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