[Texgreen] #$%& the Hard Left

Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:10:28 -0700 (PDT)

--0-220889142-1188929428=:91885
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Originally I put this on my blog, but thought that this boat rocking might find some interest here as well....dave

  Stupid vile article about the Greens in the latest "Disident Voice." 
  (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/the-end-of-the-green-party/)  It basically shows that the Hard Left only has use for the Greens and the environment as a wedge issue to push the Democrats to the left. Anytime the party attempts to exhibit independent (or even worse, rational) thought - they are immediately attacked as stooges for the "Far Right."  The latest victim of this black-listing is Phil Huckleberry, who had the terminity to coordinate the massive undertaking of getting Illinois Greens statewide access to ballots - in spite of a Illinois Democratic "machine" that was attempting to change the groundrules as the process was on-going. 

  What's wrong with this? Well, Phil has publically acknowledge that he did this without any help from Ralph Nader, and that indeed - he has little use for or interest in him.  If you listen to the Hard Left on this - it's tantamount to pledging fealty to Karl Rove. Despite the minor detail that Nader never has, and has repeatedly stated he never will join the Green Party.
Nader's run in 2000 was highly educational. It taught us that the Greens national election policy was built on feet of clay. If you don't have pre-existing local political organization, you won't get an effective statewide campaign. Without effective statewide organization - you don't get an effective national campaign. Using a national candidacy to "force grow" local structures only lasts as long as the campaign does.

  Nader's relative success in 2000 was built in part by Democrats low tolerance of their regular party's coddling of their corporate funding sources. Coming out of 8 years in which Neo-Cons were running Washington has amazingly replenished that tolerance. 
Another important lesson of the 2000 campaign was through Ralph's conduct and particularly the conduct of his partisans (both within, and especially without the Greens.) his behavior as an employer, and as a leader who would be expected to work with others in a non-advisarily basis - shows that he's totally unsuited to be US President, or any other executive office. In reality - it not that important, after all the chances of him getting actually elected were infintesimal, but this serves as a powerful disincintive toward non-Greens (ie 99%+ of the voting population) of ever voting for him - even on a "protest" basis.

A few weeks ago the Green Party national committee adopted a "We Will Run" measure, which basicaly stated that no matter how dismal the candidates, or how big a distraction it is from local issues and candidates - that the GP_US would focus it's extremely limited resources on a Presidenital Campaign. This flew thru with more than 90% support. I am very pleased that even though I'm no longer on the National Committee that one of the ten dissenting votes to this nonsense did come from Texas.

---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
--0-220889142-1188929428=:91885
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<div>Originally I put this on my blog, but thought that this boat rocking might find some interest here as well....dave</div>  <div>&nbsp;</div>  <div>Stupid vile article about the Greens in the latest <A href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/the-end-of-the-green-party/"><STRONG><FONT color=#e49546>"Disident Voice."</FONT></STRONG></A>&nbsp;</div>  <div>(<A href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/the-end-of-the-green-party/">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/the-end-of-the-green-party/</A>)&nbsp; It basically shows that the Hard Left only has&nbsp;use for the Greens and the environment as a wedge issue to push the Democrats to the left. Anytime the party attempts to exhibit independent (or even worse, rational) thought - they are immediately attacked as stooges for the "Far Right."&nbsp; The latest victim of this black-listing is Phil Huckleberry, who had the terminity to coordinate the massive undertaking of getting Illinois Greens statewide access to ballots
 - in spite of a Illinois Democratic "machine" that was attempting to change the groundrules as the process was on-going.&nbsp;<BR></div>  <div>What's wrong with this? Well, Phil has publically acknowledge that he did this without any help from Ralph Nader, and that indeed - he has little use for or interest in him.&nbsp; If you listen to the Hard Left on this - it's tantamount to pledging fealty to Karl Rove. Despite the minor detail that Nader never has, and has repeatedly stated he never will join the Green Party.<BR>Nader's run in 2000 was highly educational. It taught us that the Greens national election policy was built on feet of clay. If you don't have pre-existing local political organization, you won't get an effective statewide campaign. Without effective statewide organization - you don't get an effective national campaign. Using a national candidacy to "force grow" local structures only lasts as long as the campaign does.<BR></div>  <div>Nader's relative
 success in 2000 was built in part by Democrats low tolerance of their regular party's coddling of their corporate funding sources. Coming out of 8 years in which Neo-Cons were running Washington has amazingly replenished that tolerance.&nbsp;<BR>Another important lesson of the 2000 campaign was through Ralph's conduct and particularly the conduct of his partisans (both within, and especially without the Greens.)&nbsp;his behavior as an employer, and as a leader who would be expected to work with others in a non-advisarily basis - shows that he's totally unsuited to be US President, or any other executive office. In reality - it not that important, after all the chances of him getting actually elected were infintesimal, but this serves as a powerful disincintive toward non-Greens (ie 99%+ of the voting population) of ever voting for him - even on a "protest" basis.</div>  <div><BR>A few weeks ago the Green Party national committee adopted a "We Will Run" measure, which
 basicaly stated that no matter how dismal the candidates, or how big a distraction it is from local issues and candidates - that the GP_US would focus it's extremely limited resources on a Presidenital Campaign. This flew thru with&nbsp;more than&nbsp;90% support. I am very pleased that even though I'm no longer on the National Committee that one of the ten dissenting votes to this nonsense did come from Texas.</div><p>&#32;
      <hr size=1>Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48516/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ">Join Yahoo!'s user panel</a> and lay it on us.

--0-220889142-1188929428=:91885--