Snarky Boy writes a lot about Peter Welch. He's even suggested that the sweet talkin' guy may be a one term guy.
The "liberal/progressive" Common Dreams is awash with comments about a possible Sheehan vs Pelosi knockabout. But in Vermont the word is out about a challenge to Peter Welch. But that's coming from the mainstream impeachment crowd, who tend to be a bunch of disaffected Dems or Progs. The Greens, in contrast, offer an alternative - the only anti-war party, and Greens have called for impeachment. Greens champion public services, human rights, social justice and environmental protection - all important platforms that would garner wide support for a Green candidate among Vermonters. Any serious, sane Vermont Green up for it?
Check out the Vermont Green Party!
Well, this issue is so complex, one doesn't know where to begin...Jay makes the caveat of a "sane Green" running. This could, and is (I'm sure), be directed at several strange Green members in Vermont. The Party is in a type of disarray, but a candidacy across Vermont could galvinize the competing factions (some of them only factions of one). The problem is that the GP in Vt has no one mass appeal, known member who could cause Party unity in a campaign. Every one of the standard people who would run state-wide have been villified by some Green faction at some point. (This is where factionalism can bite back later in electoralism!)What to do? The other issue is that there exists another antiwar Party, with major status, to mount a challenge: Liberty Union. The Hillist faction opposes LibUnion because it is Marxist (an affiliate of the Socialist Party USA), so there has been very little coordination between the two; other than formulaic pronouncements.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, a joint GP/LibUnion effort could bear fruit, but the resulting candidate will come from Lib; they have the greater numbers and organization...This may not be acceptable under the old Hillist regeme, but in the new age of Chairman Mulligan (recently having taken over the GP), who knows...?
-Patrick Stanton
You read my mind, Anonymous Patrick :-P. Greens who have run state-wide campaigns seem to me to have one or two issues that push them to run campaigns and galvanises only a smattering of Green voters and assorted independents or Lib Union folks. Part of this may be their pushing their own (important to them) agendas. But does that speak to a resident of Rutland struggling with taxes; or a farmer in Washington trying to keep her property going; or the people near Clarendon/Ludlow concerned about a local company's quarry operations - effecting groundwater runoff. (These are just examples).
ReplyDeleteAnd a lot of the Vermont Greens I have met are just a bunch of whiners wanting exposure for their pet peeves in the debates. There's a bit of narcissitic egotism in that, which I find disturbing. We need someone more charismatic with a broader appeal who can touch the people's hearts and minds.
I don't know if anyone objects to us doing Green Committee business on the Net, but since we have a bit of momentum, here goes:
ReplyDeleteThe Hillist methodology, if you go back to the removal of the State Committee, was to focus the Party on 9/11 Skeptics' action/agitation. This was supposed to cause a mass voter base to arise in Vermont. It didn't. Other actions, i.e. flouride, were never clearly, in the public mind, GP actions. They were run under front groups and this did not translate into Green voters, either. Again, what to do? The GP in MI has entered an alliance with several other Third Parties in a move to get into office. The GP could merge with LibUnion, what's left of Hardy's Libertarians, and the remnents of the Vt Constitution Party. This problem is the platform...
-PS
The Vermont Green Party website will be up next week if all goes right. I had to switch to a new host, etc. which has caused the downtime. As the new co-chair, I'll be able to help the state party get more organized and focused after I help get the Green Party of Burlington reorganized in September. Peace all, Owen
ReplyDeleteChairman,
ReplyDeleteI don't know, and this speaks to Jay's point, if reorganizing the Green Party, per se, is the most effective course of action to take. It may be better, in the absence of any enthusiasm for a large coalition of third parties, to form a Green Caucus within Liberty Union. Now, this would mean every Green would have to abandon, for now, their party offices and start over, but, since we are losing minor status in September anyway, I would like to advance this as the most tactically intelligent move. I think we would have enough freedom to operate a Caucus within LibUnion, even given the cadre organization they have. Diamondstone is likely, I think, to work in solidarity...
-Patrick
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI doubt we will lose minor party status, we only have to organize 10 towns and we are working on making sure we have these towns and more.
If, by some chance, we do not prevail then yes let's explore other possibilities.
The other problem is I know of many Greens still active who are not exactly fond of Diamindstone.
Anyway, let's see what happens in September 1st before we jump the gun.
peace, Owen
I'm thrilled that Owen and I have been appointed to our respective Burlington city commissions. That's where the action is currently for Greens in Burlington. For all his lip service to local stuff, Craig Hill's global whine about 9/11 didn't grow the statewide Green numbers (as was mentioned above). As fucking if answering the questions about 9/11 will solve our problems (as some truth seekers have suggested). I'd like to see the statewide party grow with members in towns (besides Burlington) getting elected or appointed.
ReplyDeleteOwen, were you infact elected in May as co-chair - I have heard that no offical "vote" was taken - or was that done later on in a Steering Cmte meeting? (I don't know the regs, you do, so maybe you can answer.)
Okey doke, the Vermont Green Party Vermont Green Party website is up and linked today in the edited post!
ReplyDeleteTo continue our internet Committee conversation (now here's an open political process!):
ReplyDeleteThe issue that the Chair raises about Diamondstone is a valid one. The LibUnion cadre system allows Peter to have a greater control over the Party than even Craig did under the original Hillist paradigm, and this could be problematic. We might have to fight as a faction for our voices to be heard in the process. Also, and I should have mentioned this before, Lib endorsed a Workers World Party candidate for President in 04 (in a slight break with the Socialist Party) and this might be a problem if another candidate looks to be promising from the Green or Independent fields in 08 and Lib goes with the WWP again (or the SP).
However, if the GP becomes unofficial in September, perhaps the launching of a new Vermont party (in sympathy with the GPUS/GPUSA) might be a better approach. This would circumvent the unpleasant associations the the GP has been given in Vt. It would be the same effort of recruitment (possibly easier!) and might allow for more flexibility politically...I leave it to the Committtee to discuss-
-Patrick
Well, I ain't on no committee ('cept Burlintgton) - but I do hope the VGP is able to reorganise come September. The phrase in my life now is We'll see...
ReplyDeleteOn the New VGP site:
ReplyDeleteIs Hillism over???
Craig is now, apparently, in a less central role according to the new website. I would like to applaud this move by Craig to allow greater participation from the membership. I see Bruce is still heavily involved...Even though he admits to GP activism solely to advance the LaRouche Movement, I don't recall any conflict that ever arose from that dual affiliation. Well, maybe the GP will continue in Vt and it has already endorsed Nader, if the lead article is any indication (What happens if the GPUS doesn't!?) As Jay said: We will see...
-Patrick
Oh yeah, Craig has actively recruited people for leadership roles in the VGP. It's fine with the new co-chairs by me, but Rene had told me that because there was a small turn out, no vote was taken at the May meeting and understood that the positions would be filled later? Whatever, but it would be nice to get an answer. I didn't know about the ties Bruce has with LaRouche (LaR. is a nutcase, IMO). Regarding the GPUS Reading meeting and scant media coverage, there's are posts over at Green News and Opinion and Green Commons blog. If I have time today, I'll make a post about it to get the word out further about developments in Pennsylvania.
ReplyDeleteOK...I have to interject here that a Party must take regular votes to fill positions (or consensus, I suppose) and this is NOT a good time to be playing fast and loose with the structure (or what's left of it!). The website is listing Co-Chairs Owen and Bruce; one is left to assume that they are there legitimately, but perhaps we are in a grey area here...Owen is probably not worried about the offical leadership until the September reorganization, but I think a vote should be taken...On LaRouche: yes, he's left the building, so to speak...
ReplyDeleteRegarding the GPUS, I wonder where they are on the Presidential question...
-Patrick
Just checked the links from Jay and I suppose that Nader is still undecided...In the interests of full disclosure I must say that I have corresponded with an activist that was approached by Green candidate for President Joe Schriner to be a VP running mate. I did not know Joe was running Green; the last I was told by the activist (Bill Samuel in DC), Joe was fileing Independent. He's been touring around the country managing his own campaign as he did in 2000 and 04...Very dedicated!
ReplyDelete-Patrick
Patrick, just in from a job and checked here ASAP. LOL.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well, via Green Commons I found this guy's been blogging with up-to-the-minute posts during the GPUS convention. He has a link to your friend Average Joe Schriner - dontcha just love it? Joe has a blog, "Where's Joe?" - worth a look, eh?
Jay,
ReplyDeleteI think Joe has a lot of good points to recommend him in a very populist style Green campaign! This may be an important discussion if Nader shuts down any Presidential bid; or even if he doesn't: We can't be locked into one candidate perpetually. We should not become Naderites! (I think some Vermont Greens have had this happen already...) We should watch and see what occurs with Joe and if it goes his way, I KNOW I can get him to Vermont...
-Patrick
FOR CLARIFICATION:
ReplyDeleteThe last statewide meeting for the VGP was in Brattleboro in May. At this meeting a steering committee was elected but officers were not chosen at the meeting by the newly elected steering committee members.
About a month later the steering committee voted in the new officers you see now listed on the VGP website. This was done according to VT election law and it is done the same way locally.
The general membership does not elect the officers, the town committee (locally) and the steering committee (statewide) elect the officers which do not have to be members of a town committee or steering committee to serve.
The general membership (Green voters of VT) elect the steering committee, etc.
-Owen
Well that's all sorted. Thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of what candidate to run against Welch:
ReplyDeleteI think the choice is clear for the GP: Jay Vos. He is not a partisan fo any VGP faction: not Hillist, nor ISO, nor fusion Progre$$ive.
He has broad support from the Party, and he is one of the few Greens serving in public office. Do we need to look any further?
-Patrick
Thanks, Patrick, but I've got enough to say grace over.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that Rene is a possible go to person for the GP...Craig had insisted online at one point that all resources must be dedicated to a Rene political career; and he is a very electable person, but the GP needs to move beyond the method of all the eggs in one basket. The hierarchy may be decentralizing at the moment, so also, the candidacies should follow...
ReplyDeleteOne solid state-wide run could have an effect on the local level. Potential office holders who now would avoid the controversy laden post-ISO/post-Hillist GP might come on board in a revitalized high-profile run (I'm thinking here about the effect of dissidents in the GOP from Ron Paul's bid).
In any event, the only critisism I have is that the conversation about the GP's future has not been played out publicly. This may be a fallout from Hillism, but even Owen is very quiet about internal GP matters. I think a totally transparent approach is what is needed in the lead up to the next election cycle. We have nothing to hide and a State to involve...
-Patrick