Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Has MoveOn Moved On To?
Ain't nothing wrong with changing your position, that's for sure - changing facts, changing minds, and all that. Generally though, a change of mind'll go down better when you package it with a little grace, like, say, by not slamming people today for doing what you insisted that they do yesterday - before you changed your mind. Graceful is sure not what you'd call MoveOn's turn on Dennis Kucinich over the health care bill last week - a point that might not even be worth noting in the larger context of the big votes finally coming on the bill - that is, if it did not make for such a fitting conclusion to the chapter of the health care story about just how effectively debate on the issue was limited.
Last year MoveOn - and a lot of other organizations and individuals - mounted a spirited campaign to pressure members of Congress to pledge their votes against any health care bill that did not contain a public option. They got 65 takers, Cleveland, Ohio's Kucinich among them. This year, MoveOn's Cleveland Council announced its intent to protest outside Kucinich's office. Why? Because the Congressman was planning to vote against a health care bill that didn't have a public option.
Ironically, Kucinich had proven to be one of only two to actually vote against last year's House bill, for reasons that went past the lack of the public option. To him, with its mandate of individual purchase of the for-profit health insurance industry's not-always-adequate product, the bill wasn't too much big government, it was too much big business.
In the face of the Democratic Congressional leadership's failure to even allow for a discussion of the single-payer option - and the White House's acquiescence, Kucinich, Anthony Weiner of New York City, and a handful of others did yeoman work in raising the question where they could. A fine moment of grassroots organizing, really - within the halls of Congress. Kucinich won an amendment in committee establishing the right of individual states to create single-payer systems; Weiner got a pledge that the "Medicare for all" bill would at least get a House floor vote. The amendment was stripped; the promise broken.
So maybe you think Kucinich should have voted for the final bill (as he ultimately did); and maybe you think he shouldn't. And maybe you think MoveOn is effective; and maybe you think they're crude. Either way, one thing seems clear: MoveOn can't have been right on this both this year and last. Yet the organization seemingly rolls on without a blink - Listen to what we say today; ignore what we said yesterday. (Other New Netroots Nation leaders also weighed in: Markos Moulitsas founder of the Daily Kos, declared Kucinich's opposition to the bill "Ralph Nader-esque," an epithet presumably about as uncomplimentary in his scene as "socialist" is in Glen Beck's.)
If the Obama campaign brought a more movement-like fervor than any other Democratic presidential candidacy in recent memory, it had something to do with the idea that there might be a certain genuineness there, the hope that even if Obama's actual political program might not veer too far from the Washington norm, maybe there was something to his slogan "We are the change we seek."
An important part of that "we" was most definitely the new Internet-based organizations - with MoveOn at the top of the heap - that offered the hope of unprecedented national influence to grassroots activists, influence unmediated by traditional political bosses.
And now? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?" Too harsh? Maybe, but then is this really "the change we seek?"
Certainly its recent performance has demonstrated one thing about MoveOn: You can believe that they know what they're talking about. Or you can believe that they mean what they say. But you can't believe both.
60 Comments so far
Show Alli was never a "member" of MoveOn, never donated to their media campaigns etc. i did sign a MoveOn petition, so i ended up on their e-mail list. (i think that means they counted me as one of their three million "members" in their propaganda claims.)
Two days ago, when they wrote yet again to ask me to support Obama's health insurance sell-out in the House and Senate, i finally clicked on the icon at the bottom of the e-mail and unsubscribed from their list.
It took me to a page that begged "Please don't go!" It gave me space to tell them why i was "leaving" an organization i was never a member of. So i told them that they were sell-outs to corporate power, and that Obama's bill is an abomination.
i'm sure they will read my reply and change their ways...
As long as MoveOn continues to be supported by the Obamabots they will continue to pursue their mission...which is to collect as much revenue from Obamabots as they possibly can.
A few years ago, after placing a lot of hope in MoveOn being a real progressive grassroots organization, I started to see between the lines. Many of MoveOn's "actions" were just fluff. I feel I wasted a bunch of time going to calling party's, vigils, house meetings, and yes...there
was a group of like-minded people, but the actions always left me questioning what were we really doing? It was always like preaching to the choir. It was sort of like patting ourselves on the back and handing the kudo's to the Democratic Party. Most everything I voted on....which was far more left of center then MoveOn's base....was not endorsed by the group. I'm finished with MoveOn. I have truly become uncertain what to do from here.
Is it time to go underground and germinate?
"Is it time to go underground and germinate?"
Yes. Seeds of the future that will grow from the compost of corporate capitalism.
In the natural world everything dies, and is compost for the growth of new life.
In our mythical "reality," corporations live forever. NOTHING lives forever, including our current system. In fact, at the apparent crest of its power, our system is dying.
Do not try to "save" or reform the current system. Germinate, grow, develop, sprout, blossom, let our roots feed on the decaying compost of today's empire...
MoveOn is just another self-perpetuating corporation...
"Is it time to go underground and germinate?"
Yes it is. And leave those "like minded people" the hell behind. They'll fuck up everything that needs to be done. They can stay home, clean the kitchen then watch Maher and Stewart on TV--or spend some time taking their daily Rx from MoveOn or DK.
As for BHO, he's still a lying, warmongering, murdering capitalist pig, and little Dennis is now his main bee-yutch.
Have a great Monday!
If you want to join a more focused health care advocacy group, go to Healthcare Now's website http://www.healthcare-now.org/. They've consistently focused on single payer, never let advocating for politicians derail them from advocating for policies, and need members to organize and/or participate in actions.
Speaking of Healthcare Now, I'll re-post what I received yesterday, as I did not see this on the website yet.
Dear Healthcare-NOW! Supporter:
Join Healthcare-NOW! for a conference call exposing the last minute negotiations of the health care bill and the ramifications of the mandate to purchase private insurance when public programs like Medicaid and Medicare suffer.
The conference call is tomorrow, Monday, March 22nd at 8 PM EST.
Guest speakers include:
- Michael Lighty, Policy Director for National Nurses United
- Ajamu Sankofa, Esq., founder of Private Health Insurance Must Go!
- And voices on the ground in Massachusetts, where the insurance mandate was first implemented
The discussion will be moderated by Katie Robbins.
Here is the dial-in information:
Conference Dial-In: 1-218-862-1300
Conference Code: 441086
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
Do you honestly believe that this childish tantrum you post has any merit, or even substance? MoveOn may do things you disagree with, but they are out there working for change all the time . What the hell are oyu doing besides sitting on your ass condemning your betters?
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
MoveOn never actually moved anywhere, from the moment of Obama's election until today. Immediately after the election they started distribution of "victory" stamps and posters asking for donations to MoveOn. Ever since they have been reliable cheerleaders for anything-Obama. Sure, they called for votes against a health care bill without a public option when they knew they could depend on the Rubes of the Left to contribute more money to them to "help" put a public option into the bill; and wasn't the Big Guy himself calling for a public option at that point? When BG pulled away the rug, of course they took their pom-poms and began waving them ominously in the faces of folks like Kucinich who had signed on to their group of 65 "pledgers." Accuse MoveOn of many things, but don't accuse them of inconsistency when they have been consistently mindless.
Progressives are nothing new they just want their turn to feed at the public trough. Marky Mar Kos sold out so he could become a movie star on TV. Fortunately the revolution of 2012 will save us, because all Obama’s men and all Obama’s horses can’t put globalism back together again.
"In the face of the Democratic Congressional leadership's failure to even allow for a discussion of the single-payer option - and the White House's acquiescence."
Gallagher needs to drop any kind of fiction with regard to Obama. According to Dr. Flowers it was the WH who gave the directive and Congress acquiesced. Let's put the players in this charade in their correct positions.
I quit MoveOn when they refused to oppose Obama's Afghan war escalation and became no more than an obvious Democratic Party appendage.
Real change will never come from groups such as MoveOn, which only exist to reinforce the cruel and corrupt status quo.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexactly.
What has MoveOn moved on to. Hopefully the ashcan of political history,thats where..
"D"
HEAR, HEAR!!!
Several years ago, I took part in some "actions" sponsored by MoveOn.org, and I even donated small amounts of money a couple of times. But, then, the actions they sponsored seemed to be falling apart, and something, to me, was lost in their message. I remember e-mailing the organization a couple of times, asking questions, and I didn't receive any responses from anyone within the organization. After a couple of the "actions" fell apart, I began to receive e-mails from the organization about donating more money -- without any actions attached to the requests for donations, etc. All they wanted, it seemed to me, was more money. Therefore, I took my name off their list.
A few months ago, I was walking home up one of the Avenues here in NYC, and I ran into a so-called health care rally sponsored by MoveOn.org. If it had been any other organization, I would have joined the rally. Instead, I walked right past the MoveOn.org signs.
There is some question about MoveOn's loyalty, too -- since they are funded to a large degree by George Soros. I have read that the Obama administration, in the very beginning, made phone calls to many of the so-called liberal funders of what might be labeled as progressive organizations, ordering them to control their minions and keep them out of the streets. In other words, these liberal funders threatened to defund the organizations if they took action against the Obama administration.
A few years ago MoveOn tried to take over and take advantage of the organization we had built on a local level. They came in, got someone to pull us together, and told us if we would help them with a few demonstrations we would be able to hook up with the thousands (yes, they said thousands) of other MoveOn members in our area. I went to the meeting to protect my own organizing efforts and challenge the lies we were being fed by their representative.
A friend of mine took the bait and organized a demonstration against big oil outside a Citgo station run by a family from Pakistan, totally embarrassing. Naturally the only people to show up were the people we already knew; there were no thousands. No one was ever introduced to a single other MoveOn member. That same friend has tried running for local office but can't shake her label as a MoveOn organizer.
I saw their true colors when they organized against single-payer efforts outside theatres during SiCKO showings.
As with Kay, I have had calls and e-mails ignored, even when I obtained private numbers of inside organizers. Somehow people think MoveOn came about as opposition to the invasion of Iraq, but if I remember correctly they got together to tell us to move on from all the impeach-Clinton noise. That should tell you all you need to know.
"if I remember correctly they got together to tell us to move on from all the impeach-Clinton noise."
Yes, this is how they got their start, defending Bill Clinton. For that reason, I never trusted them. They seemed not to have a problem with NAFTA or tossing women and children out on their asses in their push to reform welfare, not to mention illegally bombing Iraq.
Get this through your heads folks - We are the little people. The only power we have is our ability to "monkey wrench" the system. MoveOn, the Democrats, are just taking your money and slapping you in the face. How do you like it so far?
sherry: Thanks for your reply! And, what an eye-opening experience you had with MoveOn. I didn't ever find myself that close to them, but I don't think I was on their list for even a year. Every time I opened an e-mail, they wanted more money -- for ads. I couldn't help but think they were feeding the same beast that we were, in principle, attempting to quell, the M$M.
As another poster, rvrwalker, detailed, MoveOn was formed to support Clinton and to stop impeachment proceedings. That, too, was an issue for me!
If you want to find MoveOn, simply look in the gutter.
And yes, Webwalk most of their "members" were exactly like you. A great organization as you indicated.
I UN-joined Move On, for their having Moved On to become Medical Industrial Complex advocates.
During the Iraq war buildup, Moveon.org was able to fool a lot of people because all it had to do was oppose Bush policies and the Democrats could always (falsely) argue they couldn't do anything until they got majority power; however, once the Democrats got power and Obama got elected and continued Bush's policies, especially foreign policies, the Moreon.org became more exposed for what it is, an arm of the Democratic leadership. The latest action of Moveon.org to flip-flop and attack Kucinich on something that it praised him for a year ago, is another domino (others being Sanders, Moore and the whole Democratic progressive caucus) that has fallen in this latest pro-corporate legislative action.
M&M (MoveOn and Moulitsas) obviously believe that Zobama is as far "left" as the USA populace - the part that votes - is willing to go and consequently have decided to settle for the velvet covered shit the Democrats dish out. This is what happens when you acquire some power and influence, as limited as they might be.
I've had it with Move-On! I'll never forget cheney or someone demanded an apology from them, and they GAVE IT and retracted what they said! And they had NO REASON to. They are wet noodles. And the way the went after all of us to call Congress reps to pass this huge GIVE TO PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES was repulsive! They were supporting Corporate Takeover and were too stupid to see it??
Hey, Move-On -- Move on and out! You are worthless and actually hurt the progressive cause.
MOVEON.ORG is anti single payer.Single payer was never mentioned at meetings, phone conferences, e-mails or those idiotic pollsthey would take.
Yeesh!
Phony DLC Dems with dingbats like Justin running the show.
Ever get on one of their phone conferences? I did--the one on health care with Howard Dean last year--what a freaking joke. Amature hour.....
Immediatley after Obama's victory MoveOn organized several meetings in my hometown of San Antonio. I attended along with my kid brother as we were big advocates of single payer healthcare as well being adamantly opposed to both wars.
Well this must have been the reason why my brother and I were never invited back. Nor did the organization's reps even bother to respond to our phone calls or e-mail.These shysters practice a strong top down control of the organization just as most undemocratic control freeks do.
Phoney? You bet! They are well funded by the same folks who wish to appear as "liberal" but are as sold out as they come.
MoveOn has NO credibility with a lot of people for a reason. To others they are the best thing since sliced bread. However I am confident that due to it's own corruption MoveOn will succeed in turning off true progressives!
Glad I read your comment before I posted one of my own: Top-down is indeed what they are. Grassroots is what they are not.
Unfortunately, they continue to be seen as progressive. My own view is that it is in part because they will forever be linked in many people's minds with 'left-wing radical' Howard Dean's presidential primary campaign.
It's Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton who destroyed our economy and our manufacturing base when he gave us Nafta. Not satisfied with this, his loving wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton was outsourcing computer jobs to India, through a company that employed their Daughter Chelsea for high wages.
If Move-on wants to protect the Clinton Circus, let them do it openly. The NY Times and the Boston Globe do not allow critics of the Clinton Circus to comment against the Clintons.
Is Move-on responsible for this? Let's move out of moveon in the next election.
My understanding of MoveOn was clarified by their support of welfare-reform-as-we-got-it. US poverty is an issue about which I know a lot and have been deeply involved. This wasn't the only time I noticed that MoveOn danced with the right on occasion, and I had no complaints about that. What bothered me was that they simultaneously worked to disguise their Blue Dog/"New Dem" support, sometimes to the degree of being misleading. I won't say they lie, but I can say that they sometimes omit key pieces of information in such a way as to cause readers to reach an incorrect understanding of the issue. I just don't have time for that, so I dropped my email subscription and haven't given them much thought since.
if congress worked as presented, and voting, also, then the citizen's vote might influence the congressional representative...
this is not the case, so moveon is either naive or disingenuous...the citizen has no influence over congress...
might as well give me your money...I won't email you 8,000 times, either...
The elite have done a "simply marvelous" job lately.
1. They have gotten "most of us" all absorbed in this painfully long, painfully pitiful "health care reform" and "most of us" have forgotten the real reason why Obama was elected. Remember the reason people??? Distraction is what they are good at. Forget the WARS going on. Here is what you should think about.
2. They have turned some "fairly good" orgs into Right wingers who stab at "fairly good" people like Kucinich and Sanders.
I never would have believed it could have happened if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. I am in awe of the "spin power" that they have over "most of us".
If you haven't already ... Join the Green Party ...
There's no other way for the left to amass the resources needed to combat the corporate Democrats ...
Just a swelling of Greens on the voting rolls will give the Dems a pause ...
There are many fine progressive foundations and organizations out there but they are fighting issue by issue alone and separate for the most part, just for access.
The Dems love it ... divide and conquer. Progressive organizations need to get under an umbrella political group
to be effective, to get access, eventually to get direct representation ...
Join the Green Party ... If you belong to an environmental group or any progressive group ask them if they support the Green Party ... Together, there is much more that we can get done ...
And what if the Greens - or any 'third party' - get a few representatives into office?
What could they do there without the Democratic Party?
Don't even think it: I have never been a Democratic. (Have you?)
Gain momentum ...
The unthinkable would have happened, it would open up people's eyes. New expanded limits on the boundaries of ideas would come into play. Real answers could be discussed ... The old paradigm of the old two party system would be severely tested if not broken ... As it stands now the answers and ideas of the left are never even discussed by the MSM.
Just the swelling of Greens on the voting rolls would apply considerable pressure to move the Dems left and give our groups access ...
As an umbrella party the Greens could draw on activists from causes like , the environment, anti-war, social justice and others. A broad based coalition that could at least somewhat counter the billions of dollars spent by corporate America ...
As it now the left stands splintered among many groups and that means that their efforts are splintered. They fight for access ... The Green Party would give them direct representation ...
The left needs to come together ... the Green Party could be that fulcrum, for demonstrations, direct political pressure and the accumulation of influence to further everybody's goals ...
"Gain momentum..." Not really a response, and I doubt that it is more accurate than "Be marginalized and/or co-opted."
A few wins would get the MSM to discuss progressive ideas ? I can only wish it were so. (Think: treatment of progressives currently in congress, the longshoreman-led May Day work-stoppage, the anti-war demonstrations - and compare that with the coverage of the Tea Parties. Mere existence, even of large things, need not be given attention by the MSM.)
How many people would be necessary to this third party to begin to counter the money spent by corporations? I read that, during the final stretch of the 'health care reform' push, the insurance lobby alone was spending $6 million per day.
A very large increase in the number of third party registrations might indeed put pressure on the Dems - but not necessarily to move left. What makes you think they would necessarily stop fighting back, rather than fight back harder? (And seeing the possibility of such leftward movement, don't think the Republicans would not help them out.)
You didn't answer the question: what could a few third party congress members accomplish without the Democratic Party? They would have to caucus with the Dems at the start. (I'm assuming you wouldn't them to caucus with the Republicans.) They would face the same pressures as Bernie Sanders and progressive Dems. Do you think all their compromises were purely a matter of choice? (Lieberman's 'wins' don't mean anything: he was 'pressuring' them to move in a direction they wanted to move anyway.)
http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party (As I think you know, the Democratic Party is not nearly the equivalent of the British Liberal Party.)
Then also, not all movement would necessarily favor you: blue dogs could conceivably defect to the Republican Party. The third party would have to work as a counter-weight to that, as well.
Of course, a third party might force the Democrats to move a bit leftward. This would necessarily worry both Republican and Democratic leadership. You could expect fierce reaction from both.
In short, the number of problems this third party would face could conceivably match third-party growth and influence.
It pains me to say it, but we need to elect more progressive Democrats and hope for more leftward pressure from within the Democratic Party, as much as we need to pressure them with a third party. And even that would not be sufficient.
Simultaneously, the FCC must be strengthened and all limitations on media ownership moved back at least to pre-Reagan levels - and that will require the cooperation of a more progressive Democratic Party (a Democratic Party with more progressive members). Further, slander and libel laws must be strengthened and enforced.
We'll need to work for purely public campaign financing, too. (No money from any private persons, whether real or synthetic.)
All of these objectives must be pursued with concerted effort, *roughly* simultaneously. I can't see any single tactic alone as being effective.
I fail to comprehend the dichotomy in your statement. You note that fledgling third party legislators would have to caucus with Democrats, a situation I would say is false, rather the Dems would have to woo the votes of these progressives thus keeping progressive agendas on the table.The progressives within the democratic party are all too easily silenced.
Your call for electing so-called progressive democrats seems to indicate this dichotomous thinking. Why would anyone believe that progressives in one form can make a difference while in another be ineffective?
I do support, and wholeheartedly, your last three paragraphs.
I fail to comprehend how anyone could fail to comprehend so simple an argument.
Your first statement is absurd. What other choice do a small group of progressive third party congress members have? Caucus with the Dems or the Republicans. That's it. Once in the caucus, they can try to make changes. But expect to be wooed? They'd have a long wait.
Your second statement is puerile indeed. I never said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as "progressives in one form can make a difference while in another be ineffective." Let me put it simply: you need numbers. There aren't going to be a lot of third party candidates to start. But there will be progressives - (and there already are) - who will want to remain with the Democratic Party, and who stand good chances of being elected. They need to be supported, rather than written off and ignored. "It pains me to say it, but we need to elect more progressive Democrats and hope for more leftward pressure from within the Democratic Party, as much as we need to pressure them with a third party." Need I repeat, "as much as"?
In addition, here you make the very error you accused me of making. You stated that "[t]he progressives within the Democratic Party are all too easily silenced." Yet you'd just finished saying that you thought "the Dems would have to woo the votes of [third party] progressives." So I ask you a slight variant of your own question: What makes you think that the Dems would feel the need to woo a few third party progressives, in contrast to how they treat their own? Actually, there's a second error, though I am not certain that it is not an editing error. There's a difference between caucusing and voting. Did you intend to make this shift? (Not that it makes a substantial difference in this context.)
Considering the first part of your reply, I think perhaps I ought to go back and review those last three paragraphs.
My advice: read more carefully.
Once again I thank someone for insult instead of logical debate. What a bunch of asses you folks are to think you can change things through alienation and intimidation. I am sorry that your parents failed you so miserably.
This is a basically a repost:
I'll vote for a Green in a heartbeat. Already did in 2000. How's about a little pragmatism this time around? Some Republican asshole is going to win regardless.
All you guys need to do is run an polarizing (albeit ethically-sound) candidate in the election, like Cynthia McKinney, and you'll get 100% of the blame for the Democrats' failures when the Greens pull 4% of the national popular vote. For all of the Dems' selling out of their constituents, you will instead be tagged as evil incarnate and people will agree if they hear it often enough, which they will.
Instead of wasting your energy doing something that is 100% sure to blow up in your collective faces again, why not focus on one local candidate who has a realistic chance of winning? Pour all resources into electing him or her, and get yourselves a congressperson. Repeat. Repeat. And repeat, until the American public is comfortable with the notion that a 3rd party can govern and offers a more appealing alternative. The current strategy doesn't work. Running a presidential candidate to say "I'm not a part of it. Don't blame me." does more for one's vanity than it does for building a real third party in this country.
I'd like to reiterate that I hate what the Democrats are doing every bit as much as you do. It's just exasperating to see a like-minded organization be so unresponsive to how it is perceived.
Green Party strategies include electing local, state and national candidates. Fear of criticism is not a valid reason to alter a strategy that has proven successful in many places around the globe.
One might note that criticism would be forthcoming if the reincarnation of Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer were your candidates for higher office. The abuse and lies are heaped upon any threat to the monopoly of the duopoly.
Many places around the globe have parliamentary systems. We don't. A lot of countries have a history of electing 3rd party members. We don't. A third party hasn't had a legitimate shot at the presidency for over 100 years in the US.
It doesn't matter if you're right. It wouldn't matter if Jesus was running on the Green Party ticket. If you can't market him effectively and marshal the resources to make a serious run at it, he doesn't have a chance. You have to find a way to counter the "abuse and lies" more effectively if you want to win. It's a tough climb since they have the bullhorn. The Greens have a very short resume when it comes to major offices in the US and they've been at it for awhile. Einstein correctly defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results".
If the Green Party made a major effort to educate the public about IRV (Instant Run off Voting)they would enhance their chances more than in any other way. It worked well In Minneapolis last fall and St. Paul Minnesota will also use it this fall. There is a strong move to use it in State elections in the near future. When people can put down their first three choices they don't have to worry about wasting their vote. It isn't perfect but it's far more progressive than the current system. The best part of it is that the winner has at least 50% plus one votes. Minnesota hasn't had that since Jessie Ventura became Governor in 1998 and started a twelve year history of deficits and shortsighted government.
Good call. That is the best thing that could be done to bring real democracy to this country--the present Supreme Court won't allow the other necessary reforms to stand. I've heard of a New York organization called the Labor Party. They don't run candidates as far as I know, but instead work to educate voters. The Green Party would do well to put all of its resources into getting that done instead of spreading itself too thin running candidates for umpteen offices. It would also bring some good PR to chip away at the public's negative perceptions of Greens.
You betray a lack of knowledge of the strategies and successes of the Green Party. They are building, albeit slowly, from the bottom up. Each election cycle finds more Greens as candidates, more successful in winning local offices, and more running for state and national office as well. While there is yet no Green in national office, due in part at least to reasons you enumerate, it is only a matter of time.
I fail to note, amidst your unfortunate skepticism about third party politics, a real and effective alternative path to change.
I'm not skeptical of 3rd party politics. I'm skeptical of Americans' willingness to view Greens as credible and I think that their strategy of running candidates for national offices is premature and ultimately counterproductive. I have looked into the offices held by Greens: they're local, mostly in California, and the highest positions held are mayors of small towns, city council members, and the like. I'm not trying to minimize those successes.
Maybe I didn't convey my argument effectively amidst the criticism. You don't have money. Okay, so you need a lot of volunteers and a great candidate. When I look at my ballot and see 10 Green Party candidates, my first thought is: how do they manage to get the volunteers to effectively campaign for all of those candidates? I'm arguing that they shouldn't endorse 10 candidates in an area where it is only feasible to elect one candidate. Pool their resources and throw them behind an excellent candidate with a legitimate shot at winning a particular race. Bus volunteers in from other states if necessary. The next step up the ladder is possibly the state legislature representing some district in Northern California. Who is the most popular, competent, and charismatic Green Party office holder in Northern California? Endorse him or her. Pick the best district, etc, etc. Prove to the public that voting Green is a path toward a better life rather than a futile protest.
If all of the campaign volunteers in the not-a-chance-in-hell races in California had instead crashed on couches in San Francisco and campaigned for Matt Gonzales, he might have been the first Green Party mayor of a major city. He had a real shot at it.
Another poster on this thread suggested that the Greens pull out all the stops on educating the public on instant runoff voting. Instead of running Cynthia McKinney for president (whom I believe was the best candidate), do an educational campaign on the national stage. It works toward reforming the system for the better and it doesn't piss anyone off except the career politicos in the Party.
Ideologically, I am part of your base, btw.
Sooner or later the left turns on its own. I have seen this happen for most of my 84 years. Move On has fought the good fight in the world of political possibility. Let's not join the right in turning on our own.
Turning on our own?
Here are the Democratic Party accomplishments so far under Obama …
~ Continued and enhanced bankster looting …
~ Mountain top mining and nuclear power …
~ Constitutional rights shrinking …
~ The MIC budget and wars expanding …
~ And Now … corporate health care
Join the Green Party as a moral choice if nothing else …
Wherever George (Schwartz) Soros wants them to go...