mainstream media signed off on it. And they did so because they were in the grip of the fearful, vengeful, patriotic frenzy that swept the nation after 9/11. Without 9/11 and America's fateful reaction to it, there would be no Iraq war. Every day that the war drags on is yet another indictment of that self-righteous, unthinking "patriotism."

. . .

In fact, the same all-American flag-wavers who called loudest for war against Iraq are now denouncing Wright as a hate-monger and a traitor, and attacking Michelle Obama for saying that only recently has she had reason to feel proud of her country. They insist that anyone who is not permanently proud of the United States, whose patriotism isn't plastered on his or her face like the frozen smile of a beauty queen waving from a Fourth of July float, is beyond the pale. Never mind that the glorious results of their debased version of patriotism -- 4,000 American troops dead, a wrecked Iraq, and a greatly trengthened terrorist enemy -- are plain for all to see.

. . .

URL: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/03/25/rev_jeremiah_wright/

One Day in Iraq

The 5th anniversary of the start of Bush's Folly takes place this week. ABC News is giving this a fairly good treatment, but so far there is one aspect of the war that they have not covered; what might we be able to do with all of that money if the Iraq War had never happened.

Thanks to Santa Clara County Green, Andrea Dorey, for forwarding the link to the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) video of the many answers to that question. One Day = $720 Million

Now whether we would actually spend the money in that manner is a different discussion. I tend to doubt it. The alternatives offered by AFSC are just too forward looking and offer too little food for our need to have it all now appetite, whatever "it" is.

Why ask a Green to wear Blue on Earth Day?

That is what I thought to myself when I got the following yesterday from Peter Chapman, Marketing Coordinator, 2030, Inc. / Architecture 2030.

Hello Wesley,

I want to thank you for following our work at Architecture 2030 through your posts at Daily Kos, California Greening and Grist last year.

Well, at least Peter did some research, or let Google do it for him, but I think that he missed a couple, like Green Commons and Andrew Nevkin's dot earth blog at the NY Times. The note from Peter was more than a request to wear blue. It was all tied to the rest of Architecture 2030's agenda. So, I followed the link from Peter's note to BYOBlue.org.

At least, it was not Democratic Party Blue, nor even Yves Klein Blue, though the latter is close. It is more like that of the Blue Man Group who did the warm up for the most recent Architecture 2030 webcast: Face It.

The connection is rather obvious: no more coal means a bluer sky. Got that. It also means a future where climate change reverts to normal cycles. Got that too. Actually, they have put together a pretty good campaign. So, what to they really want us to do?

First, wearing blue for an Earth Day event is taking on a tone of protest, not against Earth Day, but rather against the way that we are changing our atmosphere but not changing our energy policies.

Want to stop global warming? Wear BLUE for Earth Day 2008! Join millions of people around the world who will be wearing BLUE to signify their vote for NO COAL

OK, got it. but isn't there more? Well yes there is.

Then, on April 22, make your voice heard. Pick up the phone: Call Congress at 202.224.3121 and demand an immediate ‘Moratorium on Coal’ - a halt to the construction of any new coal-fired power plants. Through this Call for Climate event, Earth Day hopes to generate over a million phone calls to Congress!

Now, I am really getting it. It is obvious that the connection of the Democratic Party, their reliance on votes from key coal producing state (PA, WV, IL) will make it very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to do anything that will substantially solve the problem. Maybe, just maybe, enough call on April 22 will help get someone's attention. Let's hope that Pennsylvanians get the message and make the call, because that is Primary Day for the Democratic Party.

It also follows the proposed Science Debates 2008, to be held at the Franklin Mint in PA on April 18. McCain, Clinton and Barama invited... none have accepted.

The attention that we have given to the subject of coal is already having some effect.

Fifty-nine coal plants were canceled in 2007. That’s over a third of the 151 plannned. That happened before millions of people joined together to say No Coal. Source: Architecture 2030.

So, here is the to do list:

• Wear Blue
• Call in
• Vote Green

Peter forgot the last item there, but if you read what Obama and Clinton are saying, they are not going to "stop coal." Big Business won't let them and we know what big business thinks, or we should after listening to GE CEO James Immelt (not to be confused with James Inhofe) was reported at Grist as referencing Coal this way.

If business doesn't take a seat at the table, regs will be determined by politicians and activists (some of which, he said with evident horror, want to do away with coal entirely!). USCAP may not be perfect, but it replaced a vacuum.

In fact, none of the major party candidate, not McCain nor Clinton nor Obama come close to matching the understanding of what it really means to tackle Global Warming. Instead, you have to look to Kent Mesplay, for whom I voted in the CA Primary, or Jesse Johnson, two Green Party candidates who don't need to coached on this issue.

So Celebrate Earth Day, you all know how now.

One more reason that Pelosi is failing us.

I received the following this AM from the Center for Rural Affairs. I am reproducing the text of this message in it's entirety. It is my view that this is just one more reason that Pelosi is failing not only her district, but then entire country as she triangulates her way through the web of Washington political power.

---

Dear Californians,

Final farm bill funding decisions are being made, and Speaker Pelosi is playing a significant role in the debate. Now is the time for Speaker Pelosi to stand up for $5 billion in new mandatory funding for conservation and environmental priorities in the farm bill.

Will you urge Speaker Pelosi to fight $5 billion in new funding for conservation programs in the farm bill?

The U.S. House and Senate each passed a version of the farm bill that includes $5 billion in new funding for conservation programs. Now conference committee members are negotiating the final bill, and conservation programs are under fire. Speaker Pelosi can step in and ensure that gains made in the House and Senate are not lost in the conference committee.

Programs being targeted for cuts include:

• Conservation Security Program
• Wetlands Reserve Program
• Farmland Protection Program

Speaker Pelosi is playing a critical role in funding decisions for the final bill. Write to her online today and urge her to protect the gains already made.

We are at the last stages of the farm bill debate. Your action today can play an important role in ensuring that the final bill makes conservation and environment a priority.

Thank you!

Speaker Pelosi needs to hear from you today -- she needs to hear that funding conservation programs in the Farm Bill is important to you.

Write Online Today

Or Act by Calling:

Dial (202) 225-4965 and leave this message with the receptionist.

I am a Californian, and I am calling to urge Speaker Pelosi to fight for $5 billion in new mandatory funding for conservation programs in the farm bill.

Drugs in Drinking Water?

Another item from the annals of The Greatest System in the world.

AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water

A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Democrats and Republicans are not remotely capable of dealing with this mess.

Have we got the chutzpah?

Ralph Nader's decision not to run for president on the Green Party ticket seems to have paralyzed many of those who should see this as a major opportunity rather than a set back.

First, it is really necessary to keep this all in focus. On this issue, I think that Nader has done this better than his supporters within the Green Party... or his detractors for that matter. His focus is strictly on the problems that Bush and Co have brought to the USA... and the fact that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama offer anything substantially different. Even when confronted by the Audacity of Hope I find only another apologist for the same tired policies that have created this mess. I find myself asking what are these Presidential Qualities?

We have seen, once again, that the presidential race may come down to the nuclear option. I am old enough to remember having seen the famous "daisy" ad that Johnson used against Goldwater in 1964. It worked. So did Walter Mondale in his campaign for the nomination against Gary Hart in 1984. The San Francisco Chronicle seems to think that this is just politics and expects more of the same between now and the Democratic Convention.

As Greens, we need to think about what the current campaigns are telling us about the American Voter. For all the talk about "it is still the economy" it would seem that the ability to be Commander in Chief during a time of crisis is still a requirement for serious consideration by the voting public. It is the paradox of the Bush administration's entering into a perpetual war.

So far, I have not heard any our our Presidential Candidates take on this issue directly. If we really have an alternative, then it should be heard. If we really are the "peace party" then how do we bring it about? How do we move from protest to having policy credibility?

That is no different than trying to deal with our economic conditions (yes, still the economy). Like the Democrats, we chew around the edges of the problems but do not have the chutzpah to deal with them directly. In other words, what alternatives do we really offer?

Clean Coal is a Dirty Lie

So is a Green Democrat.

One of the things that really gets me PO'd is the manner in which the Democrats have taken on the mantle of being the "green party". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Assuming that Obama wins the Democratic Nomination, this is one issue that we should high light. Obama has all of the characteristics of a populist demagogue who will say anything to get elected.

Obama is on the record favoring clean coal.

With coalfields nearby, Obama noted that he comes from a coal state and repeated his pitch for clean-coal technology and made clear he believes coal will continue to be a vital part of the nation's energy supply.

"Clean-coal technology should be part of that mix," he said. "We are the Saudi Arabia of coal."

Source: Baltimore Sun.

The US Dept. of Energy has recently shut down the Future Gen project for cleaning up coal because it is much more expensive and does not work very well.

Source: C/NET

Bring this back to California... Over a year ago, the Public Utilities Commission all be banned contracting for power from coal fired plants.

Source: San Diego Union Tribune.

I think it is time to take back our brand.

Education is Not an Issue?

Forget ideology. Forget the personalities of individual politicians. I think I could write a whole book arguing for the Green Party simply based on all the important issues that get short shrift simply because the damned Democrats and Republicans don't talk about them. And according to the two-party totalitarian culture of the United States, if "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans don't talk about a problem, then it's not a problem.

Jeffrey Henig has an interesting op-ed in the Boston Globe on why education is a missing issue in this year's political campaign. "Liberal" Democrats are now divided on the question of charter schools and "Conservative" Republicans are now divided on Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. And so, the gutless politician's are doing what gutless Demopublicans always do -- playing it safe.

Published by the Boston Globe, March 1, 2008
The Debate on Education
by Jeffrey R. Henig

. . . Democrats, who used to argue against charter schools (casting them as vouchers in sheep's clothing), increasingly see charters as a benign and promising form of public school reform. Republicans, who once could rally around the get-tough aspects of No Child Left Behind, are growing irritated about the negative impact of high-stakes testing.

This internal ambivalence is making it risky for the candidates to use the tried-and-true formulations that have worked in the past. . .

This is an issue that is close to me. My wife, Cathy Deppe and my daughter have taught in the public schools in San Jose. Cathy has also taught in Los Angeles where the Los Angeles Unified School District, presided over by the Los Angeles Democratic Party Machine is an absolute disgrace. We have grandchildren attending public schools in California where our sacrosanct racist 2-Party System has all but destroyed what was once one of the finest systems of public education in the world.

Read More on at Green Commons: http://www.greencommons.org/node/980

Nader and the Greens

I have read a ton of email in the last two days concerning Ralph Nader's decision not to run for President of the US as a Green. The internal email lists of the Green Party have exhibited just about every emotional reaction that you can think of and a wide range of commentary about what should be done including some who want to change the party convention rules and give the nomination to Nader anyway.

In general, however, there are two concepts emerging that should be considered. One is that we need to run synergistic campaigns, Nader and the Greens against the duopoly. This seems to be playing off the comments that Nader made on C-SPAN: (emphasis mine)

Q: The caller said you ran on the Green party ticket. Why not run on the Green party ticket again?

NADER: Well, because I think Cynthia McKinney is running, and I think it would be wonderful for the Green Party to have an African-American woman. She was elected numerous times to the House of Representatives, and I think we need several progressive initiatives in this country.

Q: And that was the decision, to not run on the Green Party ticket because she announced?

NADER: Well, there are others as well. You know, the Green Party is only on twenty-one ballots, and we don't want to be distracted. We have to get on fifty - try to get on fifty state ballots. And the
Greens have their way of doing things, and we have our way of doing things.

The other manner of approaching this is to just go our separate ways. Paul Krumm, Green Party National Committee member from Kansas has argued that Greens are better off without Nader because his style of leadership is not compatible with GP values of Grassroots Democracy. His discussion is right out of Eric Hoffer.

Here is the problem as I see it.

1. Ralph has his own agenda. If anybody wants to join his agenda, that is ok with him. If not, he is not interested in working with them.
2. When you look at the kind of relationship this involves between leader and followers, it requires that followers follow the agenda of the leader, in this case Ralph.
3. Upon analysis, this shows Ralph to be a dictator, a benevolent dictator in this case, however a dictator in form and fact.
4. This kind of relationship is inimical to the ten key values of the Green party.
5. This leaves both us, and Ralph between a rock and a hard place. He is unwilling to join a democratic process, and we are left with joining with an actor who has a number of beliefs that agree with ours, but whose process sucks us into the same kind of relationship between leadership and the rest of society as the major parties.
6. Greens who have not grokked the difference in process in their own lives, have no clue as to the existence of this problem. but for those who have, it stands out like a sore thumb.
7. Nader supporters who do not see the difference in process, and see him as a potential leader for our movement are very impatient with those who see differently than they do. They want a leader, and to be followers in a movement. They don't see that what is needed is a movement where a charismatic fuhrer is not necessary, but where leadership comes in little bits from many sides.

my (Krumm's) conclusion: Those who want to support Ralph should join his movement, leave the Green Party, and do so. He is working for good ends, and needs your support. Those who see the inconsistency between Ralph's means and ends should go their way and continue working with and for the Green Party and its ten key values.

This is not an ideal solution, however it is the best that can be done under the present circumstances.

I don't fully agree with Paul. I don't see Nader's intent in the same light, though I see quite a bit of Hoffer's True Believer in those of his followers who refer to "Saint Ralph".
But, I do agree that we are best off putting all of our resources into being the best Green Party that there is. We need to become as adept at organizing as the major parties, especially the Obama campaign this year. To date we have put too much faith in our message and too little work into the organization.

Bill Moyers Campaign Analysis

I watched Bill Moyers Journal last night on PBS. While Moyers is always interesting, and in his recitation of viewer email comments,I did seen one referencing the Green Party;

It's disingenuous to discuss candidates that are ignored in our corporate duopoly election system without mentioning or actually interviewing Green Party candidates... For all the indifference shown to the Green Party by the corporate press and derision by the so-called progressive press, the fact is the Greens have 234 elected officials in 28 states...The Greens are growing, whether you know it or not; whether you like it or not. Carl Lundgren

the most interesting segment was his campaign analysis discussion with Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. She makes a very good case for the fact that Obama's wins have as much to do with superior organization and advertising as it does with the image that he has created of being the agent of change as opposed to the baggage that Clinton (e.g. NAFTA) from the first Clinton presidency.

BILL MOYERS: Aren't these text messages going to kids who aren't old enough to vote?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: They may be. But they're not going to people who aren't old enough to volunteer. There's no age barrier to volunteering. And what's important also, in the advertising stream this year, is that there is advertising to the young about issues of concern to the young. The Obama campaign has pioneered this. There is one Hispanic language ad for Senator Obama, in which a young person basically explains why it's important to get your parents involved for Obama. We know there's a generational divide. Older voters, more likely, particularly older women will be with Senator Clinton, younger, with Senator Obama. This is a trickle up theory. Get the young to influence their parents.

In most caucus states, Obama has done better than Clinton and amassed a large number of delegates... again a sign of having a superior organization in place, everywhere.

If we are to learn how to compete in major races, then we need to learn how to make superior organization happen on a similar level. By the time time the current electoral campaign is over, the Clinton legacy may be a text book case in how to lose an election in an age of electronic campaigning.

Nader not running as a Green

Well, I guess I had better learn to read all of the stories and not just a few of them. I read the votenader.org report and stopped looking.
I have since see the evidence all over the place.

AP Story at nola.com said:

On Thursday, he said he would not be seeking the Green Party nomination, noting that the party has four announced candidates.

"We think that there is plenty of room in this country for parallel progressive candidates," he said.

Then thehill.com noted that

Nader said he would not seek the Green Party’s nomination this year.

Then, USA Today ran the same AP story as nola.com.

On Thursday, he said he would not be seeking the Green Party nomination, noting that the party has four announced candidates.

"We think that there is plenty of room in this country for parallel progressive candidates," he said.

It is going to be 2004 all over again.

Matt Gonzalez for VP?

Greens now have a real challenge. Ralph Nader has picked Matt Gonzalez to be his VP running mate. There are many who would like to see Ralph Nader as the nominee for the party. There are many others who are working just as hard to make that nominee be Cynthia McKinney. That battle is still being played out and many states have not made up their minds.

Having a recognized Green as a running mate might shut down the talk about whether Ralph truly wants the Green Party nomination, but I doubt it. Though you won't hear the words from McKinney's mouth, some of her supporters will surely play this off as just a political trick, just as Nader supporters rant on and on about McKinney's support of the Reconstruction Party in New Orleans and evidence of her trickery... even though McKinney is a registered to vote as a Green and Nader is not.

The biggest question about Nader has always been whether he is really running as a "Green" or if he is just trying to use the Green Party ballot access as an easy path toward expanding his coalition. Even in some states with an active Green Party, Nader appears to suggest using other methods to get on the ballot. The best example being up in Oregon. Nader's campaign site, votenader.org links to this blogged story in the Eugene Oregon Register Guard which suggests that he will use the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO) for ballot access.

I am told that the IPO was started by Nader supporters and that it very well could be that he appears on the ballot in Oregon with both parties, assuming that he wins the GP nomination. However, calling attention to one party without mention of the other could (and probably will) be construed as a put down of the one ignored.

Having Gonzalez as a running mate does other good things for Ralph. He should be having a full backing from the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, that might pick up some votes for Nader. I don't have any solid demographic information as to how important that might be. At least, MAPA has been showing Nader's photo on it's home page for several months.

Since the convention is not until late July, and with a many states not yet having their primaries, the Nader / McKinney competition for this nomination, especially with Nader's primary win in delegate rich California, may begin to be as contested as Clinton / Obama.

It is not what you say...

The Nader campaign is describing their launch Sunday in glowing terms.

We had a great launch yesterday.

Ralph Nader appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

Major media outlets throughout the world ran headlines about Ralph’s historic challenge to the corporations that dominate our society.

And the names, the volunteers, the money started to flow.

Now, we’re starting to build a national organization to get Ralph on the ballot so that together we can challenge the corporate political parties in this momentous election year.

There are 2 ways to view this. The Nader Team put the best spin that the can on it However, I have a feeling that these comments by Tom Tomorrow at This Modern World are accurate.

Nader’s critique of corporate power and its corrosive effect on American democracy is spot-on. But if the point of these third-party runs is to inject that critique into mainstream discourse — well, we’re way past the point of diminishing returns, and actually deep into some sort of anti-matter universe, in which information is literally sucked out of people’s brains at the first mention of his name. In the way that Dan Rather’s report on George Bush going AWOL turned into a discussion about Dan Rather, the only debate another Nader candidacy is going to inspire is a debate about Nader himself, and I just don’t see the point.

It is clearly evident that the print media is not paying much attention to what he is saying and doing. I could have written most of their stories before the announcement, they only had to get the right quotes from his talk because they had already made up their minds what the "story" would be before it happened.

In fact, the words used by the Nader Team just underscore that the media assumption was the correct characterization.

Major media outlets throughout the world ran headlines about Ralph’s historic challenge to the corporations that dominate our society.

As long as this is the sole basis for his candidacy, then the prognostication of so-called pundits like ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who characterized the day of announcement as the high point of Nader's campaign, will become the reality.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz subtitled his most recent book. "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." This is not a message that the American Public will hear in this election cycle. A Green Party candidate, or an Independent candidate running with this as their primary message, will not do well. Nader seems to understand that. He opened his comments on Meet the Press with the Health Care issue, arguing for Single Payer. Not a word was heard. A different story had already been written in everyone's minds.

If Nader is going to be successful, he has to find a way change the dynamics of the debate. It is rather like Clinton trying to deal with Obama. If she just goes along, Obama can just move along. If she goes really negative, then it makes her look bad and it legitimizes his stature as front runner. The situation is out of her control because Obama is a phenomenon

The same is true in Nader's campaign. The situation is out of Nader's control, or at least has been so far.

Welcome to the fray, Ralph.

Since I was so direct about Nader's potential campaign before, I need to update that right now.

To begin with, anyone reading the print stories of Nader's announcement who did not watch him with Tim Russert on Meet the Press this morning would not understand what he really said.

I had been worried that his campaign would be based solely on hist long held antagonism toward the excesses of Corporate American and the corporate influence in Washington. His announcement was really focused on a broader range of issues, like Health Care and Waste in the Pentagon and that pretty much persuaded me that he was not going to repeat the 2000 campaign.

Unfortunately what I heard was not what got reported. Most media, print or television, picked only those words that fit the two themes that already defined Nader in their minds: anti-corporate and spoiler. That is what got written about. Donna Smith of Reuters put it this way.

Nader called Washington "corporate occupied territory" that turns the government against the interests of the people. "In that context, I have decided to run for president," he said.

Some will blame the media for their overt prejudice. I think it is just lazy journalism and writing the story before listening to the speech.

There is still a lot of concern about whether or not he is running as Green. Note: he said that he is running for President, not running for the Green Party nomination for president. However, those who have supported he candidacy to date, especially here in California where he won over 60% of the vote in the Feb. 5 primary, are putting out the word that he would run as a Green in states where the Green Party has ballot access and work to get on the ballot in others.

What he failed to say was what he would do if Cynthia McKinney were to win the nomination and she has a big advantage in early campaigning. Would he continue his quest knowing that they would split the Green Party vote? We will probably have to wait until after the national convention to know the answer to that one.

Let's throw a Mountain Party.

There is a time for thinking and a time for doing. Thankfully, Jesse Johnson and the Mountain Party of West Virginia have been doing. The following is a press release that came out this weekend to announce the fact that the courts of West Virginia have allowed the Mountain Party affiliation with the Green Party to stand and that the national Green Party Presidential Nominee will appear on the ballot in that state. I copied the entire release.

The Green Party of the United States is having a Mountain Party

Forwarded by the Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org

West Virginia Mountain Party
http://www.mtparty.org/

For Immediate Release
22 February 2008

Contact: Joel Brown, 703 864 5199

West Virginia Law Upholds Green Party Ballot Line

"It's taken more than half a year to get where we are today, but the fight was worth it. No political party should be denied access to ballot lines based on arbitrary rulings of civil servants or elected officials," commented former West Virginia Mountain Party Chair Jesse Johnson.

Johnson who with Mountain Party Treasurer Frank Young led the fight for ballot status for the Green Party in their home state began the battle after the Mountain Party affiliated with the national organization.

"It's far too common all across this country that states deny access to bone fide candidates that run for lesser known political parties thereby stunting and in some cases effectively eliminating growth among those parties," continued Johnson. "It's often our toughest battle to secure and keep these ballot lines. Our candidates have much to contribute and our country has even more to gain by having viable choices to the current reigning parties and it's anti-democratic and unconstitutional to keep us off the ballot."

Because of the perseverance of Johnson and Young, West Virginia 2008 general election ballot will bear the name of whomever the national Green Party selects for their presidential and vice presidential nominees at their national convention this July in Chicago.

Since his victory in the ballot access issue, Mr. Johnson has resigned from his post as West Virginia Mountain Party chair and is free now to pursue his prior intention to run for president of the United States for the Green Party.

The Green Party's 2004 nominee for Vice President, Pat LaMarche commented on the addition of another ballot line to the Green Party's rapidly expanding slate of ballot access, saying, "We are so very grateful to Mr. Johnson for his vigorous loyalty to our party. We are extremely excited about his intention to run for president. If every candidate for every political party had the experience that Mr. Johnson has fighting for democracy; we would have better leaders who are far more respectful of the democratic process at every level of government."

BREAKING NEWS: Ralph Nader is In!

On Meet the Press this morning, Ralph Nader declared his candidacy.

If Ralph Nader is the nominee of the Green Party, I intend to support him 100% regardless of what slogans and hacks are being advertised and sold in million-dollar TV ads by the One-Corporate-Party-With-Two-Names.

Alex Walker
Los Angeles Greens

Ralph Nader On Meet the Press



Posted on America Online, February 24, 2008.
Ralph Nader Enters Presidential Race

WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) - Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.

"The issue is do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people," Nader said. "We have to shift the power from the few to the many."

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.

What about Obama?

Sam Smith had a recent Progressive Review column that was essentially speculation about an Obama Presidency. While I think that he was essentially correct to anticipate that the results will sound a bit hollow after all of the rhetoric of change.

We need a movement in which Obama is a key target, a healthy ally or a major opponent based not on warm and cuddly feelings but on the reality of his reaction to, and participation in, progressive change.

In short, the Obamania needs to die on Inauguration Day, replaced by a movement to end American imperialism, restore the Constitution, unravel the evils of neo-capitalism and instill some eco-sanity. It will be the strength of such a movement, and not the new president's virtues, that will largely determine whether he does the right thing and whether the right things happens.

If, on the other hand, we just wait for Obama, we will wake up one morning and the words on our lips will not be "Yes, we can" but "Why the hell didn't we?"

If you take the tone of Smith's talk of the "strength of such a movement" and translate that into the rhetoric of dailykos, you will understand exactly what I am talking about. As kossak kerplunk says about McCain...

The More Sleeze John McCain Has Around Him (0 / 0)
the more Americans are apt to vote for him.
Americans relate to abusers
Americans are trying to resolve their bad childhoods and hate is their medicine.
Gramps McCain will make it better for them.

And that is a mild reaction to the top "repug" as kossaks like to say.

If you look at the way that John Boehner (House Minority Leader) has been treating every situation as a skirmish in the greater tactical battle between right and left, you begin to understand. What other excuse would there be to try and force a procedural vote on the floor of the house at the exact time of the Memorial for Tom Lantos.

I fully expect this sort of tit for tat maneuvering to be the order of the day. It appears that Republican learned nothing from the reaction to Newt Gingrich's shut down of government over the budget. The American People want their representatives to work together for the good of the country. While Bush's approval ratings are low, they are almost twice as good as those for Congress.

There is a way the Greens can use this as an opportunity to gain respect. We need to be the party that actually practices what Obama is preaching. Greens have to point out the obstructionism whenever it happens and promise not to do it ourselves. Greens need to focus on solutions to the problems that people are experiencing and not merely rant about some ideological goal that is not being met.

It does not look as if the Democrats will have a filibuster proof senate in 2009. Much will be broken if Obama and the Republicans of the 111th Congress square off. We need to be ready to take advantage of this opportunity.

CA 46 Ripe for picking?

I am adding to my blogging over the next several weeks. I want to spend some time concentrating on Crazy Dana, a blog that was set up last year to document some of the worst foibles of that ho-dad from Huntington Beach, Dana Rohrabacher.

Over the next several weeks, with the help from a few friends, veterans of the wars against Abramoff, Pombo and Doolittle, we will start building a much more picturesque, vid-aware site that chronicles just why Dana has to go.

There are now three individuals running against Rohrabacher. Green Tom Lash, Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook (an environmental activist backed by the DFA) and a guy named Dan Kalmick from Seal Beach, whom I am told is a "good guy" but over his head in this race.

However, my effort for now is going to be strictly Dana-bad. That should help both Tom and whomever survives the Democratic primary, presumably Cook.

Along that line, I note that Act Blue currently lists 51 donations to Debbie Cook for $11,294. Now Act Blue is generally just an illustration that one Democrat can raise more grassroots money that another. But, it does add up and I know Tom would be ecstatic if he had 51 donations to match that. I have the feeling a more money will flow in to this race than people expect and Tom will need all the help he can get.

The Great Imposters

If there is one issue that has had surprising effects on the national Republican races, it is Immigration. Still you have to wonder.

Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo was one of the first to drop out of the presidential race even though immigration was his ONLY issue.

John McCain had to have a near death experience in his campaign before he "got it" that Republicans want a secure border.

But, some of the base of the current anti-immigrant activity is falling apart. There is no longer a united front. The Minutemen organization is in disarray, or at least it's found Jim Gilchrist seems to think so. Local OC newspaper, the Daily Pilot, calles it the Minuteman Meltdown.

Struggles for power and finances have led leaders in the movement to split ties with Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project.

Bickering continues over who has control of the original Minuteman organization and once faithful members are now deserting the group. Barbed e-mails and accusations fly among the former Minuteman loyalists.

It seems to me that this would be a time for OC and LA Greens to ratchet up our support for a rational immigration policy.

At least, the following comment was posted to the story by a very Green sounding "redwoodsforever". "

Minuteman Meltdown? outlines the internal fighting rampant within all the anti-immigrant groups. How are these groups different than the KKK? They all have racism at their core. America has immigration as its foundation; we're all immigrants.

Our 20-year Congressman Rohrabacher is obsessed by the illegal immigration issue. I wish he was as concerned about affordable health care or funding solar & wind power (get off foreign oil). Rohrabacher voted for offshore drilling & in ANWR. He doesn't believe we have a global warming problem & jokes about dinosaur farts. Vote him out in 2008! "

And they found a way to turn that into a tirade against Congressman Taliban... er... Rohrabacher.

Now, let's add to this the fact that long time Republican Strategist and campaign financer, Grover Norquist, is now on the hook for hiring an "illegal" just as was the California Republican party. I am sure glad that the SF Chronicle's Carla Marinucci is on this story, because you know the OC Register will never print it.