Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Cross pushes Internet crackdown
Next Post: Local elections open thread *** Updated x2 ***
Posted in:
A Post-Dispatch story today takes a look at the challenges facing the Green Party now that it has achieved major party status.
Wanted: One candidate for the U.S. Senate, 19 for the U.S. House, 118 potential state representatives, dozens more wannabe state senators, hundreds of potential county officials. And as many as 11,692 precinct committeemen, among other vacancies.
The state ballot access barriers are significantly lowered with the Greens’ new major party status, thanks to Rich Whitney’s success at doubling the minimum 5 percent vote requirement in the last election…
Whitney — as an unofficial party candidate — had to get 25,000 signatures. In 2010, Green candidates in the primary will need only 5,000. A Green candidate needs roughly 500 to run as a state representative and 1,000 for the state Senate.
But they still have a long, long way to go…
…the rolls of dues-paying [Green Party] members roughly doubled to more than 900. But that’s still far from the thousands of elected Democrats and Republicans around the state backed by thousands more volunteers.
900? That’s it?
“The Greens will need a network of bodies throughout the state,” Jackson said. “That’s a logistical accomplishment that no one since Republicans during the Civil War has really done.”
Agreed, but it’s possible they could pick off some local seats here and there and cause some Democrats trouble in maybe a couple of legislative districts.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the Green Party not only made it onto the ballot last year but also broke through the major party barrier. If nothing else, the whiners who constantly complained that Illinois law was just too restrictive to field a third party candidate were proved wrong.
It should be interesting to see what the party does next. They have to continue to score that 5 percent statewide to keep their major party status. Any bets on whether they can make it?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 8:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Cross pushes Internet crackdown
Next Post: Local elections open thread *** Updated x2 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“900? That’s it?”
Rich,
Serious question here: how many “dues-paying members” do the Illinois and Democratic parties have? I’m sure it is well in excess of 900, but how many individuals actually pay dues to those parties?
Knowing how many Illinoisans are “dues-paying members” would make it easier to compare apples and (much smaller) apples.
– SCAM
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 8:51 am
Squideshi for Governor!
Comment by Buck Naked Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 8:54 am
Third Parties should have the same filing requirements as the two majors. The rules–created by the Republicans and Democrats–were created to keep the two-party system in firm control in this state.
Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 8:59 am
Welcome to the Bigs! Go forth and multiply - its better than having you kids lighting tire-fires every time the World Bank yanks out its American Express Card somewhere.
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:05 am
We live in a time of changes. Perhaps in a deep blue state like Illinois, there is room within the Democratic Party for the Greenies to survive within.
Both parties have real problems too. Republicans are an endangered species and the Democrats are rotted with corruption. What happened in 2006 could repeat itself - easily. Republicans need stars too, and there currently are none. Any maverick Democrat like Quinn could go Green. (Quinn is unavailable, but there are other “Quinns” out there.)
Look. We have a governor with serious problems. We have a state with serious problems. Since both current parties have failed to address them, there is room for the Greens.
What will kill off the Greens would be if either party decides to offer strong leaders with good character. Right now it seems neither party cares.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:13 am
Let’s be realistic here - the only reason we’re talking about the Greens is because the two “major” partys do not - have not - ran any real candidates of their own for years.
How many Green votes in the last election were out of frustration due to this fact? Most?
Comment by Couincilman Sinnock Online Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:34 am
Many of us voted for the Green party in the last election knowing we have nothing in common. We did not want Judy and had no other choice. Doing so has helped create a potential problem for the Democrats, knowing this made it easier.
Comment by The Conservative Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:37 am
The Democratic and Republican parties have more members because they have been allowed primary elections in the past. Party membership, according to state law, is defined by pulling a party’s primary ballot at the election; and by law, people were only able to request a Green Party primary ballot in certain, very limited jurisdictions where the Green Party was established. Now it will be available statewide.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:43 am
VM,
As you well know democrats are not “rotted with corruption”!In fact, dems hold all of the constitutional elected offices,majority in both state and US Houses, most County Boards and Townships,Both US Senate seats,many US HOUSE seats. That is the other party with all those convictions and prison sentences for former lackeys of the Ryan administration and kinky US congressmen and their Illinois friends who covered up for them. I agree with you that the Repubs are almost extinct and that is the reason.
The green candidate did well because the majors (sorry Squid)both ran candidates that many voters just didn’t like. That none of the above factor may not exist next time and if it doesn’t, the Greens will become just another amusing aberration and footnote in Illinois history, just like the LaRouchies,Commies,Libs,John Anderson, and other assorted non-factors.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:47 am
Bill, we all know how well you see corruption free Democrats. What medication are you on?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:50 am
I forgot to answer Rich’s question. Do I think that the Green Party will be able to stay established in Illinois? I have no doubt. Unlike some of the other established parties that have in the past existed in Illinois, this one is an actual, real political party with a long-term membership, a concrete organizational structure, and a long-term plan for growth that seems to be working.
Greens are only going to have more time and money to spend on campaigning now that they don’t need to fight so hard for ballot access; and believe me, a significant amount of resources were used fighting for ballot access.
Even in the worst case scenario, the Green Party would remain established in several larger political subdivisions thoughout the state, even if unable to remain established at the state level; although, I wouldn’t so quickly suspect that the party will just go away–don’t forget that the Green Party is international, so there’s plenty of pressure and energy around the world to keep the global movement Green and growing.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:54 am
Here’s the real question — which major party will be more successful at getting plants to run for Green Party committeeman slots?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:57 am
In reality, the Illinois GP (proposing more clean-coal, ethanol subsidies, guns) offers very little to progressives and is hardly green, closer to Republican-lite.
The latest strategy is for the “redneck” (red as in Republican) downstate greens to move into Chicago to try to organizize there. If nothing else it will create green diversity in Chicago- now they’ll have both Northern whites and Southern whites among them.
Comment by i'm anon Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 10:03 am
- i’m anon - Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 10:03 am:
In reality, the Illinois GP (proposing more clean-coal, ethanol subsidies, guns) offers very little to progressives and is hardly green, closer to Republican-lite.
—
You should actually read the platform before attacking it. The Illinois Green Party itself supports more gun control–Rich Whitney’s position on that issue differed from that of the party.
I also notice that you fail to mention the education and campaign finance reform measures that Illinois Greens are proposing. Oh wait, you also failed to mention Single-Payer Universal Healthcare and Illinois Greens promise to veto the use of the Illinois National Guard for the continuing illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq.
The ILGP has majoritarian positions that the Democrats and Republicans don’t even come close on. Want another example? Just look at the proposed new airport in Peotone. While Democrats and Republicans are arguing HOW the airport should be built, the Green Party is the only party that supports local residents in trying to save their communities and generationally owned family farms (that’s why THESE “rural conservatives” seemed to like Rich Whitney more than Rod or Judy.)
There’s a difference and it’s quite significant.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 10:22 am
Rich, one of these days you’re going to wake up and realize the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court know more about ballot access laws than you do and YOU will stop whining about those people that correctly point out that Illinois’ ballot access laws are the worst of any democratic jurisdiction in the world, that Illinois election laws are unconstitutional as recently upheld AGAIN by the 7th Circuit, that no independent has been able to get on the ballot for for the General Assembly since 1980, that the requirements to run for US House are obscene and the worst in the US, and that your whining about very legitimate complaints only shows your ignorance.
The Greens got 5% for Governor which opened EVERY door in Illinois. There is only one way to do that and that is to get 5% for Governor. The Greens could have a majority in the Illinois House and Senate, elect every US House member, have a President of the US, hold every statewide office except Governor, but if they didn’t get 5% for Governor, they would lose their established party status. That’s brilliantly logical isn’t it.
The current laws force parties like to Greens to put mostly all of their eggs into the Governor’s basket, which is just stupid. Without getting that 5% for Governor it’s nearly impossible for a third party to run candidates for County offices. If it’s as easy as you pretend it is, please tell me the last time in Illinois history that a new party was able to field a complete slate of candidates for every county office in an election. It’s never been done.
Now please stop whining about people that actually believe in free and equal democratic elections.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 11:00 am
Venting done, I should point out that the Greens will still have to put most of their eggs in the Governor’s race basket to remain established after 2010. Their money and resources would be better spent on races they have a better chance of winning, which would probably County races and General Assembly. But because of our ballot access laws, they will have to put those resources toward the Governor’s race in 2010 if they want to be able to run candidates for County and GA races in 2012. The laws force them to organize backwards, starting with the Governor and working down to townships. The better long-term strategy for them would be to gain footholds in a few counties and GA races and build up from there but our current laws prevent that. Whether they remain a force in Illinois politics beyond 2010 has more to do with our laws than anything else.
Perhaps they don’t want to run someone for Governor because the Dem candidate is acceptable to them. The laws discourage that because if they don’t run someone for Gov. they will lose the ability to run people for County and GA.
So Greens need to enjoy 2008 and 2010 while they still can. In 2010 they will be forced by our stupid laws to focus most or all of their efforts on the Governor’s race. If they don’t get 5% for Gov. in 2010, they have to start all over again.
In most other states a “new” party would need 1 or 2% in the race for ANY statewide office to remain “established”. In fact, throughout most of Illinois’ history the threshhold for “established party” status was 1% and for a time it was 2% until it was changed in the 1940s because the Prohibition & Progressive and a couple other parties were gaining a foothold and the Rs and Ds wanted to protect their monopoly. And of course every other state has lower ballot access requirements than Illinois.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 11:43 am
Hi Rich,
I will answer part of your question the same way that I did for the Post-Dispatch reporter, and expand upon it slightly. There’s nothing to hide here, because the entrenched politicos throughout the state already know all this.
Signature requirements are significantly lower across the board, but the proportional drop for some races is different than that for others. The General Assembly, for example, raised the signature requirements for - you guessed it - General Assembly seats a few years ago, to 500 for State Rep and 1,000 for State Senate. They - and when I say they, I mean Mike Madigan, Emil Jones, and the Democrats; the Republicans didn’t go along with it - did this not to try and burn Greens, but to try and burn progressives and other “maverick” Democrats who might have been interested in challenging the Democratic establishment. 500 signatures in a single state rep district might not sound hard, but it’s absolutely hard to pull off if it’s in the middle of the Machine’s base, you’re running against a Machine legislator, and the last days of the drive are in December. (Tell me again why any progressives would want to stay in the Democratic Party?)
So the requirement for Greens is also 500/1000 for General Assembly. But the average requirement in every Congressional district is less than 100, because those numbers are pegged to a percentage, not a flat number. It’s much, much easier now for us to run candidates for Congress than it is for us to run candidates for General Assembly. And that is absolutely a significant consideration when it comes to candidate recruitment, and something you will probably want to keep your eyes on.
Comment by Phil Huckelberry Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 12:33 pm
How many Green votes in the last election were out of frustration due to this fact? Most?
I would say that most of them were to, I doubt that the majority of people for Whitney knew what he stance were on issues, let alone agree with them. Can anyone think of house or state senate district, let alone a congressional one, were the Greens have a chance of winning or even getting more than, say, 20 percent of the vote?
Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 1:35 pm
I was all for voting for Green candidates until I read up on their party and candidates’ backgrounds and found that they did not come anywhere near my beliefs. I’d like an independent party but they’re not it.
Comment by i d Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 1:52 pm
To Green Party Doubters,
In Normal, IL. Phil Huckelberry, the candidate running for the Green Party for the 88th State Rep. got 17% last November. Is that so far from your legitimacy test? In some parts of the State, Rich Whitney got over 25% of the vote. Is that legitimate, or is that only hated-the-other-two-guys voting again?
Luckily these questions aren’t decided by comfortable people with too much time on their hands venting on the internet.
Believe me, if that was the case, myself and so many other hard working, street walking, talking-to-actual-people folks like my self working with the Greens would have decided that alas, again, the status quo must stand because , well, it is the status quo.
Do you think the Republican Party mid-19th century started at 20% in the polls? Do you think fighting for civil rights in Montgomery Alabama enjoyed the support of even a significant *minority* of the population starting off?
Isn’t it interesting that even the revolutionary war in the U.S. was said to only have the support of about 25% of the population – the rest made up of appeasers and loyalists.
In other words, your logic is to work within the warm confines of ‘the system,’ here the two-party system replete with its purchase of candidates by corporations, wealthy people and those already in power, because the true and correct alternative just isn’t popular.
You wouldn’t do well to try to lead any effort for justice or rights in our society sir or madam because you would not work for change.
Myself and other Greens and others in other parties that attempt to build the challenge to the virtually dead democracy we have in Illinois have always had to endure people that doubt and even work with every effort to stop the change from happening. We have always had to do that, and we will always have to do that. We understand that.
If you are not part of the solution to the dead democracy in Illinois - to the low voter turn out, to the dynastic legacies of the Daleys, the Strogers, the Steeles, the Madigans and countless others, to the gulf between regular people’s views and how actual laws and policy are enacted - then as Martin Luther King has said, you are literally part of the problem.
That’s how currently I see your attitude and the sheer bankruptcy of your imagination for what is possible here in our state. Indeed, what are you working on to *improve* our state and our democracy other than trying to convince others that independent political effort and action is pre-doomed?
Dorian Breuer
Green Party Candidate for the 1st Illinois State Senate seat, Chicago
Comment by Dorian Breuer Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 2:19 pm
Here here Dorian. In response to Jeff Trigg’s comments, I also want to add that while Green and Libertarians may have quite different views on a number of issues, we will continue to debate these issues in a civil manner (as our candidates have been able to do in the past); and as an established party, Greens will of course, support Libertarians’ right to ballot access and participation in the political debate!
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 3:01 pm
Phil Huckelberry was also the only candidate other than Dan Brady that was running in the 88th. Is there any district out there were the Greens have a chance of winning a seat in the General Assembly? There are a lot of people in both the Democrat and Republican party that are working for a better Illinois, the holy than thou attitude aside.
Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 3:25 pm
RMW Stanford,
What I would say to you is that the Greens are building support area by area, voter by voter and mind by mind.
Your essential point above is that - well what race may the greens win in the next two years - and if none are clear to identify - then the Greens are nothing. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that.
But that attitude is just so small of thinking that it is a shame.
When people start to believe that voting outside the Blue and Red paradigm is perfectly okay and their head won’t fall off, then our democracy will be much better off.
So what, exactly, are *you* doing, RWM Stanford, to save our democracy other than typing at a computer?
Dorian
Comment by Dorian Breuer Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 3:40 pm
“Phil Huckelberry was also the only candidate other than Dan Brady that was running in the 88th.”
Right, and considering that he did little to no campaigning, other than getting onto the ballot, and got 17%, doesn’t that kinda proove that more people are willing to vote Green, when they’re not afraid to split the vote?
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 4:17 pm
There are some wards 25th and 43 that greens could affect
Comment by Maya Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 6:29 pm
If Rod runs again in ‘10, the Greens should have no trouble remaining an established party.
Comment by stating the obvious Thursday, Jan 25, 07 @ 12:08 am
- Pat Hickey - Wednesday, Jan 24, 07 @ 9:05 am:
“Welcome to the Bigs! Go forth and multiply - its better than having you kids lighting tire-fires every time the World Bank yanks out its American Express Card somewhere.”
Hickey nailed that one.
The one thing he left out: These people go around the world acting like idiots, they run a Socialist for Gov., and then they claim “The System” is the fault.
No, it is the fault of a bunch of arrogant kids who want to burn things and who think that socialism is a reasonable alternative.
On that note, has Squid ever made a post that provided any real ideas? All the Greens have time to do is complain that everybody is out to get them. They are in favor of Being Green and that’s all they stand for, at least by Squid’s postings.
At risk of sounding completely unoriginal (I’m sure others beat me to this line), I’m ready to start calling Squid “Kermit”, i.e “It isn’t easy being Green.” That is pretty much the extent of the Green’s contribution to the Illinois debate.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jan 25, 07 @ 10:04 am
“At risk of sounding completely unoriginal (I’m sure others beat me to this line), I’m ready to start calling Squid “Kermitâ€, i.e “It isn’t easy being Green.†That is pretty much the extent of the Green’s contribution to the Illinois debate.”
LOL. I like that. It’s cute.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Jan 25, 07 @ 12:42 pm
Huckleburry is a 3x loser exploiting a student population. Breuer earned just over 5% of the vote. It took about 2×12 “Green activists” to gather most of the signatures for the Governorship. The requirement is not the problem, its the “legal challenge” by the “Democrat Party,” and their democracy, as in Christine Cegelis and Todd Stroger infamy. And the Greens could not have done it without the Libertarian support.
Comment by u anon Thursday, Jan 25, 07 @ 8:04 pm
I don’t think I’ve had someone try to attack me by intentionally misspelling my name since I was in grade school… but I do like the idea that I’ve been “exploiting” students. Good stuff.
Also good stuff seeing me be called a “redneck” and a “Southern white” on this page, clearly by the same person.
When you’re attacked in a manner like this, it proves that you are a credible threat to the existing power structure. A shame that an intelligent discussion has to be blown up by nonsense like this, but I guess we can’t expect forthrightness out of people hiding behind anonymity (not that we don’t know who they are.)
Comment by Phil Huckelberry Thursday, Jan 25, 07 @ 8:15 pm
You know what they say Phil… It’s not easy being Green. LOL
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Jan 25, 07 @ 9:27 pm
Hey Skeeter what are *your* ideas if you’re so clever?
I’m a Green and I’m 35 - you’re calling me a kid? Unless you’re about 85, you sound pretty silly to me.
And this attitude of mockery and bile towards people organizing fellow citizens and residents to act independently and in their own interest I find astounding coming from ‘democrats’ and others.
Truly, should you not be encouraging more and diverse political action and not less which itself promotes more political homogeneity?
That truly seems to be the ideal of these independent political action attackers.
Wouldn’t Illinoisans like Abraham Lincoln be proud of you!
Greens have lot’s of ideas. Looks like you haven’t even spent 20 seconds reading what the Greens have written and publicized about their ideas before making that statement. Check out the Illinois Green’s platform at ilgp.org
Greens don’t have any contribution to the ‘debate’ in Illinois?
I find it interesting that just after the election where one of Rich Whitney’s main proposals on his website whitneyforgov.org was the very strong support of HB/SB750 - fixing the structural problems of education funding in Illinois – is now, suddenly, a key legislative priority. I’m sure that is utter coincidence.
Read the Jan 10 Chicago Tribune Story ‘New legislature calls for education funding reform’ and according to the State Journal Registrar’s January 11 article ‘Senate, House leaders focus on finances’on January 10th, “Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, said education funding will be the top issue in the Senate during the upcoming spring session.â€
Those crazy insignificant Greens. Let’s flush them down the toilet. They have nothing useful to say. LET’S STAMP OUT ALL INDEPENDENT THOUGHT!
And the post-election ‘Green Government Act’ by Lt. Gov Quinn, sponsored by Sen. Garrett, I’m sure we can all agree that Rich Whitney’s key position on a new deal for sustainability (see his website) articulated for months in the press had not even an iota of contribution to that “debate.â€
And the deal made by the governor in December to clean up Illinois’ dirtiest coal-fired power plants responsible for hundreds of premature deaths in Illinois annually I’m sure had nothing to do with the Green’s long time involvement in state and local coalitions to affect the same, right? See if you think the Greens have no roll after you read the December 12th front-page article in the Trib ‘Utility to cut coal emissions’ that quotes me from the Pilsen/Southwest side local of the Green Party.
Simply saying something like “Green’s don’t contribute to the debate†doesn’t make it so.
Comment by Dorian Breuer Friday, Jan 26, 07 @ 12:32 pm
Dorian:
For somebody who claims not to be a kid you sure act like one.
I don’t have a duty to provide encouragement. Want encouragement? Call your mommy. Call your therapist. Don’t come looking to me because you need a pat on the back.
You claim you have ideas? Maybe, but not on this forum. Here, you all just complain about life being so unfair to people who think it is a good idea to run a socialist for gov. Frankly, if your original thought is “That socialist would make a great gov.” then you all shouldn’t be part of the debate. If you think a socialist is a good idea for Illinois in 2006, then you belong permanently on the fringe.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 26, 07 @ 3:45 pm
Mr. or Ms. Skeeter – whoever you are - so comfortable to remain anonymous. If you’re so confident about your convictions, why don’t you stand up instead of hiding?
I haven’t presented any ideas on this forum? The Greens haven’t?
All I do is “complain about life being so unfair?â€
I think I’ll leave it to others to judge that that is not the case.
And you seem to have amazing views as to what a socialist may or may not be.
In fact, say a socialist ran for office in Illinois, apparently according to you, “you shouldn’t be part of the debate.â€
That’s not very American nor democratic of you, now is it?
Speech is free or political choice is free as long as it is what *you* - Skeeter - decide is free speech or choice, right?
Would you, sir or madam, be one of the brave people that stood up in fascist Germany or Spain or Italy to help those who were persecuted – those in the minority who were disappeared, imprisoned, and of course eliminated? You don’t sound like the kind of person to me that is very much in favor of our free exchange of ideas, nor of the freedom of political thought – despite the fact that you enjoy those rights yourself right now.
And 360,000+ voters seem to see it differently than you.
Well good luck to you. I will fight for your right to free speech. Including your right to argue for the elimination of those rights.
Comment by Dorian Breuer Saturday, Jan 27, 07 @ 6:16 pm
Dorian,
1. Stop whining.
2. I never denied you any rights. I just said I don’t care about whether you exercise those rights. You all have done a pretty lousy job so far.
Of course, if you were smart enough to realize that, you wouldn’t be hanging out with a bunch of fringe socialists.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 11:46 am
Oof! Served.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 11:50 am
Big words, Skeeter, from one who hides so well.
No, I’m not whining. Wasn’t that charge made against anybody or group working to change things for the better? 8-hour day? No, stop whining. End Child Labor? No, stop whining. End segregation, give women the vote, form unions, form independent, non-corporate political action? No, stop your whining.
Nice guy (or gal).
I don’t care what *you* think, but I do care about the sorry state of our democracy, the disenfranchisement (and often self-disenfranchisement) of most voters here and across the country.
But unlike you, I don’t seemingly just work to dissuade others from political debate, engagement and enfranchisement.
It is against you and that attitude that myself and others have to work and have worked to continue to make progress.
But I suspect that the status quo is just so comfortable for you, so why really change things?
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 1:39 pm
That’s a pretty impressive list of ideas. Of course, none of them are yours. The Greens played zero role in any of them.
Are you really claiming that your little group of spoiled kids is the equivalent of the great civil rights leaders or the great labor leaders? When you stand up to somebody like Bull O’Connor or when your group gets machine-gunned like the great union activists did in Colorado, then you can make the comparison. They stood for something and paid the price. All you stand for is “It is sooooo tough being an Illinois Green.” Until you really stand up for something, you are just a bunch of loud mouths with no visible agenda other than “Let’s go burn some stuff the next time the IMF has a meeting.”
With regard to the agenda of the Illinois Greens:
The status quo or a Socialist?
I will take the status quo.
The status quo or a bunch of spoiled kids who go to international conferences to stand outside and burn stuff? Status quo again.
The status quo isn’t great, but it looks the status quo kicks the hell out of what you people are offering.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 3:26 pm
I don’t care if you’re a green, a socialist, a union activist, a civil right activist in Montgomery or a suffragette getting her head bashed in as so many did.
You’re actually missing my point for about the third time.
My point is, what are you or anyone else doing to improve things for your fellow citizens?
I asked you, what are your ideas and what are you doing to improve things for your fellow citizens.
There is an awfully loud silence from you on these questions I suspect because you have a very poor answer.
All you *have* said is:
“I support the status quo.â€
“In my (Skeeter’s) great American traditional belief, I believe Socialists or Greens should be on the fringe and not included in any debate.â€
Ahh, there’s an American to be proud of.
And finally, I suspect that you are not clear what a socialist is, a green is or even a union activist getting shot at in turn-of-the-century Colorado is.
In fact, (thought excercize) I bet if you walked into the middle of the rail union’s meeting hall at the turn of the century in Colorado – this great heroic period for you – and proclaimed to the crowd that, “any socialist should not be part of the debate and should permanently be on the fringe†I doubt you’d walk out with as many nice, ironed creases in your clothes that you walked in with and that you may not try that again.
Or do you believe that given the option between controlling society’s resources socially, democratically and expressly for the common, public good should be the system of choice or instead let the robber barons of the rail, steel, oil and other industries largely decide the allocation, possession and purpose of society’s resources – that the folks in that union hall would opt for the latter?
It seems as though you should read more about the political and economic discussions of the period and from the group you proclaim are virtually the only ones worthy of calling themselves “great civil rights leaders or the great labor leaders.â€
Ever check to see if any of your great civil rights or labor ‘leaders’ were socialists before sounding so loudly? I didn’t think so.
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 4:13 pm
Are you really claiming that a socialist in 1920 is the same as socialist in 2007?
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 4:37 pm
Now that’s interesting.
Are you talking about the persons themselves or their ideas?
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:00 pm
So, you two do realize that the only people who are likely reading this post are the two of you, myself and my intern, right?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:02 pm
You made the comparison.
Either way, it is utterly ridiculous and you know it. Moreover, if you look at the “socialists” of that time, they were smart enough to outgrow that phase. You haven’t. Don’t flatter yourself to think you can stand with them. They stood for something. You stand for burning stuff.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:04 pm
Ya, you’re right, Rich. It did get kind of quiet in here… Sounds like we should stop? It is your blog after all. I have enjoyed it though…
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:06 pm
Rich,
I find it amusing to be attacked as a crazed conservative/reactionary for a change, rather than as a crazed liberal.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:07 pm
Wow, Skeeter.
What did socialists of the 20’s ’stand for.’ And what did each and every one of them ‘out grow’ to? I really do need to learn this apparently.
And what I stand for is burning tires? Really?
Unlike you - who neither makes yourself known, nor states one iota what you are doing to help your fellow citizens in the apparently exalted age of ‘post-1920’s-socialism’ you look down upon us from - I have created a plan for a new ‘community-centered Illinois‘ for my campaign for Illinois Senate.
Please check it out and tell me again all I stand for is burning tires.
Are you sure you don’t just idealize civil, social and economic justice fighters of old simply because they are photographed in black and white and are dead?
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:23 pm
Y’all do what you want. I just wanted to remind you that this is kinda like one of those congressional debates where only two people are on the floor.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:26 pm
There are four people, apparently!
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:31 pm
Yeah, the two debaters, the Speaker and his aide de camp. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:34 pm
Ya, we shall now hear from the Speaker…
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:36 pm
By the way, Skeeter, I was arrested by a state trooper outside of Mike Madigan’s office in 2004 for handing out leaflets asking for Madigan to be forced to release personnell records of his employees who, on state time, helped strike signatures off of the petitions of then-presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
The Democrats couldn’t even get enough ‘volunteers’ to fill the 10 slots they needed to strike Nader petition sigs - so they signed in personal staff members of the chairman of the Democratic Party.
Just like this year when the Democrats couldn’t even get enough ‘volunteers’ to come in and staff computers to strike signatures against Whitney and the Green slate. They instead had a team of young lawyers working for firms that did lots of business with Madigan - according to them - come in to staff signature striking for the Democratic Party.
And they still couldn’t strike enough.
Great democracy we live in.
I don’t hear any tires burning in that scenario.
Comment by Dorian Breuer Tuesday, Jan 30, 07 @ 5:51 pm