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

[sandylemberg at juno.com]

Matsunaka was a bad candidate and he stood in opposition to Green values.
The same holds for Udall, and everyone knows it now (as opposed to last
time). You have every right to support Udall but, if you want to be part
of a group that supports him, that group is clearly the Democratic Party,
not the Green Party.

The Greens are not the cause of the defeat of the Democratic Party in
recent presidential election. Very few people buy into that argument any
more. The cause was the Democratic Party itself.

The purpose of the Green Party is to offer people an opportunity to
promote their values and beliefs in the electoral arena. It is not the
purpose of the Green Party to support or assist the Democratic Party in
any way.

Sandy

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