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

Sun Feb 17 10:48:01 MST 2008

My blood runs Green, but I think it would be naive to think that Kinsey's
run for Congress caused a more leftist candidate to run in 2006.  I think a
more leftist candidate ran partly because of coincidence and partly because
there is more energy among grassroots Democrats for more leftist candidates.
I also think it would be naive to rule out the possibility that Kinsey's
candidacy did not affect the 2004 outcome.  His candidacy most likely
siphoned time and money and morale from the Matsunaka campaign.  The old
saying, divided we fall.  If Kinsey and his supporters had devoted the same
amount of time and money to supporting Matsunaka's campaign as they did to
Kinsey's, Matsunaka might well have won.  Not that Matsunaka is green, but
blue is a lot closer to green than red is, and Musgrave is very red.

Be the past as it is, I am mainly concerned that we learn from it.  The
Great Spirit provided us with an important lesson in the 2000 election and
in the years since.  We who supported and voted for Nader, despite early and
often warnings that a Bush victory would lead to untold tragedies, have
blood on our hands.  The votes for Nader did as predicted siphon away enough
votes from Gore in FL and NH to enable a predictable Supreme Court coup.
And over a million people are now dead as an indirect result of our naivety,
or worse yet, callousness to tragedy.  Was such tragedy really necessary?
It is imperative that we set aside our egos, accept that harsh truth, and
not repeat our mistakes.

The United States Senate is arguably the most powerful assembled 100 people
on earth.  I believe it is very important that we get the best possible
people into it, those who will work for the greatest percentage of time
promoting the highest good.  To me, that's the big picture we must not lose
sight of.  It is not possible to get Bob Kinsey into it in this election.
We all should know that.  The Green Party is a long ways from that (and I
think, delays its own ascension by trying, since there are better ways to
grow the Green Party, by focusing on local races, for instance; another
discussion).  More importantly, if the Green Party sabotages the chances of
getting the best possible people into the Senate, then we betray our own
values, just as we did in 2000.

There are always trade-offs.  Every day, how we heat our house or stock our
refrigerator or get to work involve compromises for every one of us.  None
of us is without ungreen sin.  As a Congressman, Udall has his flaws.  But
the difference between him and Shaffer is remarkable.  Udall is not just
blue, he is a leader on many green issues.  On the Iraq war, we may disagree
with him, and on impeachment, we may disagree with him (though it would
likely fail and be counter-productive at this point).  But to focus our
actions narrowly on these significant areas of disagreement and lose sight
of the substantial common ground we have with regard to the big picture, I
think would be tragic.

I know there are other respectable viewpoints about this among this group.
But I hope in the end that this one will prevail:  that all of us, including
Bob Kinsey, will speak compellingly and often about what we believe in, but
ultimately endorse and support and vote for Udall, not only as the best
viable alternative to Shaffer, but as a worthy in his own right (albeit
imperfect) representative of our state in the Senate.  Green as my blood may
be, I would not want to see Kinsey's name actually on the ballot where it
could do nothing but cause harm.

My heart,
Will Walters

P.S.  Didn't I hear that one of our local Democratic state legislators is
promoting some sort of instant runoff voting pilot program in the
legislature?

  -----Original Message-----
  From: pvgreens-discussion-bounces at pvgreens.org
[mailto:pvgreens-discussion-bounces at pvgreens.org]On Behalf Of
ericfried at comcast.net
  Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:35 AM
  To: PV Green Party Discussion List; Darrel Snyder; kinsey_65 at msn.com
  Subject: RE: [Pvgreens-discussion] Bob Kinsey's announcement for US Senate
seat

  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>

    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 prioritiestaking 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 campaigns
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 wasnt, 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
cant 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 (Im 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 valuescurrently 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 Part y
cand idates with opposing values and goals?  In exchange for our partys
support, perhaps their candidates would be willing to compromise on or give
greater emphasis to Green Party valuessurely it is worth seriously pursuing
the possibility.  Through such political coalitions, we could reinforce and
perhaps make the major partys candidates 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 Im 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 its 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lackof.org/pipermail/pvgreens-discussion/attachments/20080217/e12299e2/attachment.html