[Pvgreens-discussion] Bob Kinsey's announcement for US Senate seat

Wed Feb 13 15:13:50 MST 2008

Hi Eric and all,

  Not sure that I will make the meeting tomorrow night as I have had something akin to flu the last couple of days. 

  Still trying to come up with someone to dialogue/debate with Gray on April 24th.

  On the issue of Green candidates I am kind of split in my opinion. I agree with Eric that the only way a third party is ever going to be viable is to offer candidates to run against the republicans and democrats and force the issues. That said, I have always been for building from the ground up. So, I am more inclined to support Kinsey in his efforts than I would a Green presidential candidate. However, this would be a much harder position for me if the democratic pres nominee is Clinton. If on the other hand it is Obama I would be inclined to support him. It is a hard decision. But reality tells me our next president will be McCain, Clinton or Obama. I digress from the Kinsey issue but will return to it.  

  I know that Obama is still part of the main stream democratic machine but he is closer to the banks if you will and may be able to be pulled from that flow to some degree. His opposition to the war in Iraq at the outset gives me hope that he can be swayed by the progressive movement. He continues to say this war has wasted lives and money that should have been used for better purposes like education and health care here at home.I think Clinton's votes on the war speak for themselves. I recoil at the thought of John McCain as president. He will be sure that we are more than ready for war and will continue putting precious lives and resources toward the wars and the military in general. He may not be a chicken hawk but make no mistake about it he is a TRUE HAWK. Don't forget the reason he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He was dropping bombs on innocent civilians.  He followed the orders and I have no doubt he'd like to give a few.

  On the issue of Kinsey, I shudder to think that B S could become our senator and even though Udall is truly far better on issues like the environment and choice he does not get it about the war and I still think that is the overiding issue of our time(s). If we don't somehow reign in this military industrial complex and stop the wars and potential wars that are necessary to keep it going we will never change anything else. And, B S might actually have less power and sway locally in the U S senate than he does now on the board of education. It is hard to imagine he could be any worse than Wayne Allard, but who could be. And, I do think there needs to be that conversation and discussion of the issues at the outset, in other words during campaigns, rather than after someone is elected. Do I think that Kinsey will get elected? Probably not. Might he energize some who would not vote otherwise? Probably so. Would Udall if elected think twice about some of his positions? Maybe,
 maybe not. Depends on how close the race is. Would he talk with progressives/greens after he is elected? If it is a close race and he wins then my guess is that he probably would if he plans on staying in the senate. If we just throw our support to him while ignoring our candidate then he has no reason to move on our issues and we have marginalized our party even more. As a matter of fact no one would have to worry much about coming or not not coming to a PVGP meeting because, as Eric mentioned, there would be little reason for us to meet or have a party for that matter. Hard choices, I know. 

  I also know I just contradicted myself with regard to Obama and issues during the campaigns, but I'll stick with what I said regarding that race. That surely does not mean I would not understand or support those who feel they must support the Green Pres candidate for the very reasons I just put forth. Just from my perspective of that one if Obama is the nominee I could not actively support the Green candidate. 

  So, my two cents, for what it is worth- if anything, is that we fully support Kinsey and campaign for him. 

  Joe

ericfried at comcast.net wrote:
    Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I don't recall anything in the Colora-duh-an, but here is the link to the Denver Post article:  http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_8169397
  I think Bob referenced a "low carbon footprint" not a "low media imprint" campaign. He does need a major effort, as a Senate race is ten times the size of a Congressional race. Perhaps you would like to work on his campaign? Submitting the announcement as an Op-ed to every newspaper in Colorado is a great idea.
  As to the spoiler issue, if we always worry how our camapaigns will affect Democrats, then we have no need to exist as an independent party. But without us, they move even further to the right, because progressives would have nowhere to go when they sell us out to corporate interests, time and again. If Udall was voting against war funding and for impeachment, for instance, Kinsey would not be running. I personally think Green-Dem coalitions where we have common ground makes sense, except the other side is not interested. They have done nothing to support Instant Runoff Voting (which eliminates the "spoiler" issue) and even locally we have been rebuffed when trying to work with them on issues like the Fort Collins Iraq Withdrawal Resolution or educational forums. They just want us to go away so they can continue to gravitate to the DLC (Democrats who Love Corporations), where the real money is. Individual Democrats who are progressive are a different story, and there are
 some we can work with, and should. 
  Eric
  PS - in 2004 Marilyn won with over 50% of the vote, so Kinsey's 4% did not cause her to win. In 2006 she got less than 50% due to a conservative third party candidate, Eric Eidsness running on the Reform Party ticket. Her challenger then (Angie Paccione) was to the left of the one in 2002 and 2004 (Stan Matsunaka)...a result of Kinsey's effort, in part?
  -------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Darrel Snyder" <desnyder at warnercnr.colostate.edu> 
      v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}        st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                PVGreens and Candidate Keinsey,

  Bob Kinsey--Now there is a candidate who represents most of my feelings and beliefs, one whom I would feel good about voting for and promoting among friends and neighbors.  I am especially pleased to see his emphasis on environmental priorities—taking immediate measures to counter the man-caused aspects of climate change, a still rapidly growing human population, and the concept of the need for an ever-growing economy.

  However, as in 2004, I am also concerned about the Kinsey campaign’s maintenance of a “low media imprint.”  Such is counter to the need to publicize his candidacy and stance on the various issues to the public in general, not just those already associated with the Green Party.  Within the financial limits of his campaign and units of the Green Party, his candidacy must be as visible as possible to be even marginally viable.  Most citizens believe they only have two realistic choices for most offices in the upcoming elections.  Was this public announcement printed or at least covered by our local newspaper, the Fort Collins Coloradoan – if it was, I missed it.  If it wasn’t, I urge candidate Kinsey and/or PVGreens to submit it, at least in the editorial (opinion) section.

  Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I understand candidate Udall has similar positions and priorities on environmental (and other) concerns and this puts me, and I expect many others, in a quandary regarding the upcoming elections.  Would my vote (our votes) for Kinsey effectively help Schaeffer win office as it did for Musgrave did in 2004, and would it have a similar detrimental impact while they are in office?   These are urgent matters, we can’t wait for the Green party to become a major factor in state and federal politics.

  Perhaps it is not appropriate for me to suggest such (I’m not very politically active except for voting and occasionally writing le-mail messages to my representatives, and I have yet to participate in a local PVGreen meeting, although I monitor and sometimes respond to e-mail listserve communications), but might not the Green Party and it state and local units be more productive at the state and federal levels by forming a coalition with and strongly influencing the platform of the major party most closely aligned with Green Party values—currently the Democratic Party (perhaps the Republican Party or a powerful assemblage of alternative parties in the future)?  For now, might not forming a Green Party-Democratic Party coalition for at least selected candidates (those with strong Green Party values) have a much better chance of defeating Republication Party cand idates with opposing values and goals?  In exchange for our party’s support, perhaps their candidates would be
 willing to compromise on or give greater emphasis to Green Party values—surely it is worth seriously pursuing the possibility.  Through such political coalitions, we could reinforce and perhaps make the major party’s candidate’s values even greener, perhaps enough so, that in the more distant future, as our party gains stronger influence, the major party we align with might reciprocate by supporting candidates we put forth.  If I’m not mistaken, this is effectively how the Green Party grew to have a strong influence in European politics.  The Green Party in the United States and its significant influence need to grow much more rapidly than it is; perhaps this is the more expedient and effective way to do it, maybe the only way to eventually breakdown an essentially two-party system.

  I believe most environmentally-oriented voters in this country feel the only realistic way to get their values represented at the federal, and perhaps state level, in the short term is by supporting sympathetic Democratic Party candidates, and we members of the Green Party need to support them as a unit rather than take votes away from them and our causes.  Certainly, when neither major party candidate is Green enough (for whatever office), I agree that the Green Party needs to offer it’s own candidate.  But when their values are closely aligned to Green Party values, we are more likely to have those values represented in government if we seriously try to reinforce or influence that candidates emphasis on those values and him or her get elected.

  Sincerely,
  Darrel Snyder,
  A passive Green Party member
  from Larimer County.

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

  From: pvgreens-discussion-bounces at pvgreens.org [mailto:pvgreens-discussion-bounces at pvgreens.org] On Behalf Of ericfried at comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:00 PM
To: PV Green Party Discussion List
Subject: [Pvgreens-discussion] Bob Kinsey's announcement for US Senate seat

    -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- 
From: "ROBERT KINSEY" <kinsey_65 at msn.com> 
To: undisclosed-recipients: ; 
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 02:58:00 +0000 

    Bob Kinsey 
303-949-4073

_______________________________________________
Pvgreens-discussion mailing list
Pvgreens-discussion at pvgreens.org
http://pvgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/pvgreens-discussion

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lackof.org/pipermail/pvgreens-discussion/attachments/20080213/622c34e9/attachment-0001.htm