[Pvgreens-discussion] Udall

[sandylemberg at juno.com]

Check this out. I may also have an email.

Sandy

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:45:42 -0700 "Darrel Snyder"
<desnyder at warnercnr.colostate.edu> writes:
> Sandy,
> 
> Please forgive me, a relatively inactive member of the party, for 
> carrying
> on this discussion, but I'm curious as to your reasons for declaring
> Congressman Mark Udall a bad candidate for the U.S. Senate? Where 
> has he
> deviated so much from Green Party values that he deserves to be 
> labeled as
> such?  I doubt that I would agree with all his votes and stances, 
> but I'd
> certainly love to have someone with his commitment to the 
> environment
> representing us as Congressperson here in Larimer County.  Based on 
> his
> voting record (100% League of Conservation Voters rating on 
> environmental
> matters in Congress) and his stated stance on environmental issues 
> (e.g.,
> see his web site), he would seem to me to be a good Green Party 
> candidate
> himself if he weren't already running as a Democratic Party 
> senatorial
> candidate.  At this time, I don't know enough about either Udall or 
> Kinsey
> or the differences in their stance of green issues to know which I 
> would
> prefer if both had an equal chance of winning the election; I might 
> well
> favor Kinsey.  But Udall does have a chance of being elected, and 
> I'm sure
> you would agree that realistically Kinsey does not.  Green values 
> certainly
> will not be represented by Bob Schaffer.
> 
> I agree that the purpose of the Green Party is to offer people an
> opportunity to promote their values and beliefs in the electoral 
> arena.  And
> I would add in the public opinion and governmental arenas as well!  
> If we
> have no real chance of having our green values represented in 
> government by
> our own candidate and there is a green-values-oriented candidate, 
> regardless
> of party affiliation, that does have a chance of winning and 
> representing
> our values (at any governmental level), would it not be to our 
> advantage,
> and for the good of the environment, to support that candidate 
> rather than
> take votes away from him?
> 
> Darrel Snyder
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pvgreens-discussion-bounces at pvgreens.org
> [mailto:pvgreens-discussion-bounces at pvgreens.org] On Behalf Of
> sandylemberg at juno.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:30 PM
> To: willw at riverrock.org
> Cc: grns-gpoc at greens.org; pvgreens-discussion at pvgreens.org
> Subject: Re: [Pvgreens-discussion] Bob Kinsey's announcement for US 
> Senate
> seat
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pvgreens-discussion mailing list
> Pvgreens-discussion at pvgreens.org
> http://pvgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/pvgreens-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 483171 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lackof.org/pipermail/pvgreens-discussion/attachments/20080218/cc45a915/attachment-0001.obj