Report on Tulsa Green Convention 7/23/05

Here is John Murphy's report on the goings on in Tulsa. If you want his full report, complete with photos of the convention, contact him directly: johnamuprhy@comcast.net. John is a Pennsylvania Green from Chester County, and an internet journalist. John was the only PA Green to attend the convention in Tulsa:

Dear fellow Pennsylvania Greens,

Let me begin on a positive note. During his address to the National Committee (NC) Peter Camejo said that some unkind comments passed between himself and David Cobb. Peter apologized to Cobb for any offense he had given during the heat of this very contentious election. Peter demonstrated the court of a well mannered gentleman. Unfortunately when Cobb addressed the NC he did not reciprocate for the many nasty comments he made about Nader/Camejo.

The most disappointing aspect of the GPUS meeting in Tulsa was the complete lack of any clear agenda. Of course, there was a prepared agenda submitted to the NC. It was merely a formality. It was the empty outline of a leaderless party which clearly lacks any sense of purpose or direction. At this point in its development the Green Party of the United States is no more than a secretion of the mindless bureaucracy which directs its aimless activities.

The only item on the four-day agenda that held any promise for the future of the Green Party were the three proposals for democracy and independence presented by the GDI (Greens for Democracy and Independence). I will report on the proposals themselves later but a portentous event occurred immediately at the opening of the Tulsa meeting which would foretell the nature and direction of this very bizarre spectacle masquerading as a meeting of the delegates of a serious political party.

THE UTAH VOTE

Two delegations from Utah presented their delegate credentials to the GPUS. One was formed by a renegade Cobb faction the other, directly in the line of dissent from the original Green Party in Utah, was formed by the Nader supporters. (Historical note: Cobb received 26 votes in Utah; Nader received 11,000.) The actual details of what took place are much too complicated to describe here. Suffice it to say that the GPUS Accreditation Committee decided to recognize the "Cobb" Green Party. The Nader Green Party however filed the proper papers in the state of Utah, obtained 3000 signatures on its petitions and is the legally recognized Green Party by the State of Utah.

With these "two parties" being thus represented and given that the Accreditation Committee admitted that it really had no power to recognize either one of the two parties on its own, New Jersey offered a compromise. New Jersey proposed that during the course of the Tulsa meeting both parties would be temporarily recognized, splitting their two delegate votes between them. The National Committee would decide which of the two parties was the "real" Green Party at another time to be specified. The demogreens went wild! No way! According to the Cobb supporters in the National Committee the Cobb party of Utah was recognized by the Accreditation Committee of the GPUS and it was irrelevant what the state of Utah had decided. A vote was taken and the first paper victory was scored by the paper states. The Green Party which is officially recognized by the State of Utah was expelled in favor of a Green Party which has less than 10 members! Another paper state was created.

Even from the very presentation of the two Green parties it was clear where this Tulsa meeting was headed. The Cobb party delegate immediately pointed at us -- the GDI members -- as contriving and conspiring to have the Nader Green Party recognized in an effort "to bring the Democratic Party into the Green Party". Yes, that's what he said. The GDI wants to bring the Democratic Party into the Green Party by having it recognize the Green Party that is officially recognized by the State of Utah!

As a side point I would like to mention that one of our members worked with the real Green Party in Utah and finally succeeded in convincing them to send a delegate. They were reluctant to do so because of the nature of the GPUS leadership; the majority of the National Committee. Their argument for remaining outside the GPUS was simply, (paraphrasing), "why should we join such a group when we are now accredited by the State of Utah? Why should we let people like this [GPUS delegates] have access to our ballot line"?

The vote was not at all surprising. 57 delegates voted against the New Jersey compromise that would have recognized both Utah parties just for the sake of the Tulsa meeting with 35 delegates voting to allow both parties. This was Cobb versus Nader all over again and was a foreshadowing of what would occur when it came time to vote for the three GDI proposals for democracy and independence.

A WORD ABOUT THE PAPER STATES

There are nine or ten states which are called "paper states". These states have Green parties that were established prior to the 2000 presidential election as a result of efforts to place Ralph Nader on the ballot. Soon after the 2000 election these "parties" collapsed. In fact many "members" never actually registered as members of the Green Party and where in fact Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Socialists. They simply signed membership forms that would be recognized by the GPUS as an affiliated party. One of the web sites from those states actually listed Libertarians as contact people for the Green Party!

It is now estimated that there are less than 300 actual Greens in these 10 states. Ohio is the most extreme example. It has five delegates to the NC yet there are less than 10-12 members in the Green Party of Ohio. Nine other states have 18 delegate votes.

Here's how to think about what this means for the Green Party. There are approximately 8.5 million people in New Jersey. It has two delegate votes. There are approximately 8.5 million people in nine of the paper states. They have 18 delegate votes. Another way to think about it is to realize that California has 106,000 registered members of the Green Party. It has 13 delegate votes. There are less than 300 Greens in the nine paper states. They have 18 delegate votes. Three hundred Greens in the paper states are able to overrule 106,000 Greens in California. If anyone was still not clear as to how David Cobb who entered the Milwaukee convention with only 12% of the Green vote, ended up with the nomination they should, by this time, be getting a very strong clue.



[PHOTO CAPTION: "I didn't join an independent party. I didn't join an anticorporate party. I joined the Green Party."
-a Safe State delegate from Illinois]



THE VOTE ON THE GDI PROPOSALS

The three proposals advanced by the GDI for democracy and independence in the Green Party were not defeated. In order for them to have been defeated someone would have had to offer arguments or at least objections as to why they were unacceptable. No such arguments were advanced in Tulsa. Although an endless stream of delegates proceeded to air what are called "concerns" in the Green Party's contrived meeting sessions called "consensus" the only concerns that were ever presented were procedural in nature. One delegate came to the microphone and said that he had three concerns. The presenters showed him that his concerns were in fact answered within the very body of the proposal itself. When the delegate recognized this he said he was voting against them anyway and stomped away.


[PHOTO CAPTION:The first GDI proposal to institute one-person one-vote is nothing more than "institutionalized chaos".
-David Cobb, in the men's room to his retinue.]


One crazed delegate seized the microphone and screamed angrily, "how can we possibly vote on these proposals when they have been amended only two days ago"? When it was explained that these were "friendly amendments" added in order to address some of the concerns of the delegates she said she was still voting against them.

One of the most important "friendly amendments" that was added to all three proposals contained language that spelled out that these proposals were resolutions. The purposes of these resolutions were simply to set up working committees that would then make the necessary changes in the bylaws to implement the resolutions. It was made very clear that none of the changes to the bylaws made by these committees could be enacted without a two thirds vote by the National Committee. Therefore when these proposals were voted down it was the very ideas and concepts that were voted down.


[PHOTO CAPTION: Green Party National Committee in one of its more serious moments singing "Oklahoma" while the GDI caucused.]


I am a 59 year-old MBA. I have forgotten how many vice presidential positions I have held and on how many boards of directors I have served during my professional career. I do recall vividly having served as The Chairman of the Board of a prestigious professional association. In my 37 years of professional life I never witnessed anything like the meeting of the Green Party held in Tulsa. This was not a meeting. This was a carnival.

While members of the GDI would go into caucus in order to change word order or make friendly amendments to satisfy some procedural concern, the delegates of the Green Party, instead of continuing to discuss the proposals among themselves degenerated into a "sing-along" highlighting show tunes! One delegate after another seized the microphone either to dance, somewhat in the fashion of a circus clown, or to imitate a nightclub comedian. The delegates of the Green Party surrounding David Cobb finally sent the GDI members a very clear message when they began to sing "Take Me out to the Ballgame". The message was very clear when they sang in a loud voice: "1, 2, 3 strikes you're out". There was never any intention to give any serious consideration to the GDI proposals. The GDI and its proposals for democracy and independence were treated like a freak show in a carnival.

[PHOTO CAPTION: The Blue-Green delegates to the NC singing "one, two, three strikes you're out at the old ballgame" sent a very clear message to the GDI of both their position and their mentality.]

THE CONSEQUENCES

When the three proposals were voted down in pretty much the same fashion as the New Jersey compromise for Utah, it was clear to the members of the GDI that the majority of GPUS delegates were not the kind of Greens with which we wanted any continued association. It is clear that these people are not Greens. They may be well intended liberal environmentalists but they are no more "Green" than are the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). One of our group decided that at this point it might be more descriptive to refer to these people as the "Blue-Greens" as in "blue states" but suggestive of great deal more.

If there is anyone still unconvinced of the association of these Cobb-demogreens just go to the PDA web site www.pdamerica.org and enter the name "Cobb" in the "search site" in the left-hand column. It will make you sick if you are a real Green.

Both the New York and California members of the GDI spoke about the possibility of either disaffiliating completely from the Green Party or at least dramatically changing their legal relationship in such a way that the GPUS would no longer have access to the California or New York ballot lines. Vermont, Louisiana, Alabama, New Mexico and Florida might also consider similar action. The members of the GDI nevertheless agreed, urged on by Peter Camejo, that we should not hand our party over to the Democrats like this. We should not hand over the Green Party to a small group of people who refuse to even entertain the concepts of "one-person one-vote", "proportionate representation of delegates" and "complete independence from the corporate parties at the national level".

As it stands now there are two currents within the Green Party. The GDI is best considered as the revolutionary wing of the party. The former Cobb supporters, who were the ringmasters at the carnival in Tulsa, have not put together a formal current with a web site and discussion group as has the GDI. We are referring to them for the time being the "Blue-Greens" which are a group of, no doubt, well intended liberal environmentalists who cannot force themselves to break completely with the corporate parties and who will desperately cling to the right to follow a safe state strategy at any time in the future. These people are frightened of the GDI and feel threatened by us. Perhaps that is the healthiest thing for those folks to do at this time.

John A. Murphy: Spoiler

Greens Tussle in Tulsa

Chris wrote:

I voted for Cobb/LaMarche in 2004, and I thought they were both excellent campaigners. I really hope that they will both run again in 2008 to help us build the Green Party.

Why would there be a split now when the party is growing by leaps and bounds? If Camejo wants to leave the Green Party, then he should. After all, he ran as a candidate for some other party in 2004, didn't he?

Gus replied:

The “safe states” strategy, which was a capitulation to the Democrats, was the creation of the Cobb/LaMarche team. I don’t know if you are familiar with this whole history? I won’t go into it at length here, but the result of “safe states” was to cause a rift in the Green Party between those who wanted to go “all out” for a candidate who supported Green values (Naderites), and those who supported Kerry out of fear of Bush (Cobbites).

This rift continues until today, and has been exacerbated by the fact that the nomination selection process a year ago in Milwaukee was badly flawed. The convention last week in Tulsa seems to have shown that the Cobb minority (estimated at about 12% of registered Greens in 2004) has gained control of the party and is refusing to support the principal of “one-Green-one-vote,” which is essential to our survival as an independent grass-roots democratic organization.

To say that Cobb and LaMarche were excellent campaigners really depends on your definition. At one point in the campaign, LaMarche stated publicly that she wasn’t sure if she would vote for herself in her own state of Maine. Cobb did campaign, but only after a clear majority of Greens let him know that's what they wanted. But, in my opinion, he was really campaigning for control of the Green Party. In 2004, Cobb got barely a third of the votes of registered Greens. He is now working with Democrats, and seems dedicated to taking the Green Party on a course which will make it just another progressive movement that has been co-opted, then slowly destroyed, by the Democratic Party: a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. Cobb is a compulsive politician, and will certainly run again in 2008, if the electoral process is still functioning by then, but he will be running as a Green Democrat, not as a Green— and “Green Democrat” is an oxymoron or a kind of gypsy curse.

This symbol from the PDA homepage, apparently their official logo, a green donkey, should offend every Green.

I’m not at all sure about the growth rate of the Green Party right now. It should be growing rapidly because of the great number of progressive thinkers who have become completely fed up with the Democrats. The Green Party should be seeing its membership surging. Why, then, is David Cobb partying with Democrats? Does anyone really think that he’ll lead progressive Democrats to the Green Party before the whole Green Party gets sucked up by the Dems?

Neither Camejo nor Nader left the Green Party. Cobb led the Green Party to reject Nader and Camejo. He led the Texas GP in 2003 to change their bylaws to permit only a registered Green from being on the ballot in Texas. This was intended as a direct attack on Nader, since Ralph has always remained an independent, as he was in 2000, when he was supported by the Greens. In fact his candidacy was successful enough to gain minor party status for the Pennsylvania GP, a status which will no doubt be lost in 2006.

Camejo is doing his best to save the Green Party. Check out the GDI (Greens for Democracy and Independence) website

An alarming number of people still believe that the Democrats are a viable alternative to Republicans, that Bill Clinton was a person of the people. The error is in blind party loyalty, in mistaking the past for the present, in mistaking words for actions. Beware of this same thing happening to the Greens. Never place loyalty to the Green Party above loyalty to the ten key values. Growth of Green Party registrations is nothing to cheer about if, at the same time, the party itself is moving away from Green values and merging with the duopoly.

Chris, I hope this explains my concerns of where the GP is headed, and why I don’t trust Cobb. I hope I’m wrong, but the reports from Tulsa don’t sound good for the future of Green Values.

The consensus in Bucks County is to stay focused on local issues and not worry too much about where the national and state parties are headed. If the emerging energy crisis is only half as bad as I believe it will be, very few people will be attending national conventions by 2008, and the political horizon will be unrecognizable from today’s. All politics will become intensely local. Green values will get a real test in interesting times. We’re almost half way to $5 a gallon gasoline and heating oil. If petroleum prices exceed $5 in the next year or two, what will happen to social cohesion in Philly? That’s certainly something to think about.

Best wishes for advancing civilization in your corner of the cosmos,

Gus Linton

Voting Integrity Forum, July 30

Important Voting Workshop

A half-day voting workshop will be held at the Pearl Buck room of library in Doylestown on Saturday, July 30, 1:15-5 p.m., led by Teresa Hommel ofwww.wheresthepaper.org.

A corporate trainer in computer technology and election integrity activist, Ms. Hommel spoke at the well-received Coalition for Voting Integrity forum at the Bucks County courthouse on June 27.

This workshop will educate citizens interested in the issues surrounding voting machines with emphasis on preparing us to share this information with others in our area.

Our County Commissioners will be making a decision soon, as to which voting system will be chosen in 2006….or might we keep existing machines and save 6-10 million dollars. It is imperative that we learn our choices and become articulate in communicating the need to keep our vote secure.
• What is the law…do we really have to spend millions to replace voting machines…. What are the real facts/options
• What are advantages and disadvantages of electronic machines, optical scanners, and paper ballot and lever methods
• Just how secure is computer voting …what are the risks?
• What is “secret programming”? Do you want to vote on machine which NO ONE outside manufacturers are allowed to see programs? What can be done?
• Learn how and why decertification of electronic voting machines is underway in PA.
• Be informed as to how to safeguard our vote, while having a cost-effective process…. and what you can do to protect OUR Vote
Please indicate your interest by email to VotingIntegrity@aol.com. or call 215.357.5206 to register. Advanced sign up will help us in our planning. A $15 donation if you register in advance $20 is requested for registering at the door.

Democracy BEGINS with the Integrity of OUR Voting Process
….. and ENDS without it!

Energy and the Elderly

Yesterday my daughter and I visited my aunt at the Rydall Park retirement community. She gave us a tour of the plush facility-- indoor pool, exercise room, large restaurant, excellent services. What struck me during my visit was the great number of indandescent light bulbs all along the hallways and in the apartments.

It was 90 degrees outside, but almost chilly inside the vast building. The air conditioning was quite adequate to cool the building from the heat outside as well as the heat generated by the incandescent bulbs all over the place.

This facility and hundreds like it could save thousands of dollars a month with a few energy saving devices, like fluorescent screw-in bulbs, but residents are not responsible for thier own electric use, and if you apartment is nice and cool, why worry. My aunt has three 60 watt bulbs over the mirror of her bathroom.

She said that monthly costs have been rising-- rising so fast that many residents are concerned about their future ability to pay the monthly fees. The administration has never mentioned electricity bills as one of the cost inflators, but energy will surely be one of the biggest threats to the continued operation of places like this in the very near future.

My aunt Katherine, by the way, is a beautiful person, very active in residents rights issues, and one of the real activists there.

Thought for the Day:

A definiton for SUVs: "Very expensive scrap metal"

Eyes Wide Open

Friday Amanda and I were in Philadelphia to visit (and volunteer at) Eyes Wide Open, the AFSC sponsored memorial display of military boots-- one pair for each of the 1746 fallen Americans in Iraq.

The boots are arranged alphabetically by state in neat rows with room to walk around. Each pair has a name tag attached, and a few are even the actual boots of the fallen soldier. Most have flowers, photos, letters, or some other momento left by a loved one. There are usually one or two mourners among the visitors at any given time, and from a shaded dias beside the display, the names of the fallen, as well as many Iraqi civialian victims are read slowly. Two of the readers during our time there were mothers of fallen soldiers.
The exhibit evokes a powerful emotional response from most visitors. It is a silent statement about the absurdity of war, but far transcending a simple anti-war message, this experience is that of a memorial service for the victims of war. The mode is silence, so there isn't much for volunteers to do but try to keep from getting too teary eyed to respond to one or two questions you might be asked every hour or two.

After the victims of this war stop falling, the exhibit should find a permanent place near Arlington or the Vietnam Memorial.

In case you missed it, the exhibit will be in Lancaster in September and Newark and New York in October.

See photos here. . . and Here. Thanks, Green from Horsham!