[Sosfbay-discuss] Peter LaVenia: Why I'm voting Green & Joshua Frank: It's 2004 All Over Again..

[JamBoi]

Take a Gander everyone at these extremely pro-Green Party posts from
Peter LaVenia and Joshua Frank, and Cindy Sheehan at the metablog
BrickBurner.  For all the embedded links (I only threw in a couple of
them) go to http://brickburner.blogs.com/

A Million Votes for Peace!

Drew
______________________

Peter LaVenia: Why I'm voting Green

"The People's Front represents the coalition of the proletariat with
the imperialist bourgeoisie, in the shape of the Radical Party and
smaller tripe of the same sort. The coalition extends both to the
parliamentary and the extra-parliamentary spheres. In both spheres the
Radical Party, preserving for itself complete freedom of action,
coarsely imposes restrictions upon the freedom of action of the
proletariat." - Leon Trotsky, Whither France?

Something is rotten in the state of New York - and it's not just the
sewers in Manhattan. On a federal and state level, the Democrats are
going to sweep the state virtually clean of Republicans - and the
darling of mainstream liberals, Eliot Spitzer, will be the new governor
come January. The corporate center, what passes for a left in the
mainstream camp these days, has worked itself into a happy little froth
over this eventuality. To whit, I've been getting daily phone calls and
emails from the benighted mainstream liberal left party in New York,
the Working Families Party, to vote their line in the upcoming
election, because they champion "progressive" values. Except, their
line is the exact same line as the Democratic Party's - in New York we
have what is called fusion voting, where a party can endorse candidates
from another party and at the end of the day their totals are added
together. Problem is, the Working Families Party is a complete sham and
sinkhole for progressives.

The WFP has endorsed pro-corporate, pro-war candidates across the board
and slapped a label of progressive on them. When given the choice in
the Senate race between Jonathan Tasini, who was openly anti-war, and
Hillary Clinton, openly pro-war, they opted for Clinton (this from a
party that openly opposed the conflict in Iraq from the beginning).
Their choice for governor, Eliot Spitzer, was endorsed in January 2005,
before other candidates had even gotten their campaigns off the ground.
Eliot Spitzer is openly pro-death penalty and it was his decision as
attorney general in the case against Green Party mayor Jason West that
led to the NY State court ruling that gay marriage is illegal in New
York. Beyond that, he has taken millions of dollars from corporate
lobbyists and Wall Street firms - the same thing so-called progressives
decry in other candidates as "legalized bribery." And yes, let's not
forget that it was Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that issued the
ruling against the NYC transit workers' last fall that led to an
injunction against the striking workers.

Continue reading "Peter LaVenia: Why I'm voting Green " »

November 07, 2006 in Elections | Permalink | Comments (0)
NY Times - WPF is An Election Day Ballot Trap, Vote Real 3rd Parties

Strange but true.  The New York Times has openly called the Working
Families Party an Election Day ballot trap,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/nyregionopinions/CIthirdparty.1.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionopinions&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
and told New Yorkers who want to vote third party to vote Green (or
Socialist Workers, or Libertarian).  Needless to say, given the things
one can constantly criticize the NY Times for, this is like a bolt out
of the blue.

--Peter LaVenia

November 06, 2006 in Elections | Permalink | Comments (5)
Working Families Party Lies About Sheehan Endorsement

A mailer that went out to many New Yorkers this weekend depicted Cindy
Sheehan endorsing the Working Families Party Slate (Hillary Clinton,
Eliot Spitzer).  Unfortunately for them, Sheehan has explicity endorsed
the Green Party's Howie Hawkins for Senate and Malachy McCourt for
Governor.  This is a disgusting but not altogether unexpected step from
a "progressive" party which endorses Democrats 99% of the time.

Michael Moore and Pete Seeger were also listed on the mailer. Guess ol'
antiwar Mike supports pro-war Hillary. Why are we not surprised?

--Peter LaVenia & Joshua Frank


November 05, 2006 in Elections | Permalink | Comments (1)

Boston Radio Host Fired For Insulting Green Party Candidate

John Depetro, a Boston radio host, was fired from his job today for
insulting Grace Ross, the Green-Rainbow Party's gubernatorial
candidate, on-air after a gubernatorial debate.  Apparently, he called
her a "fat lesbian" and was angry that Ross and the independent
candidate Christy Mihos were "eating up too much time" and the
Republican and Democrat weren't getting a chance to "go at it". 
Apparently this isn't the only time he's made a homophobic slur on air.

I think the bigger point to be made here is not that an intolerant
bigot was fired, but rather that Depetro is part of the same old crowd
that has no tolerance for open debate in a political arena, but when
he's able to speak to the masses he thinks *he* should be allowed to
say whatever he wants.  If Grace and Christy can't debate, why should
you be able to, Mr. Depetro?

--Peter LaVenia   

November 04, 2006 in Elections | Permalink | Comments (0)
It's 2004 All Over Again..

Wake Me When It's Over

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has promised there
will not be a change of course in Iraq if the Democrats take back
Congress. Potential House leader Nancy Pelosi has assured voters that
impeachment is not in the cards for Bush, either. Yet the liberal
establishment is beaconing antiwar voters to clamor for the Democratic
Party next Tuesday. It seems like 2004 all over again.

I recently disparaged the positions of progressive media critic Jeff
Cohen and The Nation magazine for not supporting independent antiwar
candidates, and instead calling for more of the same: i.e. voting for
the Democrats even though we disagree with them on the war and a host
of other issues. If we want to take on Bush, they argue, the Democrats
have to take back Congress, and only then can we start to build a
genuine progressive movement.

In the meantime, however, the war will rage on and Bush will remain at
the helm of Empire with Congress’s blessing. As the Washington Post
reported on August 27, of the 46 candidates in tight House races this
year, 29 oppose a timetable for troop withdraw. That’s a whopping 63%
of Democrats in hotly contested races who have exactly the same
position on the war as our liar-in-chief, George W. Bush.

Even so, Howard Dean offers up his own deceptive outlook, "[W]e will
put some pressure on him (Bush) to have some benchmarks, some
timetables and a real plan other than stay the course.”

What? Who is going to do that? The 63% who oppose a timetable? And what
plan are the Democrats going to offer up? They openly refuse to back
Rep. Jack Murtha’s call for redeployment, and won’t even acknowledge
Rep. Jim McGovern’s half-baked plea to replace US forces with another
international occupation cartel.

Besides, even if a withdraw plan made its way past the House, would the
Senate, even if controlled by Democrats, ever consider putting forward
an alternative agenda? It sure doesn’t look that way. There is not one
Democratic Senator who wants an immediate, unconditional end to this
war.

Perhaps even more discouraging this election season is the way in which
the media and mainstream antiwar movement have collaborated. They have
both willfully ignored candidates running against war supporters from
outside the Democratic Party.

Peace Action, the self-proclaimed largest grassroots peace organization
in the US, has refused to supply antiwar activists with a guide to the
midterm elections.  They claim to not have the funds to print them, but
still won’t put a voting pamphlet on their website to inform voters
that they indeed have options on November 7.

The Nation magazine, despite an editorial last year which claimed they
would not support pro-war Democrats, has provided virtually no coverage
of third party antiwar campaigns.  After an editorial staff meeting
with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s antiwar challenger Howie Hawkins, The
Nation still wouldn’t write a word about his campaign, even though he
is receiving over 20% of the independent vote here in New York. Nor
would the magazine discuss Kevin Zeese’s antiwar unity run in Maryland,
where Zeese has brought together a unique alliance of Green, Populists
and Libertarians. Then there is Aaron Dixon, an ex-Black Panther who is
running perhaps the most electric antiwar campaign in the country
against Sen. Maria Cantwell. Dixon’s camp has been met with utter
silence from the liberal antiwar movement -- perhaps because several
progressive philanthropists like Dal LaMagna, support her campaign. And
the list of forgotten candidates goes on.

Predictably MoveOn.org and the liberal blogsphere like DailyKos would
never engage in a debate about the legitimacy of building an
independent antiwar movement, let alone a third party. Instead they’d
rather throw their energy into campaigns like Ned Lamont’s disaster in
Connecticut. Since Ned defeated Sen. Lieberman in the primary he has
changed his tune on Iraq from reasonable opposition to all-out war
hawk. But that’s where working within the Democratic Party will get
you.

So perhaps it is not “why” Peace Now and others in the liberal
establishment have silenced antiwar candidates, but “how”. We know why:
they are professional liberals who see the Democratic Party as an
indispensable ally in the quest for grants, careers and cocktail party
networking. 

However, the more theoretical among these liberal careerists have a
popular front philosophy: where they align with the liberal bourgeoisie
against the reactionary capitalists. But when push comes to shove the
liberals of the ruling elite always prefer repression to democracy --
something ol’ Karl Marx recognized during the 1848 democratic
revolutions in Europe and the Left in the US should have recognized
when the industrial wing of the Republican Party sabotaged Radical
Reconstruction last century.

But that may be a bit too analytical for such an obvious crisis: the
Democrats and their patrons are part of the problem, not the solution.

--Joshua Frank


October 31, 2006 in War | Permalink | Comments (0)
Snake Oil and the Midterm Elections

So we are in the trenches of another election season, and if you peer
closely you can see the explosions on the horizon. I’m yet to be
convinced the Democrats have the capacity to take back Congress, and to
tell you the truth I don’t really care if they do. Not only do they not
have the ability to lead, they also do not possess the moral impetus to
change the direction of this country if they are lucky enough to regain
control. Indeed they are just as responsible for the ruin in Iraq and
back home as the Bushites.

The Democrats have assisted the Republicans at virtually every turn
over the past six years. From the bloody invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, to the passing of CAFTA, to the confirmations of Samuel Alito and
John Roberts, to the support of the PATRIOT Act, to the dismantling of
Habeas Corpus, to the championing of Bush’s ravaging forest plan, to
backing Israel’s brutal assault on Lebanon -- the Democratic Party has
long played the role of enabler. And now they want your vote.

Author Jeff Cohen in Commondreams.org recently pled with progressives
to elect Democrats to office this year. “A Democratic win in 2006 would
be similar to 1998: a rejection of rightwing extremism and hypocrisy.”

I fail to see the rationale. If we usher the Democrats into office on
November 7 we’ll just be electing rightwing extremism under a
substitute banner -- it won’t be called Republican but it’ll still be
wicked as all hell. Even Cohen admits that the Democratic leadership
doesn’t have a progressive agenda, but still feels that a lefty push
inside the party could change that around. What Cohen and others have
embraced is a blatant call for lesser-evilism: ignore alternatives and
vote for what you don’t believe in, because it’s strategic.

The whole plan: "take back Congress and then pull the Democrats left
down the road”. When has that ever worked? And why would the corporate
Democrats give its progressive wing any credence? If the Democratic
Party continues to receive progressive votes regardless of their
rightwing positions, there is absolutely no reason for them to change.

Sadly Cohen’s position, like the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)
of which he serves on the Board, is analogous to The Nation magazine’s
foul electoral philosophy. Neither will "endorse" pro-war Democratic
candidates, nor will they "oppose" them.

Silence is complicity.

I hold out no hope that the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, but
let's say by some divine intervention they can. If so, the only way it
will ever happen will be when its progressive constituents leave the
party and challenge them from the outside. In fact, that is what The
Nation seems to fear most.

In the upcoming November 13 issue, on shelves this week, The Nation
editors warn, “If Democrats fail to recapture at least a working share
of Congressional power, they and their party will rightly be cast into
disrepute, too, and distressed citizens may reasonably begin looking
for other options.”

What would be so wrong with that? Progressives should have been looking
for other options long ago. However, The Nation, like Cohen and the
PDA, does not support independent politics or the emergence of a
legitimate progressive third party. And that’s why they have not lived
up to their promise of truly opposing pro-war Democrats by endorsing
any of their antiwar challengers.

Of the 22 candidates in tight races or running in open districts across
the US, all but one was chosen by chair of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee, Rep. Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps not surprisingly, 21 of
his picks are ardently pro-war. The other is suspect. But The Nation
and the PDA don’t want you to know any of that. Instead they’d rather
see left-leaning voters cramped inside the cage of the Democratic
establishment. Nothing could be more damaging to social movements or
our hope for real progressive change.

--Joshua Frank


October 28, 2006 in Economics | Permalink | Comments (1)
Green Party Candidate Backs Dem, Withdraws From Race

Just when you thought that the Greens might be making a comeback.
http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/stamford_templates/stamford_story/293031389037134.php

--Joshua Frank

October 28, 2006 in Elections | Permalink | Comments (8)
Cindy Sheehan: Make One Democrat Pay!

Having failed to stand up in opposition to the Iraq war in the first
place, and failing to offer a strong peace platform now, the Democratic
Party nevertheless is about to reap big gains from the blood of my son
Casey and others like him.

We have an opportunity to make at least one pro-war Democrat pay the
price for selling out on the war. We must send a message to pro-war
politicians of both parties.

Our friend Bill Scheurer, editor of The PeaceMajority Report,
co-founder of VotersForPeace, and longtime member of Military Families
Speak Out, is running an explosive grassroots campaign in the IL-8th
Congressional District against first-term incumbent Melissa Bean, a
pro-war Bush Democrat.

People throughout this suburban, mainstream America district are
blasting their horns, and flashing thumbs up and peace signs at
Scheurer campaign “Honk for Peace!” roadside flash parties. The local
news has given great coverage, and “Vote for Peace” Scheurer yard signs
are popping up everywhere like dandelions in spring.

Because of Bean's clear support for big money and the wealthy, Scheurer
also has strong support from organized labor, which compliments Bill's
support of peace.

I urge all citizens is all districts to vote for peace candidates, no
matter what party they are, but in Bill Scheurer, there is a clear
choice for peace.

We in the nationwide peace community can help. Vote for Peace!

Please visit the www.BringOurTroopsHome.com campaign website. Send
money. Make calls. Send emails. Help spread the word. Get ready for
2008.

--Cindy Sheehan

October 27, 2006 in Elections, War | Permalink | Comments (0)


___________________

JamBoi
Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer

"Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
http://dailyJam.blogspot.com



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index