1
   

David Cobb and Pat LaMarche for pres and vp - Green

 
 
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 05:03 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



VICTORY!
Posted by: Admin on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:34 PM
The team of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche was carried to victory by a clear majority of the nearly 800 delegates meeting at the Green Nominating Convention in Milwaukee. After months of campaigning across the nation and days of animated discussion on site at the convention, the representatives of 44 state Green Parties (including the DC Statehood Green Party) made clear that Greens want a candidate from within the party in 2004.

In reaction to his victory, David took to the stage - not to give a speech, but to introduce his running mate, Pat LaMarche. She gave a brief speech thanking all their supporters and promising to run a vigorous campaign. Only then did David address the cheering crowd, and thanked not only their supporters, but their competitors as well, including Peter Camejo and Ralph Nader. He concluded by promising to help Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York (which had largely voted against him) to obtain ballot access.

The Cobb-LaMarche campaign promises to be an energetic voice to build the Green Party at all levels, actively support state and local candidates, increase ballot access, and promote Green values.

>>> 4 Comments 149 Reads


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David's strategy
Posted by: Admin on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 10:11 AM
Peter Camejo has said that David's website tells people to "vote for Kerry." That phrase does not exist on the this site (use the search feature!), and we have never issued a policy statement or press release telling anyone to "vote for Kerry." (See our FAQ on this.)

The goal of the Cobb-LaMarche campaign is to build the Green Party - and we are succeeding. Despite the debate over strategy (which, to be sure, is reflected within the campaign staff), many local candidates have been inspired to run by David, and many locals have been strengthened and energized by his visits.

But the influence goes both directions. David will be on all Green ballot lines, and while he has said he will focus his campaign on states neglected by the corporate parties, he has also said that he will visit and campaign in any state that invites him. (For example, he has pledged to visit the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to support their petition drives to put the Green Party candidate on the state ballots.) The will of the state party always has and always will trump all other concerns. In this way, the campaign reflects the bottom-up style of Green decision-making. From the beginning, David's focus has been on building the Green Party, which he has publicly promised to continue, regardless of the results of the convention. This is the kind of commitment and energy we need, and it demonstrates that the Green Party is best served by nominating David on Saturday.


16 Reads >>> comments?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The True Position of the Cobb/LaMarche Campaign on the Iraq War
Posted by: Admin on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 06:47 AM
End the Occupation, Bring the U.S. Troops Home Now

by Ted Glick

Friday, June 25

Last night, and not for the first time, Peter Camejo wrongly misrepresented the position of the Cobb/LaMarche Campaign on the Iraq war.

Here are the positions we have taken over the last two months. Below are the relevant excerpts from press releases we have issued. We encourage Green Party delegates and members to check out Davidís web site at www.votecobb.org to see the full releases.

April 15: Headline: Cobb Calls for End of Occupation by June 30

"I call upon the American people, including members of Congress, to demand that June 30th truly be a day when the U.S. relinquishes power by announcing that by that date all U.S. troops will be withdrawn, with one possible exception.

"A newly-constituted, genuinely broad-based interim Iraqi government should be set up in cooperation with the United Nations within the next month and a half. It will be up to that newly-constituted interim governmentónot the U.S. and not the U.N.óto determine what peace-keeping forces are necessary, from which countries they should be drawn, and if any U.S. troops should stay longer than June 30th while those forces are being assembled, transported and put into place.

"This newly-constituted interim administration will have full responsibility for organizing democratic elections by the end of the year, utilizing whatever international resources and assistance they deem necessary.

"The experiences of the past 13 months. . . make clear that the Bush Administration is totally incapable of leading a transition to a just and democratic society in Iraq. Indeed, it is Iraqis who are responsible for the political, diplomatic and humanitarian intiatives in Falluja, Baghdad and southern Iraq which have temporarily, as this is written, defused a major crisis brought on by U.S. arrogance, bullying and massive and unnecessary violence.

"The time is now to end the occupation."

May 13: Headline: Mission Accomplished has Turned into Mission Impossible

"The United States must immediately announce that it will withdraw its troops from Iraq and begin doing so. There can be no sovereignty for the Iraqi people as long as the occupation continues."

May 26: Cobb Calls for a New Foreign Policy Based on Justice

"Bring our troops home now and restore real, not sham, sovereignty to the Iraqi people."

Peter Camejo falsely characterizes this set of positions as support for the U.S. occupation while he says nothing about the position of Ralph Nader that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq for another six months.

The Green Party was active in opposition to the build-up for war and has been active in the movement to get the United States out of Iraq, for full Iraqi sovereignty and for reparations for the devastation the U.S. has caused. A David Cobb/Pat LaMarche Presidential campaign will actively and vocally articulate these positions.

>>> 1 Comment 31 Reads


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, June 24th - Howdy from Milwaukee!
Posted by:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,090 • Replies: 54
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 05:04 pm
EDIT (MODERATOR): Link Removed
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 05:45 pm
Good for them!

Cobb, I understand, has spent years working for the Green Party, running for the Green Party, building its base. LaMarche made the Greens a major player in Maine (7% of the vote I think?).

The alternative, nominating noone, would probably have meant endorsing Nader. Now Nader has drawn a lot of publicity and a lot of votes towards the Green Party - he made it a player. OK, very good. But he failed - or refused - to use that political capital to help the Green party root and expand on a state-to-state level. And this year, he even rejected being the Green Party's candidate. He'd gladly take their state ballot access across the US, but he wasnt going to give his candidacy to the party.

It seems to me like the Greens were just an instrument to Nader - an instrument to help his personal run for President, nothing more.

In my opinion, it should obviously have been the other way round - a Presidential run and the publicity it generates is only any good as an instrument to build up the party at local/state level, where it can hope to actually be elected.

So three cheers for Cobb and LaMarche. Let every Progressive who lives in a safe state (safe for Bush or safe for Kerry) vote for the Greens - and not for Nader. That way at least they'll be contributing to the growth of a party that can provide an alternative on local and state level. A vote for Nader is just a vote for Nader - and considering that he'll never be President but also doesnt have a party of his own that can take any result he gets and use it on other levels, that seems pretty useless.

Those who live in tight states should just vote Kerry, imo - and Webb and LaMarche have already said that they will campaign "in a different way" in battleground states.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:03 pm
I have to rethink my vote now.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:05 pm
By all means, Vote Green!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:34 pm
You and the Dems can play your reindeer games, Finn. The name of the Green Party game is build a viable party, which takes work and time, but could come about much sooner than anyone expects.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 07:25 pm
I sincerely hope the Greens will become ever more of a viable force in politics. Gain seats on all kinds of levels.

I do think the Presidential race is pretty much the last place to start at ...

But for anyone in a safe state to vote Cobb, I guess cant do no harm.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:04 pm
To be a real party it gots to develop at all levels.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:17 pm
How come the Greens snubbed Nadar?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:25 pm
I am not sure. I think they may want to avoid getting tarred by Democrats for their part in defeating Gore. They perhaps also saw that Nader had peaked last time around.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:30 pm
Quote:
So three cheers for Cobb and LaMarche. Let every Progressive who lives in a safe state (safe for Bush or safe for Kerry) vote for the Greens - and not for Nader. That way at least they'll be contributing to the growth of a party that can provide an alternative on local and state level. A vote for Nader is just a vote for Nader - and considering that he'll never be President but also doesnt have a party of his own that can take any result he gets and use it on other levels, that seems pretty useless.


That's one of the most encouraging things I've read on the topic of Nader. I hope lots of people think that way.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:34 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
To be a real party it gots to develop at all levels.


Run candidates for every job you can get, i'd say ...

Dont think the presidency is one of 'em yet. Just a distraction, and an expensive one at that.

Like "Fred Campbell, a delegate from Maryland" said: "The party grows by electing local candidates -- candidates who can win [..] We cannot split our resources -- our time, our money." (Star Tribune: Activist - not Nader - earns presidential nomination from Green Party)

Now Campbell for that reason wanted the party to nominate noone, but then most likely the party would just have endorsed Nader instead, with the same result: all that time, money going into a Presidential race they cant win instead of into races they can actually achieve something in. At least with Cobb they'll be investing it in someone who actually cares about helping the Greens win all those other races as well, who will connect his name to the party instead of refusing to even become a member - who will invest whatever result he gets back into the party, instead of in his own personal mission. And who will be a little bit more responsible than Nader when it comes to (not) hyping the "Republicrat" myth and choosing where and how to campaign vis-a-vis the Bush/Kerry race. My two c, as a fellow Green from across the ocean ;-)
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:37 pm
There is a lot that can be done with matching funds.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:37 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
You and the Dems can play your reindeer games, Finn. The name of the Green Party game is build a viable party, which takes work and time, but could come about much sooner than anyone expects.


I can't believe I'm being accused of joining the Democrats in any sort of games. In fact, I doubt the Dems are saying "By all means, vote Green."

(That has such a catchy sound to it, I think I'll soon adopt it for my signature)

I'm, sincerely, all for a third party, whether it be Green, Raw Sienna or Fuchia.

I am also quite sincere when I cry "BY ALL MEANS, VOTE GREEN"

A strong and viable Green Party will assure a Republican adminsitration for many years to come.

Eventually such a monopoly on American politics will be detrimental, but I'll probably be dead by then.

But please, would-be Green voters, what do I know. Vote Green, it will not be a vote for Bush, and even it is, think of the future: Eventually you will be able to thwart the election of George Bush III!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:37 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I am not sure. I think they may want to avoid getting tarred by Democrats for their part in defeating Gore. They perhaps also saw that Nader had peaked last time around.


Well, plus that Nader's always refused to actually become part of the Greens - he's not even a member, I think. So there's some bitterness about that. Especially because this year Nader made it clear that he would not run as the Green candidate - he wanted to be more generally the third party candidate, seeking endorsements from various parties (hence seeking the Reform Party's endorsement) but not standing for any of them specifically. So yeah, I can see how some would get a bad taste about that: he's happy to take our ballot lines but he refuses to invest in the party.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:38 pm
You always see things through the **** colored glasses of a Republican, Finn. Not much I can do for you.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:43 pm
I'm a Dem, and sincerely say by all means, vote Green. With the caveats that nimh mentioned of in safe states, either way. But sure, more of 'em are safe states than not (I think), I don't object to that at all.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:45 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
You always see things through the **** colored glasses of a Republican, Finn. Not much I can do for you.


Geez, that's a pretty ugly comment. And here I am joining you in calling for Green votes.

By the way, there is nothing I would ask you to do for me. I am a rugged individualist after all.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:52 pm
They're all rugged individualists, until they need something from the government.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:54 pm
I have always like Nader and his messages. I won't lash out at him. However, I do at this point lean to Cobb.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » David Cobb and Pat LaMarche for pres and vp - Green
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 07:22:50