We all know that Scott Murphy is now the “decisive” winner of CD 20’s recent special election but we still have no idea who he is. I suspect we are about to find out.
Now, I’m no fan of Jim Tedisco. In fact, if I voted for evil of any kind (lesser or otherwise), Murphy might well have had my vote this time around. But, as I always do, I wrote in an independent. I’ve learned that it really doesn’t matter which two corporate felons the machine tells me I have to choose between. I don’t have to do what they tell me to. I am free. They’re not the boss of me. Either felon they want me to pick will inevitably do the same damage while they’re in office (which makes total sense if you stop to look at which lobby groups each candidate is indentured to).
After the Democrats in Pennsylvania hired Ken Starr’s old law firm to sue my fellow Green, Carl Romanelli, I swore that I would never again even consider voting for a corporate party candidate (never mind secretly hope that one would win seeing them as the “lesser evil”). I really don’t care anymore. Carl’s crime was that he had the testicular fortitude to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate. For that, the Democrats tried to totally destroy the man.
If you have ever met Carl and understand just what a wonderful and good soul he is, you would share my ire. The Pennsylvania Dems used House employees on the taxpayer dole to tamper with Carl’s campaign. Then, they sued him for legal fees because they brought him into court to have his signatures wiped out! Some of them have now been charged and convicted but not before they got a successful judgment against him for the legal fees … $80,000! Even with three Democrats in jail, this fight is still going on.
I will never look at the Democrats as the “lesser” evil party again. They’re evil “identical twins” from here on in and that’s that.
I made a lot of people angry telling them that Obama would just be another Gee Dubya (with, of course, an enhanced ability to speak and relate to others). I was right … the killing has become much more civilized! Obama’s use of predator drones, his many lies about ending torture and rendition and shutting down Gitmo, the acceleration of our two most obvious wars, his seeming inability to sputter the words “single-payer” even once (never mind in a complete sentence) … all this would seem to confirm my diagnosis.
You vote two-party. You get the same result. Every time. Period. This congressional election may be an excellent learning opportunity for those Democrats open to the idea that their behavior is the textbook definition of insanity (”doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result”).
Murphy was “chosen” through an arduous selection process. I imagine the county chairs lined everybody up and said, “All right, youse mugs! How much ya got?” They then picked the guy who had lots of it. I have lived in Glens Falls for about ten years and I was born in Saratoga. While I love Glens Falls, I don’t consider myself a “local”. I wasn’t raised here. No one who grew up here would consider me a local, either. I’m, more correctly, a transplant.
Murphy is not a “local” businessman. He is from Missouri and Manhattan and India. Now, I hate to say “carpetbagger”, but if the shoe fits ...
The old farmer was asked by the city slicker, “My daughter just had a baby. Is my new grandson finally a ‘local’?” Without missing a beat, the farmer replied, “Boy, if a dog gives birth to puppies in an oven, do you call ‘em ‘biscuits’?”
Murphy is not a local. As such, will he understand our CD’s needs? Does he even care to? He is also not a transplant who has embraced the community. He has not been involved enough in it for anyone to even know who he is (never mind what he thinks about the issues).
I have conversed with many of my friends and neighbors about this. Most of them have never even heard of Murphy outside of his TV commercials. Murphy claims to be local and no one’s even heard of him? I’m sure there are plenty of people in our town who don’t care for my politics (or don’t care for what they think my politics are) but we all get along pretty well, nonetheless, and that’s one of the reasons I love Glens Falls so much. That’s why when Murphy decided to run and no one knew who he was, my ’spider sense’ started tingling. We ALL know each other here. I was genuinely surprised that such a wealthy businessman could fly so low under the radar.
The local power structure seemed pretty happy to have “one of their own” running but they also seemed absolutely clueless about where he had suddenly come from. Does this mean “outside agenda”? Probably.
Murphy married into one of the most powerful Republican families in the area, the Hogans (these are State Senator Betty Little’s people). I can imagine that Little was pretty upset that the Republicans didn’t choose her to run in CD 20. If they had wanted to win, they certainly would have chosen her instead of Coach Jimmy. Does this mean that Murphy’s a D.I.N.O. (Democrat In Name Only) prompted to run by the same business interests Betty Little supports? Probably.
The local progressive Democrats were angry and felt betrayed when Murphy was chosen. Their committee chairs chose Scott for them, then he proceeded to avoid them all studiously. Many refused to go door to door for him, but he had more than enough money from his various jimmy“businesses” to run without their help. They all knew it and, more importantly, they all knew that not one of them had the chutzpah to cross the line and vote for a … gasp! … Republican, especially the hated Tedisco.
Murphy didn’t need to reach out to his own flock at all. the little (d) after his name means 1/3 of the vote, no matter what. It is a guarantee up here. You just need to work on the other 1/6th. Apparently, Murphy was aware of this.
He announced his intent to join the pro-war Blue Dogs almost right off the bat. Talk about spitting in their collective progressive face but, as I said, Murphy knew they would vote Democrat no matter what he did and no matter how much they disagreed with his basic positions. They will simply refuse to vote for an independent or a Republican who agrees with them on their issues, no matter what. Blind loyalty.
I asked a local organizer who he thought this Murphy guy was. He said, “We have no idea. He basically bought the candidacy. He’s never voted here. He’s never given money to any Democrat group or candidate. We’re totally in the dark.”
I asked if the fact that Murphy was being backed by Mark Behan and John Davidson bothered the Dems at all. Behan Communications serves as a mouthpiece for GE and local Republicans like Betty Little and Kate Hogan. Davidson is a VP at Jointa-Galusha, a cement company owned by DA Collins, a major contractor much involved in the AMD fiasco.
He was unaware on both counts. Could the Dems really be this excited about having put one more person in office whose basic aim is to funnel more pork into his buddies’ coffers? I guess they are all answering this question as we speak running around all excited about their “win”.
I have a simple question for you.
Aside from bringing home the bacon, all congress people need to vote on important national issues that are, likely, more broad-reaching than their acts of petty larceny at home.
Murphy is pro-war, pro-corporation in economic matters and anti-single payer health care.
Jimmy is pro-war, pro-corporation in economic matters and anti-single payer health care.
On the three issues a majority of Americans see as the most important of the day, these guys are in perfect lockstep with each other and with the corporate agenda.
So, why did it matter which of these “evils” was the victor? Please let me know why you’re happy about this. Who actually sees these guys as different and why?
Showing posts with label green party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green party. Show all posts
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Green State of the State - Single Payer Health Care
The State Green Party invited me to attend a press conference in Albany to respond to Governor Patterson's State of the State. Here is a link to WNYT's coverage and below is a text copy of my remarks.
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S735158.shtml?cat=10114
My name is Matt Funiciello. I am the owner of a bread bakery and cafe in Glens Falls, N.Y. I currently employ 36 people. I am here today to deliver my own brief state of the state from a small business owner’s perspective. This is not the perspective of a lobby group purporting to represent small business. It is the perspective of someone who has actually run a small business in New York state for over 20 years.
As this economic downturn began, small business owners, like the majority of Americans, saw substantial increases in energy costs and commensurate increases in most other goods and supplies. In my industry, we were already struggling with the negative impact of increasing wheat prices as corn subsidies encouraged many wheat farmers to grow corn for ethanol. This created a terrible “food for fuel” quandary in which the corn lobbies seem to have been the only clear winners.
While our costs have steadily increased so has the cost of living for our workers. Even so, we have not been able to make pay increases to keep up with cost of living as our sales have been in decline. We were actually forced to implement a small pay cut in September of 2008 and I was eventually forced to sell my home and borrow a substantial sum of money to keep my business afloat as the year progressed and we suffered the additional negative effects of a fire.
We ceased carrying health insurance about a year ago as costs skyrocketed along with co-pays and pharmaceutical prices. We had to discontinue our retirement plan as we were no longer able to afford to participate in it. Many of our restaurant and retail accounts have been adversely affected as well by decreased consumer spending. Several long-time customers have even thrown in the towel.
I say all of this not as some kind of litany of woes but as an example of what the typical business owner is actually going through. We are a tough bunch and we will make it but, make no mistake, we are hurting. If you wish to understand the direct impact the recession is having on those in the working and middle class, look no further. We have tightened our belts, cut costs and minimized our needs, but we are still prepared to sacrifice more if we have to. We would, however, like to know that every single person in the state is joining with us in this suffering and sacrifice and that we are not being asked to shoulder the burden entirely.
Governor Patterson said yesterday that, “We cannot solve our problems overnight or without sacrifice - they run too deep for that. These problems may last for many more months or even years. But we can solve them and, with courage, we can craft a brighter, smarter future for New York.”
I agree with those sentiments, but I think we need to put a little bit of common sense in there before we continue with the sacrifice.
I don’t know about your economy but bailing out banks and insurance companies seems to have had very little impact on mine, thus far. I know that the Wall Street bailout was hardly Governor Patterson’s doing but I know that it is a perfect example of why we HAVE to find answers at the state level for the problems of the day. We simply cannot depend on the federal government to do what is right or just when things are broken.
If we leave it up to the fed or follow their lead, the problems New Yorkers are now facing will go unsolved. The biggest problem, without any doubt, is health care. In fact, according to a recent survey conducted by the Business Council of NY, health care is the single biggest issue for business owners in New York State. Worker’s comp rates came in a distant second.
Governor Patterson says we “need the courage to balance our budget as well as our priorities.” Well, he is absolutely right and small business has spoken loudly about the priority; it is health care. The question becomes, How do
we balance our budget while insuring the millions of New Yorkers who lack coverage?
I know the answer and, in reality, so does the Governor. That’s why I was absolutely horrified yesterday to see him openly advocate for more bureaucratic and incremental answers to our health care crisis rather than the sweeping reform we so desperately need.
Where health care is concerned, there is one clear answer and it is Single-Payer Health Care. It is basically the Canadian Health Care system with a few twists. It’s a clear and intelligent answer to a pressing problem. The Governor’s advocacy for building additional bureaucracies in our state with substandard care and inconsistent access is not such an answer. We need to get rid of the HMO’s and administrate our state’s health care through one mechanism instead of the hundreds that currently exist. It is projected that just that one bold move would save us 25-30% of what we currently pay for health care.
The Canadian system costs about $5200 per person with universal coverage and if you question its efficiency, you should know that, propaganda aside, Canadians live a full year longer than we do. You should also know that no sober, literate, Canadian would even consider switching health plans with anyone living in the U.S. unless they were forced to at gunpoint.
Here, in the U.S., we spend about $7200 per person on health care. Bear in mind that this is with about 60 million people completely uncovered and another 50 million or so ‘underinsured’. With all the layoffs projected from the recession, these numbers will increase dramatically. The incredible truth is that if we adopted Single-Payer Health Care in this country, we would actually be spending far less on care and everyone would be covered. It’s really a common sense approach to the problem.
Thanks to John Conyers and Denis Kucinich, there is already a resolution before congress, HR 676, which does have sponsors, but we need to be realistic about its chances in Washington. The resolution is unlikely to pass. There is simply too much HMO and pharmaceutical money floating around the Capitol for our public servants to do what is just. Many people think of my congresswoman, Kirsten Gillibrand, as a progressive of some kind. She, just like Barack Obama, and now New York’s Governor, has refused to discuss single payer at any level and has refused to support HR 676 even though she knows it is the best, most economical answer.
With our federal representatives doing such a poor job of representing us, we need Governor Patterson to help us resolve this issue right now, right here at home. We can have a single-payer system right here in New York state. We are projected to spend some $140 billion dollars in this state on health care in 2009. If we were to set up a single-payer health plan and spend a similar amount to what the Canadians do per capita, we would be saving $1,800 per person over what is already being spent with EVERY New Yorker covered. Who knows? Maybe we could start living a year longer, too!
Governor, business leaders are telling you that health care is the single biggest issue on the state's agenda but we can also tell you that there is a simple solution. Now is the time for our state government to implement solutions that actually make sense and not just those that seem politically feasible. We have suffered enough. Our workers have suffered enough. How, as a state, can we lose? How can it not make sense to save boatloads of money during a recession while ensuring that every citizen of New York has total access to health care?
The Governor called this recession “the gravest economic challenge in nearly a century.” Well, it seems to me that it really doesn’t have to be if we can just make decisions together which benefit everyone in our state and not just special interest groups and lobbies. Please, Governor Patterson, do what is right and support single-payer health care. Support common sense
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S735158.shtml?cat=10114
My name is Matt Funiciello. I am the owner of a bread bakery and cafe in Glens Falls, N.Y. I currently employ 36 people. I am here today to deliver my own brief state of the state from a small business owner’s perspective. This is not the perspective of a lobby group purporting to represent small business. It is the perspective of someone who has actually run a small business in New York state for over 20 years.
As this economic downturn began, small business owners, like the majority of Americans, saw substantial increases in energy costs and commensurate increases in most other goods and supplies. In my industry, we were already struggling with the negative impact of increasing wheat prices as corn subsidies encouraged many wheat farmers to grow corn for ethanol. This created a terrible “food for fuel” quandary in which the corn lobbies seem to have been the only clear winners.
While our costs have steadily increased so has the cost of living for our workers. Even so, we have not been able to make pay increases to keep up with cost of living as our sales have been in decline. We were actually forced to implement a small pay cut in September of 2008 and I was eventually forced to sell my home and borrow a substantial sum of money to keep my business afloat as the year progressed and we suffered the additional negative effects of a fire.
We ceased carrying health insurance about a year ago as costs skyrocketed along with co-pays and pharmaceutical prices. We had to discontinue our retirement plan as we were no longer able to afford to participate in it. Many of our restaurant and retail accounts have been adversely affected as well by decreased consumer spending. Several long-time customers have even thrown in the towel.
I say all of this not as some kind of litany of woes but as an example of what the typical business owner is actually going through. We are a tough bunch and we will make it but, make no mistake, we are hurting. If you wish to understand the direct impact the recession is having on those in the working and middle class, look no further. We have tightened our belts, cut costs and minimized our needs, but we are still prepared to sacrifice more if we have to. We would, however, like to know that every single person in the state is joining with us in this suffering and sacrifice and that we are not being asked to shoulder the burden entirely.
Governor Patterson said yesterday that, “We cannot solve our problems overnight or without sacrifice - they run too deep for that. These problems may last for many more months or even years. But we can solve them and, with courage, we can craft a brighter, smarter future for New York.”
I agree with those sentiments, but I think we need to put a little bit of common sense in there before we continue with the sacrifice.
I don’t know about your economy but bailing out banks and insurance companies seems to have had very little impact on mine, thus far. I know that the Wall Street bailout was hardly Governor Patterson’s doing but I know that it is a perfect example of why we HAVE to find answers at the state level for the problems of the day. We simply cannot depend on the federal government to do what is right or just when things are broken.
If we leave it up to the fed or follow their lead, the problems New Yorkers are now facing will go unsolved. The biggest problem, without any doubt, is health care. In fact, according to a recent survey conducted by the Business Council of NY, health care is the single biggest issue for business owners in New York State. Worker’s comp rates came in a distant second.
Governor Patterson says we “need the courage to balance our budget as well as our priorities.” Well, he is absolutely right and small business has spoken loudly about the priority; it is health care. The question becomes, How do
we balance our budget while insuring the millions of New Yorkers who lack coverage?
I know the answer and, in reality, so does the Governor. That’s why I was absolutely horrified yesterday to see him openly advocate for more bureaucratic and incremental answers to our health care crisis rather than the sweeping reform we so desperately need.
Where health care is concerned, there is one clear answer and it is Single-Payer Health Care. It is basically the Canadian Health Care system with a few twists. It’s a clear and intelligent answer to a pressing problem. The Governor’s advocacy for building additional bureaucracies in our state with substandard care and inconsistent access is not such an answer. We need to get rid of the HMO’s and administrate our state’s health care through one mechanism instead of the hundreds that currently exist. It is projected that just that one bold move would save us 25-30% of what we currently pay for health care.
The Canadian system costs about $5200 per person with universal coverage and if you question its efficiency, you should know that, propaganda aside, Canadians live a full year longer than we do. You should also know that no sober, literate, Canadian would even consider switching health plans with anyone living in the U.S. unless they were forced to at gunpoint.
Here, in the U.S., we spend about $7200 per person on health care. Bear in mind that this is with about 60 million people completely uncovered and another 50 million or so ‘underinsured’. With all the layoffs projected from the recession, these numbers will increase dramatically. The incredible truth is that if we adopted Single-Payer Health Care in this country, we would actually be spending far less on care and everyone would be covered. It’s really a common sense approach to the problem.
Thanks to John Conyers and Denis Kucinich, there is already a resolution before congress, HR 676, which does have sponsors, but we need to be realistic about its chances in Washington. The resolution is unlikely to pass. There is simply too much HMO and pharmaceutical money floating around the Capitol for our public servants to do what is just. Many people think of my congresswoman, Kirsten Gillibrand, as a progressive of some kind. She, just like Barack Obama, and now New York’s Governor, has refused to discuss single payer at any level and has refused to support HR 676 even though she knows it is the best, most economical answer.
With our federal representatives doing such a poor job of representing us, we need Governor Patterson to help us resolve this issue right now, right here at home. We can have a single-payer system right here in New York state. We are projected to spend some $140 billion dollars in this state on health care in 2009. If we were to set up a single-payer health plan and spend a similar amount to what the Canadians do per capita, we would be saving $1,800 per person over what is already being spent with EVERY New Yorker covered. Who knows? Maybe we could start living a year longer, too!
Governor, business leaders are telling you that health care is the single biggest issue on the state's agenda but we can also tell you that there is a simple solution. Now is the time for our state government to implement solutions that actually make sense and not just those that seem politically feasible. We have suffered enough. Our workers have suffered enough. How, as a state, can we lose? How can it not make sense to save boatloads of money during a recession while ensuring that every citizen of New York has total access to health care?
The Governor called this recession “the gravest economic challenge in nearly a century.” Well, it seems to me that it really doesn’t have to be if we can just make decisions together which benefit everyone in our state and not just special interest groups and lobbies. Please, Governor Patterson, do what is right and support single-payer health care. Support common sense
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Third-Party Blind Spot - John F. Kirch
Democracy suffers when the news media ignore long-shot candidates and the
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Greenwich Now Has a GREEN Mayor!
Doonan's running mates also secured the two trustee seats up for grabs, with Mary Catherine "Cathy" Brown and Lyle Hayes taking 28 percent and 24 percent of the vote, respectively.
Donald McKinley came in next with 15 percent, Elizabeth Davis with 14 percent, and Thomas Jordan with 11 percent of the vote.
Current Greenwich Mayor Chris McCormick came in last place among the candidates, totaling 8 percent of the vote.
Hudson Falls' election saw the Republican party sweep the race as its two trustee seats were filled by Republicans Michael Horrigan and James Gallagher.
Horrigan secured 40 percent of the vote, Gallagher took 35 percent and Democrat Robert Cook lost with 24 percent.
Those results do not include absentee ballots, which will be tallied today.
Current Hudson Falls Trustee John Barton, a Republican, ran for mayor unopposed, and won without incident.
Greenwich Village Justice John Pemrick and Hudson Falls Village Justice Michael Feeder ran for re-election unopposed and each secured another term.
Village of Cambridge trustee incumbents Mark Spiezio and Michael Wyatt kept their posts in the election for their two seats, garnering 38 percent and 34 percent of the vote, respectively.
Candidate Stephen Robertson received 28 percent. Christopher Callahan won his unopposed bid for the one-year trustee term.
The Whitehall village election saw Walter Sandford and Ken Bartholomew take the two trustee seats up for grabs, with 35 percent of the vote and 28 percent of the vote. Robert Carswell lost with 24 percent and Donna Spoor with 13 percent of the vote.
The Village of Lake George's one-year trustee term was won by John Root, who received 155 votes. Jim Behrmann received 84 votes from village residents.
Uncontested races
Argyle Mayor Edward Ellithorpe and trustees Harold Adams and Mark Haley each secured another term in their uncontested bids to remain in office, despite a handful of write-in votes opting for other candidates.
Village of Fort Ann Trustee Mary Lou Graves also secured another term in her uncontested race, with no write-in bids challenging the seat.
Salem Mayor Anne Dunigan and trustees Carol Rives and Paul Koloyluch ran for re-election unopposed, as did village Justice Francis Blanck, and all remain in their seats.
Corinth Mayor Bradley Winslow won re-election with 120 votes. Mitch Saunders, a write-in, received 35 votes.
Also re-elected were Corinth trustees Pauline Densmore, with 110 votes, and Leigh Lescault, also with 110 votes.
South Glens Falls saw Frank Jones running for trustee unopposed. Jones garnered 40 votes, and the village reported no write-in candidates.
Village of Schuylerville Green Party member Roger Sherman ran unopposed to fill the trustee position vacated when Glenn Decker resigned in October after having served only about seven months of a four-year term. Sherman won with 46 votes. A write-in candidate, Jim Miers, received five votes.
There were no elections this year in the villages of Victory, Granville and Fort Edward.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic
Contact Information: Matt Funiciello (518) 361-6278 mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
Tuesday February 5th ** SPECIAL EVENT **
Author/Journalist, Paul Hockenos, will be in the area and will read from and discuss his latest book, "Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic", at the Rock Hill Cafe, 19 Exchange Street in Glens Falls, N.Y. (Elm & Hudson near G.F. Hospital).
Author/Journalist, Paul Hockenos, will be in the area and will read from and discuss his latest book, "Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic", at the Rock Hill Cafe, 19 Exchange Street in Glens Falls, N.Y. (Elm & Hudson near G.F. Hospital).
Paul Hockenos is an American Berlin-based author and political analyst who has written about Europe since 1989. His articles and commentaries have appeared in dozens of periodicals in Europe and North America. Hockenos is also the author of Free to Hate: The Rise of the Right in Post-Communist Eastern Europe and Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism and the Balkan Wars. He is presently the editor of Internationale Politik-Global Edition, a foreign affairs quarterly published in Germany.
JOSCHKA FISCHER AND THE MAKING OF THE BERLIN REPUBLIC: An Alternative History of Postwar Germany
Over the course of his long and controversial career, Joschka Fischer evolved from an archetypal 1960s radical--a firebrand street activist--into a shrewd political insider, operating at the heights of German politics. In the 1980s he was one of the first elected Greens and went on to become Germany's foreign minister from 1998 to 2005. His famous challenge to Donald Rumsfeld's case for invading Iraq--"Excuse me, I am not convinced"--won him worldwide recognition, and the Bush administration's contempt.
Over the course of his long and controversial career, Joschka Fischer evolved from an archetypal 1960s radical--a firebrand street activist--into a shrewd political insider, operating at the heights of German politics. In the 1980s he was one of the first elected Greens and went on to become Germany's foreign minister from 1998 to 2005. His famous challenge to Donald Rumsfeld's case for invading Iraq--"Excuse me, I am not convinced"--won him worldwide recognition, and the Bush administration's contempt.
Here is both a lively biography of Joschka Fischer and a gripping history 'from below'of postwar Germany. Paul Hockenos begins in the ruins of postwar Germany and guides us through the flashpoints of the late sixties and seventies, from the student protests and the terrorism of the Baader-Meinhof group to the evolution of Europe's premier Green party, and brings us up to the present in the united Germany. He shows how the grassroots movements that became the German Greens challenged and changed the republic's status quo, making postwar Germany more democratic, liberal and worldly along the way. Despite the ideological twists and turns of Fischer and his peers, the lessons of the Holocaust and the Nazi terror remained their constant coordinates. Hockenos traces that political journey, providing readers with unique insight into the impact that these movements and the Greens have had on Germany.
Informed by hundreds of interviews with key figures and fellow travelers, Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic presents readers with one of the most intriguing personalities on the European scene, and paints a rich picture of the rebellious generation of 1968 that became the political elite of modern Germany.
Reviews
"For years, Paul Hockenos has been a refreshingly independent and tough-minded observer of the politics of Eastern and Central Europe. Now he gives us a lucid, comprehensive account of the rise of Joschka Fischer and the whole panoply of red-green politics in Germany. Filling in many holes, at least for the English-speaking public, he shows how much German democracy owes to post-60s citizens' movements and the '68-ers' proverbial 'long march through the institutions.'"--Todd Gitlin, author of The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage
"This is an ambitious and original book, deeply researched and lucidly written. It should be on the must-read list for anyone interested in late twentieth-century German history and in the history and legacy of the 1968 generation."--Mary Nolan, Professor of History, New York University
"Modern Germany is very different from the uptight and defensive country--with much to be defensive about--that I first visited in the 1960s. The significant role in that transformation played by the 'sixty-eight generation'--and above all by the extraordinarily talented and ever personally evolving Joschka Fischer--is an intriguing story, which Paul Hockenos tells lucidly and well."--Gareth Evans, President, International Crisis Group and Foreign Minister of Australia 1988-96
"Paul Hockenos knows Germany very well, and he is not afraid to tackle ambiguity and complexity. His scholarly and eminently readable biography of Joschka Fischer provides a serious alternative to more conventional accounts of major changes in Germany."--Norman Birnbaum, author of After Progress: American Social Reform and European Socialism in the Twentieth Century
"A refreshingly clear, elegant portrait of the Europe most influenced by the US and most reflective of its ideals and follies. To understand Fischer and Germany's voyage over the last 60 years is to understand America's own. Those who wish to understand how others see the US today should read this book."--Marcia Pally, author of Critique Abandoned: The Ceding of Democracy
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Cynthia McKinney - The Great Green Hope?
I have great respect and appreciation for Cynthia McKinney but I said long before the Green Convention in Reading, PA that she would make a terrible Green candidate because she would be written off as a "cop-slapper" and a "conspiracy theorist" by the mainstream media (if they bothered to pay any attention to her at all). The mainstream media virtually ignored her recent visit to Madison, Wisconsin (which only 30 Greens bothered to attend). I googled the event looking for mainstream coverage and honestly didn't find much, if any. Even the blogs and the small local media (see below) opened their pieces with "cop-slapper" and "conspiracy theorist" and dug no deeper. What are we thinking, fellow Greens?
I am very curious what good is to come out of supporting a campaign which, just like in 2004, we are the only ones paying any attention to? I stress that it is not my desire that things work this way, but I know that they DO. A McKinney run may be well-intended but will do nothing to help advance our party at all. In fact, our numbers will drop again. All those on Cynthia's
bandwagon have consistently explained that a young energetic go-getter like her will help us to organize locals with her vigorous campaigning (I guess that they intend their "young" dagger to penetrate the spine of that notoriously "lazy" old white man who gave our party its national legs). I can only say that simple mathematics proves them terribly wrong.
Just to put things in perspective, the Madison Metro Area is home to over 600,000 people. Thirty of them showed up to see Cynthia, a statistically irrelevant number.
I live in a small city in upstate New York (Glens Falls). We are home to about 15,000 people and its arguable that there are about 100,000 people living within about a 20 mile radius. There are no major single pockets of population anywhere up here. I brought Ralph here twice and he spoke to over 300 people each time and we easily sold out ($50 - $100 p.p.) fundraisers for him. The local press hate my guts but we got covered by the local papers and the local indie TV stations and Time Warner and the local public radio affiliate each time, nonetheless.
My Green local is literally a handful of people and I am absolutely sure that we are nowhere near as well-organized and well-run as I imagine the Wisconsin Greens to be. So, what does this tell us about Cynthia's "bankability" and effectiveness at garnering media interest and buzz and getting people interested in our party?
It tells me I was right, regardless of what our internally-produced, seldom read, press releases have to say about it. Please think of the party as we work towards the 2008 presidential elections. Please work for the only candidate who has shown over and over again that he is the only representative our party has ever had who is capable of getting decent, quite often national, coverage. Please help me to save our party by working to help Ralph Nader become our candidate for President. It is the only thing that makes any sense. Everything else is just electoral masturbation.
A former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, perhaps best known for her scuffle with U.S. Capitol security guards, was in Madison on Tuesday stumping as a Green Party candidate for president.
McKinney? Cynthia McKinney... that Cynthia McKinney? None other. She's the congresswoman who walked around the metal detector at the entrance to the House Office Building, while not wearing her Congressional identity pin, and then got into a shoving match with the Capitol guard who tried to stop her. She's the congresswoman who's made statements accusing President Bush of involvement with 9/11. She's opposed aid to Israel, and anti-Semitic statements have repeatedly come from her campaigns.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14829074/detail.html
McKinney is seeking the nomination of the Green Party, which gained fame when Ralph Nader ran as its candidate for president in 2000. Kevin Barrett, a former University of Wisconsin lecturer who taught that the U.S. government was behind the September 11th terrorist attacks, attended McKinney's news conference along with about 50 others.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Green Party's Future
I served as a national representative to the US Green Party in 2005 and I remember when I first questioned a mysterious $25,000 donation made by a Mr. and Mrs. Mazzes. I was not casting aspersions or insulting anyone to ask the question; "What did the Mazzes get or expect in return for such a huge donation." I was attacked, nonetheless.
The Mazzes are obviously NOT people working towards independent politics. These are people working with the (un)Democratic Party and PDA and DFA and other gateway groups who regularly use their resource to shut down our grassroots organizing. The Mazzes are not Greens. They are upper middle class faux progressive Democrats and they obviously were paying off some type of favor. I wonder who in our party most directly benefited from this donation (and the $12,000 dollar one that they also made). Would we accept money from George Soros if he came to us? Is he a Green or a "progressive" from this lists' perspective? I know that Dems see Soros as a rich progressive but any half awake Green knows the less than subtle differences between "blood money" or payola and a simple donation. I suggested in 2005 that we should no longer accept bribes this large and obvious. If we only accepted smaller donations, no one would ever again have to suspect that a donation was the cause of any undue influence.
The way to prevent this from happening in the future is simple - cap all donations annually. I suggest we apply a "tithing formula". Lets cap donations to the party at 10% of the annual full time salary of a federal minimum wage earner. This provides a scale that limits undue influence but doesn't stop many of us from "maxing out" with our yearly contributions. Those who wish to give more can give to individual races and candidates as they should. It would also allow for growth if we are successful in raising the minimum wage. It would be an assurance that Democrats and other such war criminals can't simply buy their way into our party. We could also set up a Green Card system where every party member donates a minimum amount of money (say, $36 a year minimum unless there is a hardship declaration - thats 10 cent a day, people). Based on this "tithing", the maximum individual donation would be the federal minimum wage x 2080 hours x 10%.
Currently, that formula yields us a max donation of about $1200 a year ($5.85 x 2080 hrs / 10 = $1216.80 dollars). This is what I currently give and that is exactly how I decided to give that amount.
Pat LaMarche said to me in an email earlier this year that she estimated Green numbers were somewhere "between half a million and 3 million". Lets say for the sake of argument that we might have about 400,000 active Greens in the U.S. If only 75% of that very low estimate are honest and decent people who would pay their $36 bucks (10 cents a day) and not falsely claim hardship, we would collect well over $1 million dollars annually from this program! Imagine how many campaigns we could effectively run with that kind of resource! How many more senate and congressional and mayoral campaigns would get checks for $1,000 dollars or $5,000 instead of the $100 or $200 they currently get? We could use that money to set up printing templates and services and help paper states run their own papers and organize the grassroots. We could set up ballot databases to help states organize to attain ballot status. We could help campaigns with professionally designed templates for brochures and web hosting, campaign co-ordinators and advisors! We would no longer need to beg rich Democrats for little chunks of "big money" as we would have already raised it ourselves. More importantly, we would have done so while remaining true to our ideals. We would never again need to worry about whether those "big donations" come from saboteurs with strings attached because there wouldn't be any "big donors".
The two arguments I most often hear against a Green Card program are, at best, ridiculous. Correct me if I am wrong. No one has yet.
1 - Poor people would be excluded from such a system.
I don't often use words like "Bullshit" in print but it would seem quite apropos here. These "poor people" we always hear so much about are already excluded from our party as it does 99.9% of its business ONLINE! Do "poor people" have $1,000 to buy a computer and $65 a month for DSL? Do "poor people" have thousands of dollars to travel to conventions? The "rich elitist scum" in our party already exclude "poor people" if $36 dollars is really to be used as any kind of yardstick. The current Green Card Plan only asks $36 a year and allows for hardship unlike our own current operating procedures. Get Real! We are talking about 10 cents a day - the equivalent of returning two bottles to the store. Get a grip, people! I've never heard an actual "poor person" make this argument, EVER, just the usual posers. It always seems to be middle class white people pretending to know something about poverty who wish to disparage low income workers by spreading crap like this. Is there anyone reading this who is worried that 10 cents a day might separate them from the Green Party because they just couldn't come up with it? Is there anyone truly unwilling to collect two bottles or cans a day to support the only party that works for peace, single-payer health care and a livable wage? Do we really want anyone working with us who is unwilling to do this, the absolute very least anyone could possibly do?
2 - Most states don't allow political parties to be dues paying mechanisms.
Fine. Then, we set this up as a Green "group" or PAC or fundraising mechanism, whatever name it is legally necessary to define it as. These semantics are largely irrelevant. We can use this group to organize our ballot drives and each state's own unique political organization. Duh! I would say that with only 18 ballot lines, we're pretty much a bad joke as far as political parties go, anyway. Wouldn't we be much better off organizing people around ballot access and local issues and actual campaigns that really matter than steering them towards the dysfunctional and irrelevant mess we have created for them at national? We could use this new organization to keep track of all Greens anywhere in the country regardless of their individual state's ballot status. This group would become an incredible organizing tool for the vast majority of states (which don't have ballot lines and therefore don't have BOE records to use to reach out to their Greens). We would have money and a centralized list of all those who support us and wish to work with us on issues and races.
The benefits of setting up such a system would be overwhelming but it seems that it is the same old "position, not mission" people who attack the Green Card most venomously. Is it really all that surprising that these people are often in positions of power within our party? They probably would have been run out of any other organization for incompetence or sabotage. A benevolent organization might perhaps ask people who are "helpful" on this level to set up the tables and chairs or help sweep up after. We have gone to the insane extreme of allowing these people to RUN our party (into the ground). Big mistake.
We need to revisit the Green Card idea and make it happen. It is the single most logical answer to so many of our collective problems;
- It basically eliminates worry about any specific group "owning" us (especially Democrats).
- It creates a brilliant fundraising tool, empowering us financially.
- It facilitates a grassroots voting mechanism that puts power into the hands of those who show they are capable of handling it responsibly.
- It eliminates the need for our overly-complicated and dysfunctional hierarchy.
- It eliminates the need for our overly-complicated and dysfunctional hierarchy.
- It will reward good organizers/organizations by eliminating the need for apportionment arguments and formulas because each state would be based on actual paid membership.
- A system like this would mesh perfectly with our core tenets, unlike the convoluted horsecrap that currently passes for policy within our very sick, near dead, political party.
Where's the down side?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
A Response to Some Greens About 2008
We simply cannot afford to make the same mistake again of thinking that a campaign virtually ignored by the media can also be a success for our party. A campaign that fails to be noticed is a failure for our party as it does not help us to build. Party-building is the main reason we run presidential campaigns in the first place, right?
We need to focus on the very real media blackout that exists and how to break it. A candidate who can get national media attention will yield us more membership and more resource and the possibilities of eventually gaining more ballot lines, the fabled 5% and access to the debates.
Lets all keep our eyes on that prize: NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. The common ground here is that we all want the Green Party to grow and become the legitimate and credible alternative to the two corporate war parties, right? Is there anybody out there who disagrees? That said, no one person is even contemplating running with us who will get us the media attention that Ralph Nader will. That is simply a fact and we all know it to be true no matter our whims, desires, moods or strategies.
We need to stop arguing about the "who" immediately. If Nader seeks our nomination, he will get it. Saturday night in Reading was proof positive that the grassroots and their representatives know exactly what we need to do in 2008. We love Ralph, we respect him and we want him to run. The energy is there. The only pertinent question is, "Are we able to show a credible candidate (like Ralph) that we are a party deserving enough that legitimate candidates would seriously consider seeking our nomination?" We need to convince Ralph to run with us. Waiting for an under qualified or lesser-known candidate to beg for our nomination seems to suggest a secret desire for our party to fail.
Running a Green who no-one knows is always going to be a serious mistake. We already made it once and we all seem to agree that it was, at the very least, not a party-building experience. As such, lets not do it again. Most people I know who are not Greens think that Ralph Nader was our candidate in 2004, anyway. They have no idea who our actual candidate was because he (and our party) didn't get any media attention.
Running a Democrat who garners only small amounts of very negative media would be a huge mistake, as well. Cynthia McKinney is a wonderful, brave and articulate woman who deserves our support BUT she is also a Democrat and she also has the rare distinction of being thought of as a loose cannon and a conspiracy theorist by both the Fox News crowd AND the NY Time's crowd, as well. She is not anywhere as well known as Ralph and her resume is considerably shorter. Running her would be a terrible mistake (and it will split our party again).
Run her for Congress as a Green and run Ralph for President. This is a no-brainer. I don't know about you, but I'll throw my resource behind both campaigns, enthusiastically.
I am not holding up a gun and saying "Just do what I tell you". I'm not threatening to "take my ball and go home". I'm just predicting what will happen (again) if we proceed slowly and without common sense. I am stating the obvious. 2008, with Bloomberg in the race, is our year. This is the year to run Ralph and grow our party again. If we start planning early enough, we can make this our best national campaign ever. I am not proud to say that I predicted 2004's disastrous result perfectly, but I did. I believe that 90% of the grassroots Greens I know did as well. For the good of the party, we need to go with the positive.
Ralph for President. Cynthia for Congress. Both with our full support. This time around, I would love to predict that we're going to stop all the infighting and announce our intent early and do something that makes sense. We owe it to our grassroots and we owe it to ourselves. We can do it. I predict that we will!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Will Nader and the Greens Ride Again?
The short answer is, it really does seem probable ... even likely. I just got back from Reading, PA where I attended the Green Party's Annual Convention, "Green For a Change". It was a great recharging of the batteries. It was wonderful to see so many of my fellow national delegates. We email each other and debate and discuss and argue all types of things endlessly all year long and the convention is a great opportunity to actually talk face to face, mend some fences, set some limits or just plain wrassle.
I know that my posts in our various email battles usually become more pointed and more civil after attending such gatherings.
A short rundown is easy. I arrived on Thursday. Many others who had come from as far away as Hawaii, were already attending workshops on Dismantling Racism, Running For Office, Peace Actions, Green Strategy, Fundraising and many other various and sundry topics.
Friday morning, I attended a workshop given by NY state's own Mike Seller (Cobleskill's 23 yr. old Green Mayor) and Rebecca Rotzler, New Paltz's outgoing Green Deputy Mayor. They had lots of insight about the nuts and bolts of governance and were very direct in speaking to the issues of limited resource within the party for aiding officeholders with campaigns and problem resolution.
Plenary sessions began Friday afternoon and, finding that we had, in fact, achieved a quorum, we watched several presentations on next year's possible convention sites (Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Oakland/Berkeley). We spent some time that evening listening to a number of presidential candidates, Green and otherwise, who had come seeking our nomination. I especially liked Jared ball, a young man from the DC Statehood Greens who was extremely poised and articulate and strong in his presentation.
On Saturday, we voted for our secretary and new steering committee and spent some time speaking (a minute each) about what we thought should happen with electoral/presidential politics in 2008. Four people, myself being one of them, got up to speak in support of a Ralph Nader/Green candidacy. Three of us were applauded enthusiastically, one massively. Only one of the other 50 or so Greens who spoke mentioned David Cobb and Pat LaMarche and how proud they were of them both. There was massive silence. Only two Maine Greens twinkled. One speaker advocated for a Cynthia McKinney Green candidacy. A few people clapped and some people twinkled.
That same night, Ralph came to speak. There were a little over 300 people there (mostly national delegates). There was a standing ovation and the crowd chanted loudly, "Run, Ralph. Run!" for about two minutes. Ralph was very inspirational and there was a feeling in the air of such great possibility.
I should explain that there are "paper state" Greens in our party. Basically, these are Greens
from states without ballot status or any real mechanism for measuring party support in their state who have somehow been assessed delegates anyway (we like to call them Democrats and
obstructionists). These people are often suspiciously anti-Nader but they are also a very small minority within the party. The other group of anti-Nader or anti-presidential run Greens are those concerned about ballot access for their state parties in places like Texas or Illinois or Pennsylvania itself. These people want to make sure that they get an unknown to run who will spend a lot of time working on party building in their states, unlike Ralph, who always makes an honest effort to go to every state at least once and only hits the bigger states multiple times.
My sense of things is that 2004 is clearly over. ABB is dead and a vast majority of us are just champing at the bit to run a presidential candidate. If the respective Green reaction to Nader and then McKinney on Sunday was any indication, we all really want Ralph to run but if he won't do it, we want to keep the McKinney "door" open a crack.
I organized a private discussion with Ralph and a hadnful of other Greens after his appearance and it certainly was my feeling that, collectively, we are all just dying to finish off what we all so happily undertook in 2000.
McKinney, appearing Sunday afternoon, looked great in her movie, American Blackout, that was screened before she spoke. I was somewhat dissappointed with her ability to inspire. She seems so capable and fearless and articulate and direct on C-Span and in her film but not so much when she is at the podium live. She is someone we all should respect and appreciate but it was also obvious from the smaller, slightly less enthusiastic crowd that she is not going to be our candidate. Many of her own advocates amongst us were talking (rudely) throughout her allotted time.
McKinney dropped a lot of hints about 2008 that left no room for guessing but it is my prediction that Ralph is going to run and he's going to run with us again and that this action will help make the Green Party whole so we can start building again.
I know that my posts in our various email battles usually become more pointed and more civil after attending such gatherings.
A short rundown is easy. I arrived on Thursday. Many others who had come from as far away as Hawaii, were already attending workshops on Dismantling Racism, Running For Office, Peace Actions, Green Strategy, Fundraising and many other various and sundry topics.
Friday morning, I attended a workshop given by NY state's own Mike Seller (Cobleskill's 23 yr. old Green Mayor) and Rebecca Rotzler, New Paltz's outgoing Green Deputy Mayor. They had lots of insight about the nuts and bolts of governance and were very direct in speaking to the issues of limited resource within the party for aiding officeholders with campaigns and problem resolution.
Plenary sessions began Friday afternoon and, finding that we had, in fact, achieved a quorum, we watched several presentations on next year's possible convention sites (Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Oakland/Berkeley). We spent some time that evening listening to a number of presidential candidates, Green and otherwise, who had come seeking our nomination. I especially liked Jared ball, a young man from the DC Statehood Greens who was extremely poised and articulate and strong in his presentation.
On Saturday, we voted for our secretary and new steering committee and spent some time speaking (a minute each) about what we thought should happen with electoral/presidential politics in 2008. Four people, myself being one of them, got up to speak in support of a Ralph Nader/Green candidacy. Three of us were applauded enthusiastically, one massively. Only one of the other 50 or so Greens who spoke mentioned David Cobb and Pat LaMarche and how proud they were of them both. There was massive silence. Only two Maine Greens twinkled. One speaker advocated for a Cynthia McKinney Green candidacy. A few people clapped and some people twinkled.
That same night, Ralph came to speak. There were a little over 300 people there (mostly national delegates). There was a standing ovation and the crowd chanted loudly, "Run, Ralph. Run!" for about two minutes. Ralph was very inspirational and there was a feeling in the air of such great possibility.
I should explain that there are "paper state" Greens in our party. Basically, these are Greens
from states without ballot status or any real mechanism for measuring party support in their state who have somehow been assessed delegates anyway (we like to call them Democrats and
obstructionists). These people are often suspiciously anti-Nader but they are also a very small minority within the party. The other group of anti-Nader or anti-presidential run Greens are those concerned about ballot access for their state parties in places like Texas or Illinois or Pennsylvania itself. These people want to make sure that they get an unknown to run who will spend a lot of time working on party building in their states, unlike Ralph, who always makes an honest effort to go to every state at least once and only hits the bigger states multiple times.
My sense of things is that 2004 is clearly over. ABB is dead and a vast majority of us are just champing at the bit to run a presidential candidate. If the respective Green reaction to Nader and then McKinney on Sunday was any indication, we all really want Ralph to run but if he won't do it, we want to keep the McKinney "door" open a crack.
I organized a private discussion with Ralph and a hadnful of other Greens after his appearance and it certainly was my feeling that, collectively, we are all just dying to finish off what we all so happily undertook in 2000.
McKinney, appearing Sunday afternoon, looked great in her movie, American Blackout, that was screened before she spoke. I was somewhat dissappointed with her ability to inspire. She seems so capable and fearless and articulate and direct on C-Span and in her film but not so much when she is at the podium live. She is someone we all should respect and appreciate but it was also obvious from the smaller, slightly less enthusiastic crowd that she is not going to be our candidate. Many of her own advocates amongst us were talking (rudely) throughout her allotted time.
McKinney dropped a lot of hints about 2008 that left no room for guessing but it is my prediction that Ralph is going to run and he's going to run with us again and that this action will help make the Green Party whole so we can start building again.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Crooked Democrat Judge Fines Nader $89,000 For Running for Office
I have attached a truly frightening piece below about the lengths to which the Democrats have now stooped to quash democracy and shut down third party candidates. The Democrats, through actions like this, are succeeding at making the Republicans look like the good guys. When I read articles like this, I am quite relieved to be associated with neither set of ruling class, neo-corporatist swine.
OpEdNews
www.opednews.com/articles/genera_michael__070502_democrats_tighten_no.htm
May 2, 2007
Democrats tighten noose on Nader and Greens in punitive attack on "Third Party" candidates
By Michael Richardson
The Democrats are tightening the financial noose around Ralph Nader for his failed bid to obtain ballot access in Pennsylvania during his 2004 Presidential campaign. Nader had been deprived a place on the ballot after extensive litigation, brought by the Democrats, and was later assessed a hefty $89,821 penalty by the Pennsylvania courts to be paid to the Democrats for court-related costs. Nader appealed the assessment and was recently denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court. Emboldened, lawyers for the Democrats have now entered the costly order as a final judgment in an ongoing effort to enforce the penalty.
Nader attorney Oliver Hall says about the post-election vendetta, "They have overreached and gone way too far, it is unprecedented." The obvious chilling effect on independents and minor party candidates is not lost on Carl Romanelli, the 2006 Green Party would-be candidate for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. Romanelli, too, has been hit by the Democrats with a huge bill for their costs in removing him from the ballot and has been ordered to pay $89,668.
If successful in Pennsylvania, Democrat legislators around the country will likely introduce similar punitive election laws in other states, particularly "swing" states, in a preventive effort to keep independents and minor party candidates off the ballot.
Capital University law professor Mark Brown has studied the 2004 legal wrangling that took Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania and recently published a law review article on the affair. Brown discovered the Democrats were aided by a judge who may have been motivated by animus toward Nader's candidacy.
Nader needed 25,697 signatures on his nomination petitions to get a spot on the Pennsylvania ballot and submitted approximately 52,000. A week after filing the petitions the Secretary of State accepted Nader's nomination after tossing about 5,000 signatures for various reasons. That same day, August 9, 2004, eight Democrat "objectors" represented by two dozen lawyers challenged some 37,000 of the remaining signatures. After weeks of legal wrangling eleven judges were assigned the monumental task of a line-by-line review of Nader's petitions.
Judge James Collins, who assessed the $89,821 bill, led the review declaring Nader's petitions were "rife with forgeries" and that "this signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court." Collins alleged that "thousands of names" were "created at random"…a view dissented from by Justice Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court who declared the Nader campaign had not been shown to have engaged in any kind of "systemic" fraud and that only 687 signatures out of 51,273 had actually been rejected for forgery.
Professor Brown has discovered that Judge Collins personally ruled that 568 of the 687 purported forgeries were fraudulent leaving the other ten judges to find only 119 forgeries. Collins and two of the other reviewing judges discarded thousands of signatures on very "technical and complicated" criteria including a missing middle initial, use of ditto marks, or mixing printing with cursive writing. Collins ended up rejecting 70% of the 10,794 signatures he reviewed.
Brown wrote in his law review article, "Moreover, the eleven judges who reviewed Nader's signature submissions apparently employed different standards to invalidate signatures at alarmingly different rates." In a footnote, Brown notes that 3,500 signatures were invalidated for unstated reasons.
Brown writes there was a "concerted Democratic program to purge Nader from the presidential ballot." Further, "The lesson to be drawn from the 2004 presidential race is that neither major party can be trusted to police a general election ballot. Major party interests naturally lean more toward rigging and sabotaging than insuring fair and competitive fights."
"The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court pressed just under a dozen judges into service at different locations over the course of two weeks to canvass 52,000 signatures submitted by the Nader campaign. Not only did this Herculean effort push the Nader campaign beyond its legal and technical capacity--some of the proceedings were not even attended by Nader's lawyers--the eleven judges invalidated signatures at alarmingly different rates."
"Forcing lawyers to scramble among a dozen courtrooms in as many days to uphold an agency's decision authorizing ballot access is neither measured nor productive. The practice is not only constitutionally objectionable, but it also facilitates a moneyed effort to veto a political outsider's participation in the electoral arena."
Attorney Hall says that Ralph Nader is still reviewing his options regarding the costly and punitive order issued by Judge Collins to punish Nader's bid for public office.
Professor Brown concludes his analysis of the Democratic legal attack on Nader, "I suspect that as long as America's political system rewards an empty lust for power, politicians and judges will continue to turn blind eyes to fair procedures."
Permission granted to reprint. Authors Bio: Michael Richardson is a freelance writer based in Boston. Richardson writes about politics, election law, human nutrition, ethics, and music. In 2004 Richardson was Ralph Nader's national ballot access coordinator.
OpEdNews
www.opednews.com/articles/genera_michael__070502_democrats_tighten_no.htm
May 2, 2007
Democrats tighten noose on Nader and Greens in punitive attack on "Third Party" candidates
By Michael Richardson
The Democrats are tightening the financial noose around Ralph Nader for his failed bid to obtain ballot access in Pennsylvania during his 2004 Presidential campaign. Nader had been deprived a place on the ballot after extensive litigation, brought by the Democrats, and was later assessed a hefty $89,821 penalty by the Pennsylvania courts to be paid to the Democrats for court-related costs. Nader appealed the assessment and was recently denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court. Emboldened, lawyers for the Democrats have now entered the costly order as a final judgment in an ongoing effort to enforce the penalty.
Nader attorney Oliver Hall says about the post-election vendetta, "They have overreached and gone way too far, it is unprecedented." The obvious chilling effect on independents and minor party candidates is not lost on Carl Romanelli, the 2006 Green Party would-be candidate for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. Romanelli, too, has been hit by the Democrats with a huge bill for their costs in removing him from the ballot and has been ordered to pay $89,668.
If successful in Pennsylvania, Democrat legislators around the country will likely introduce similar punitive election laws in other states, particularly "swing" states, in a preventive effort to keep independents and minor party candidates off the ballot.
Capital University law professor Mark Brown has studied the 2004 legal wrangling that took Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania and recently published a law review article on the affair. Brown discovered the Democrats were aided by a judge who may have been motivated by animus toward Nader's candidacy.
Nader needed 25,697 signatures on his nomination petitions to get a spot on the Pennsylvania ballot and submitted approximately 52,000. A week after filing the petitions the Secretary of State accepted Nader's nomination after tossing about 5,000 signatures for various reasons. That same day, August 9, 2004, eight Democrat "objectors" represented by two dozen lawyers challenged some 37,000 of the remaining signatures. After weeks of legal wrangling eleven judges were assigned the monumental task of a line-by-line review of Nader's petitions.
Judge James Collins, who assessed the $89,821 bill, led the review declaring Nader's petitions were "rife with forgeries" and that "this signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court." Collins alleged that "thousands of names" were "created at random"…a view dissented from by Justice Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court who declared the Nader campaign had not been shown to have engaged in any kind of "systemic" fraud and that only 687 signatures out of 51,273 had actually been rejected for forgery.
Professor Brown has discovered that Judge Collins personally ruled that 568 of the 687 purported forgeries were fraudulent leaving the other ten judges to find only 119 forgeries. Collins and two of the other reviewing judges discarded thousands of signatures on very "technical and complicated" criteria including a missing middle initial, use of ditto marks, or mixing printing with cursive writing. Collins ended up rejecting 70% of the 10,794 signatures he reviewed.
Brown wrote in his law review article, "Moreover, the eleven judges who reviewed Nader's signature submissions apparently employed different standards to invalidate signatures at alarmingly different rates." In a footnote, Brown notes that 3,500 signatures were invalidated for unstated reasons.
Brown writes there was a "concerted Democratic program to purge Nader from the presidential ballot." Further, "The lesson to be drawn from the 2004 presidential race is that neither major party can be trusted to police a general election ballot. Major party interests naturally lean more toward rigging and sabotaging than insuring fair and competitive fights."
"The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court pressed just under a dozen judges into service at different locations over the course of two weeks to canvass 52,000 signatures submitted by the Nader campaign. Not only did this Herculean effort push the Nader campaign beyond its legal and technical capacity--some of the proceedings were not even attended by Nader's lawyers--the eleven judges invalidated signatures at alarmingly different rates."
"Forcing lawyers to scramble among a dozen courtrooms in as many days to uphold an agency's decision authorizing ballot access is neither measured nor productive. The practice is not only constitutionally objectionable, but it also facilitates a moneyed effort to veto a political outsider's participation in the electoral arena."
Attorney Hall says that Ralph Nader is still reviewing his options regarding the costly and punitive order issued by Judge Collins to punish Nader's bid for public office.
Professor Brown concludes his analysis of the Democratic legal attack on Nader, "I suspect that as long as America's political system rewards an empty lust for power, politicians and judges will continue to turn blind eyes to fair procedures."
Permission granted to reprint. Authors Bio: Michael Richardson is a freelance writer based in Boston. Richardson writes about politics, election law, human nutrition, ethics, and music. In 2004 Richardson was Ralph Nader's national ballot access coordinator.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Howie Hawkins Visits Glens Falls
Adirondack Progressives Host Fundraiser for Green U.S. Senate Candidate, Howie Hawkins
For Immediate Release
Contact: Matt Funiciello (518)361-6278 or mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
June 26, 2006 – Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that candidate for U.S. Senate from New York, Howie Hawkins, will be the guest of honor at a dinner and fundraiser to be held at 6 p.m., July 22, 2006, at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe in Glens Falls. The event is sponsored by the Adirondack Progressives. Local musician Carrianne Skidmore will provide entertainment and a vegetarian buffet will be served. Tickets are available at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe and also at High Peaks Java; there is a suggested donation of $25. Hawkins faces incumbent US Senator Hillary Clinton in the fall election.“Hawkins represents the best and brightest of the Green Party,” said Funiciello, a former member of the Green Party's National Committee, himself. “We’re extremely proud to have him as our party’s candidate against the pro-Iraq, pro-Patriot Act, pro-globalization, former WalMart board member, Citizen Hillary.”“An independent opposition party like the Greens is the most effective way to advance peace, justice, and a sustainable society,” Hawkins said, “It is not just the peace vote that is open to alternatives. So are the millions without health insurance, the workers who are losing wages and benefits and their very jobs, the environmentalists who see no program to address global warming, and the women and people of color who are losing their recently won rights. All have reason to be dissatisfied with Clinton, who is taking them for granted as she rebrands herself a ‘moderate’ for her presidential run.”“Clinton has been a consistent war hawk on Iraq and, indeed, all the wars initiated by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. She is more responsible than any other person in America for killing the single-payer national health insurance bill that had about 100 members of Congress as co-sponsors in 1993,” Hawkins added.Howie Hawkins has been active in movements for peace, justice, the environment, and independent progressive politics since the late 1960s. A former Marine, he helped organize opposition to the Vietnam War and was a co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. He was a co-founder of the Green Party in the United States in 1984 and currently serves on the Green National Committee.After attending Dartmouth College in the early 1970s, Howie worked as a carpenter in New England and helped start up a construction workers cooperative that specialized in solar and wind energy installations. Howie moved to Syracuse in 1991 to be Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable. A member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS.Howie's articles on social theory, cooperative economics, and independent politics have appeared in many publications, including Against the Current, Green Politics, International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Peaceworks, Resist, Society and Nature, and Z Magazine . He is the editor of Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006).Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, along with members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. They are currently also organizing a fall appearance by Green candidate for N.Y.S. Governor, Malachy McCourt. McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt).
For more information about this and other Adirondack Progressive events, contact Matt Funiciello at (518) 361-6278.
For Campaign Information: www.hawkinsforsenate.org and www.malachyforgovernor.com
For Immediate Release
Contact: Matt Funiciello (518)361-6278 or mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
June 26, 2006 – Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that candidate for U.S. Senate from New York, Howie Hawkins, will be the guest of honor at a dinner and fundraiser to be held at 6 p.m., July 22, 2006, at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe in Glens Falls. The event is sponsored by the Adirondack Progressives. Local musician Carrianne Skidmore will provide entertainment and a vegetarian buffet will be served. Tickets are available at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe and also at High Peaks Java; there is a suggested donation of $25. Hawkins faces incumbent US Senator Hillary Clinton in the fall election.“Hawkins represents the best and brightest of the Green Party,” said Funiciello, a former member of the Green Party's National Committee, himself. “We’re extremely proud to have him as our party’s candidate against the pro-Iraq, pro-Patriot Act, pro-globalization, former WalMart board member, Citizen Hillary.”“An independent opposition party like the Greens is the most effective way to advance peace, justice, and a sustainable society,” Hawkins said, “It is not just the peace vote that is open to alternatives. So are the millions without health insurance, the workers who are losing wages and benefits and their very jobs, the environmentalists who see no program to address global warming, and the women and people of color who are losing their recently won rights. All have reason to be dissatisfied with Clinton, who is taking them for granted as she rebrands herself a ‘moderate’ for her presidential run.”“Clinton has been a consistent war hawk on Iraq and, indeed, all the wars initiated by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. She is more responsible than any other person in America for killing the single-payer national health insurance bill that had about 100 members of Congress as co-sponsors in 1993,” Hawkins added.Howie Hawkins has been active in movements for peace, justice, the environment, and independent progressive politics since the late 1960s. A former Marine, he helped organize opposition to the Vietnam War and was a co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. He was a co-founder of the Green Party in the United States in 1984 and currently serves on the Green National Committee.After attending Dartmouth College in the early 1970s, Howie worked as a carpenter in New England and helped start up a construction workers cooperative that specialized in solar and wind energy installations. Howie moved to Syracuse in 1991 to be Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable. A member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS.Howie's articles on social theory, cooperative economics, and independent politics have appeared in many publications, including Against the Current, Green Politics, International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Peaceworks, Resist, Society and Nature, and Z Magazine . He is the editor of Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006).Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, along with members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. They are currently also organizing a fall appearance by Green candidate for N.Y.S. Governor, Malachy McCourt. McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt).
For more information about this and other Adirondack Progressive events, contact Matt Funiciello at (518) 361-6278.
For Campaign Information: www.hawkinsforsenate.org and www.malachyforgovernor.com
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Hawkins BEATS Hillary!
Hey, Everybody! While the Fascist Daily has yet to even mention most of the candidates running against incumbent Hillary Clinton in this year's Senate race, our local NPR-affiliate, WAMC (90.3), ran a poll on Tuesday asking people who they would vote for. Almost three hundred people participated and .... drum roll please .... Guess who won?!
HOWIE HAWKINS (a fellow Green, Teamster and activist).
Hawkins won with 32%, more than twice the votes for the incumbent!Aside from the fact that a Green won the poll, there are two other interesting points;
1) Steve Greenfield received 11%. He is a registered Green running as a Dem because of anger focused towards the national Green Party (which I share). His total would make the total Green vote 44%!
2) The two war parties (Dem & Rep) garnered less than 22% of the total vote ... Exactly half that of the Green vote. Who's in the minority?Food for thought, eh?
Way to go WAMC! Just don't lose all that neutrality and objectivity as election season looms closer! For those interested, Susan Arbetter sent me the results of the poll and they are posted below (unfortunately, WAMC's site doesn't allow one to view past poll results).By the way, if you are looking for information about Howie Hawkins, his agenda or his platform, check out the website below. He's an altruist and a tireless champion of the poor and the progressive. He would be a GREAT senator!
http://www.hawkinsforsenate.org/
Dear Matt,
Always good to hear from you. Thanks, too, for the kind words. Here are the results from Tuesday's poll:
14% - Incumbent Hillary Clinton Democrat
32% - Peace activist Howie Hawkins, NYS Green Party
5% - Reagan-era Pentagon official KT McFarland, GOP
11% - Anti-War candidate Jeffrey T. Russell, Libertarian Party
3% - Former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, GOP
9% - Anti-War candidate Jon Tasini, Democrat
4% - Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality Party
3% - Mark Greenstein, Democrat
1% - Tom Weiss, Democrat
11% - Steve Greenfield, Democrat
4% - Other
3% - I don't know yet
... we had almost 300 people voting. best,Susan
Susan J. ArbetterHost/ProducerThe Roundtable ShowWAMC Northeast Public Radio
HOWIE HAWKINS (a fellow Green, Teamster and activist).
Hawkins won with 32%, more than twice the votes for the incumbent!Aside from the fact that a Green won the poll, there are two other interesting points;
1) Steve Greenfield received 11%. He is a registered Green running as a Dem because of anger focused towards the national Green Party (which I share). His total would make the total Green vote 44%!
2) The two war parties (Dem & Rep) garnered less than 22% of the total vote ... Exactly half that of the Green vote. Who's in the minority?Food for thought, eh?
Way to go WAMC! Just don't lose all that neutrality and objectivity as election season looms closer! For those interested, Susan Arbetter sent me the results of the poll and they are posted below (unfortunately, WAMC's site doesn't allow one to view past poll results).By the way, if you are looking for information about Howie Hawkins, his agenda or his platform, check out the website below. He's an altruist and a tireless champion of the poor and the progressive. He would be a GREAT senator!
http://www.hawkinsforsenate.org/
Dear Matt,
Always good to hear from you. Thanks, too, for the kind words. Here are the results from Tuesday's poll:
14% - Incumbent Hillary Clinton Democrat
32% - Peace activist Howie Hawkins, NYS Green Party
5% - Reagan-era Pentagon official KT McFarland, GOP
11% - Anti-War candidate Jeffrey T. Russell, Libertarian Party
3% - Former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, GOP
9% - Anti-War candidate Jon Tasini, Democrat
4% - Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality Party
3% - Mark Greenstein, Democrat
1% - Tom Weiss, Democrat
11% - Steve Greenfield, Democrat
4% - Other
3% - I don't know yet
... we had almost 300 people voting. best,Susan
Susan J. ArbetterHost/ProducerThe Roundtable ShowWAMC Northeast Public Radio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
