Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
In short, a politically sensible compromise between the Nader/Camejo and Cobb/LaMarche factions within the Green Party would have been Camejo's proposal for "free states," i.e., the Green Party at the national convention endorsing both campaigns and leaving each state Green Party free to choose the campaign that is best suited for growing the Green Party in the state.
What kind of national party runs 50 separate campaigns? Why not go down to the county level and run 3000 campaigns? I suppose having two tickets is better than '96, when the Greens had four VP candidates (among them, the charming Lorna Salzman). But this looks more like further proof that the party is just too ill-developed to run a national campaign. Running for the office of chief executive of the world bourgeoisie doesn't seem like the time to conduct scores of simultaneous experiments.
Doug
We are not talking about 50 separate campaigns. We are talking about two factions -- the Nader/Camejo and Cobb/LaMarche factions -- in the Green Party. The question now is which side will survive 2004 better than the other, which will determine what we can do with the Green Party in 2008.
As a practical matter in US politics, though, states have radically divergent requirements to gain and maintain ballot status, so each state party, to a certain extent, sinks or swims on its own anyhow. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
