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

[eric levine]

One note:

I've NEVER seen a worse and less supportive "Democrat" around these parts
than Matsunaka. He was anti environmental and completely controlled by
big growth/big business interests. Perhaps I've seen a little more of
what he really was up close than some.

Matsunaka is hardly any color but yellow or black...... He would have
NEVER had my vote, and I feel I'm generous at where I draw my pragmatic
line.

,.......... eric levine




On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:48:01 -0700 "Will Walters" <willw at riverrock.org>
writes:
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/20080217/5a0f653c/attachment-0001.html