<<
> The Greens feel that Nader (who certainly did not embrace the Green Party's
> principles (as stated in the platform) in 1996 has a shot at getting the 4%
> necessary to qualify for federal matching funds. Funds that are certain to be
> used to fund a Green Party bureaucracy or at least that's what some hope for.
You say you're a former Green, so why do you feel qualified to trash-talk
Greens en masse? >>
I'm stand by my statement above. You can try and stifle my free expression on this with name-calling (just who's the "trash talker" here, anyway), but I will not be untrue to what I experience and perceive. I absolutely will not abide by any PC "no-talk" rules. Not on something this important.
Until the Green Party deals with the power imbalance inherent in the process junkie model it now has, it will go nowhere. In Oregon, one had to drive to Portland, sit in a meeting of process junkies, pay a fee to get in and, then, one could vote in the nomination process. Oregon is a state where every vote (granted, primaries are limited to "major" parties) is now by mail. There are less than 2000 members of the Pacific Green Party. A much more of a democratic decision could have been made if all party members were mailed a ballot with candidate statements. As it is, we are asked to go through this above-described process and, at the same time, simply trust the insiders that Nader supposedly has reassured he will actually campaign this time -- with no accounting whatsoever to the party rank and file for last time.
Call that assessment whatever you want, but I certainly don't see any progress coming through playing by those rules.
Michael Donnelly