Media Massacre

Yes, Dennis Kucinich is my first choice. If he is nominated, I will
probably not vote Green. Sharpton may also be acceptable because he is such
and outsider.

Dean is in danger of destructing, but I don't think he's doing it himself.
Everything we see is filtered through the media. The "Howard Howl" could
just as easily be portrayed as a good thing. When Clinton lost in New
Hampshire, he energized the troops with "I know how to take a punch" and the
media thought it was a stroke of genious. When Ventura "shocked the world"
with his undignified persona, he was a media darling, as least in the early
days.

With owners like GE, TimeWarner, Disney, and Viacom, I expect the media to
go after any candidate that threatens their power. I actually see the
current media massacre as a sign that maybe Dean is for real after all. No
truly good candidate will ever get to the presidency without first being
blasted by the media. At the same time, I don't think the media is all bad,
and a lot of good stories get through. But when push comes to shove, I
think the media steps in.

Most people, meanwhile, just want to pick the winning horse, so they're
frantically trying to second-guess other voters. Without time to research
the issues, afraid to stand out from the crowd, and looking for any cue,
they're easy targets for the media. The media tells them who the winning
horse is, and the people place their bets.

To be honest, my research on the candidates is quite incomplete. Since the
MPR survey looks for exact issue matches rather than shades-of-degree
rankings, it may have less accuracy. On NAFTA, for example, some want to
change it and some want to get rid of it. Only Bush wants to keep it
without standards for labor, the environment, and human rights.

So my positions might not be as divergent with Edwards as the results
indicate, but there are still some differences. Edwards wants to keep the
Patriot Act. Like Dean, he wants to offer tax credits for health insurance,
which I think is convoluted. Also, running so soon after joining the Senate
in 1998 might make him look like a good outsider, but it reminds me of Norm
Coleman--perhaps too much personal ambition.

As for Clark, he wants to develop more ethanol, even though it takes about a
gallon of ethanol to make a gallon of ethanol. Also, I believe he sits on
the board of George Soros' International Crisis Group (ICG) with the likes
of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Allen, former Reagan National Security
Advisor. The media jumped on Clark, though, about Michael Moore calling
Bush a deserter, but I thought that was true. Moore's book "Stupid White
Men" said he skipped out from the Texas Air National Guard for a year and a
half.

One of the main things I look at is how the candidates get their money.
I'll vote Green before I vote for Lieberman or Kerry, and I am suspicious of
Clark and Edwards. I like that Dean gets small contributions from the
Internet.

One other thought, some pundits have really jumped on Dean for criticizing
Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. The precious metals community is also critical of
Greenspan for jacking up the money supply. Also, I think Dean reads
copvcia.com because the media also jumped on him for mentioning some 9/11
theories. To me this is a good sign that he has an open mind.

PRT!

Last night at a Green Party concert I spoke with Dean Zimmerman, Green Party City Council member in Minneapolis. He's been promoting a proposal for Personal Rapid Transit, and brought a laptop with a slideshow of it, along with a map of proposed stations. He said the council voted Friday to look into a feasibility study of PRT. The council has two Greens and the rest are mostly progressive Democrats, as is Mayor R.T. Rybak. Here's a link on the resolution:

http://www.cprt.org/news.htm

Letter to the StarTribune

01/11/2004

My letter to the editor got printed in the (Minneapolis/St. Paul) StarTribune!

>>>

Don't blame Nader
Eric Ringham states in his Jan. 4 Op Ex column that "[Ralph] Nader's got blood on his hands" for "splitting the liberal vote."

Our two-party nation has consumed more than its fair share of the world's resources, causing much suffering around the world. Who has more blood on their hands? And what is the greater evil: Voting one's conscience, or coercing someone to do the opposite?

I'm glad Nader ran, and I think the 2004 Democratic contest is better for it. Whether the Democrats nominate a candidate acceptable to most Greens remains to be seen.

Tom Cleland, Golden Valley.

<<<

Here is my original text:

>>>

In Eric Ringham’s commentary January 4 he said "Nader’s got blood on his hands" for "splitting the liberal vote." I feel that Ringham’s trying to extort us when he says this, and that this type of pressure is improper. Our two-party nation has consumed more than its fair share of the world's resources, causing much suffering around the world. Who has more blood on their hands? And what is the greater evil: Voting one's conscience, or coercing someone to do the opposite?

If the Democrats were serious about the spoiler problem, they would introduce legislation on Instant Runoff Voting to let us rank the candidates. Then maybe I would vote for a Democrat as my second choice. I'm glad Nader ran and I think the 2004 Democratic contest is better for it. Whether the Democrats nominate a candidate acceptable to most Greens remains to be seen.

<<<

I also had a letter printed in the fall issue of the Sunflower, a publication of the Green Party of Minnesota. The issue devoted nine full pages to the question of whether we should run a presidential candidate in 2004, covering the full range of opinions. To purchase a copy, contact greenpartysunflower@yahoo.com. Here's my letter:

>>>

The option to "stand down"

Recognizing the possibility, albeit remote, that the Democrats could field a 2004 presidential candidate that is acceptable to Greens, the Green Party may have an opportunity, if it acts early, to influence the election in a profound way. We can do this by simply adding a question to our own presidential candidate screening process.

Hopefully, our candidates will step forward early, and we can ask them which Democratic opponents they would campaign actively against, and which ones, if any, they would endorse and not campaign against. In other words, who they would "stand down" against. Standing down is an honorable and dignified way to disarm peacefully in a tense situation.

Retaining the option to "stand down" does three things:
1) It allows us to maintain the same high standards we have come to expect from Green Party candidates.
2) It dispells the notion that we are always intent on being "spoilers".
3) It gives the Democrats something to consider very seriously as they select their nominee. Greens are the heart and soul of what the Democrats are supposed to stand for. The "mushy middle" undecideds will wonder what's wrong with the Democrats if they can't get their traditional core base of support on board.

I don't really know the Democratic candidates that well yet, so I don't know if any would be acceptable to most Greens. I'm curious to hear what other Greens have to say. I definitely believe that the Green Party should run a candidate for President, no matter what. In the absense of Instant Runoff Voting, I feel that giving our candidate the option to "stand down" is the next best thing.

<<<

Straw Poll?

1/4/2004

Not sure how set the [GPMN 2004 Winter Conference] agenda is, but I think it would be extremely interesting to have a straw poll measuring Minnesota Green Party opinions on the Democratic presidential candidates. For each candidate, the poll might ask, "Is this person acceptable?" with possible answers of Yes, No, or Not Sure. If there's time for a debate before the straw poll, that would be even better. Who knows, the media might even take interest.