/* */

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Cavlan aims spotlight on calamities

Michael Cavlan from Minnesota is not your typical candidate for U.S. Senate. In addition to calling for an end to HMO mismanagement, corporate domination, and the Iraq occupation, he also wants independent investigations into 9/11, the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), and the 2004 presidential vote count in Ohio.

Cavlan anticipates that it’s natural for people to shy away from these subjects, for fear of getting it wrong. He qualifies, saying, “We’re not accusing anyone, we’re just asking questions.”

The questions are tough, however, and suggest the answers could shine a spotlight on what kinds of conspiracies may have been involved:
1. Why did WTC7, which was not struck by an airplane, appear to be a controlled demolition?
2. Why did the Minneapolis FBI arrive before the Duluth FBI at the Wellstone crash site in Eveleth?
3. How could Bush have won Ohio when exit polls, accurate to within 1%, showed Kerry winning by 4%?

Cavlan’s strategy appears crafted to a small but highly energized base, but he may also be tapping into a hidden but common sentiment in the electorate. As Cavlan describes it, “I raise these questions on the campaign trail and people say, ‘yeah’.” Cavlan is seeking Green Party endorsement. His web site is www.cavlan.org.


At Wed Apr 19, 03:48:00 PM CDT, Blogger Tom Cleland said...

I wrote this article for 10 indy media sites throughout the nation!

At Wed Apr 19, 05:23:00 PM CDT, Blogger Sheryl said...

Great to see you are also keeping active politically, Tom!

I'm kind of proud that I went to the Feingold event because I'm actually rather burnt out on politics, but I'm still trying to keep my own ball rolling at least.

I think that is what we have to do, eh?

At Wed Apr 19, 06:00:00 PM CDT, Blogger Sheryl said...

If you are sure about this gentleman, maybe you should suggest him for Feingold's progressive patriot fund:


I imagine that they have a limited number of awards they can hand out, so there are no guarantees, but I think it's effectively a progressive PAC.

At Wed Apr 19, 09:10:00 PM CDT, Blogger Tom Cleland said...

Ok, I went ahead and did it, though I think Cavlan will be disqualified because he is a Green. I also put one in for McKinney.

At Thu Apr 20, 01:05:00 AM CDT, Blogger Sheryl said...

Maybe, but the group supported Bernie Sanders who is an independent. Might depend more on who your guy is running against since the main thing to any such PAC is to get the most bang for the buck.

The best progressive greens to support would be in situations where you have republicans running as democrats (like if there was a good progressive green running against Henry Cuellar here in Texas, then I think that that person should get money quicker.) Cause the alternatives are dire.

If you think about it, there are places where the grassroots progressive democrats want one guy, but the general population doesn't really know what that politician has been doing, so they vote him in again on name recognition. Or maybe they vote him in because he has more money to barrage the public with commercials. But that is where the greens should be focusing if they want to not only win, but be seen as beneficial.

In other words, I think the Green party should be filling in the cracks where the democrats are failing 'cause that would be a win win situation. I don't think most grassroots activists would be opposed to supporting a green candidate against Henry Cuellar, for example. He is a democratic candidate, but he is well hated amongst democratic activists.

Or the spoiler candidates--if Gene Kelly had won against Barbara Radnofsky for the US Senate here in Texas, then I think I would have been perfectly happy to vote Green in the final election.

So maybe a Green strategy should be to look for democratic spoiler candidates, and when they win in the primaries, to go hard against them in the general election. As well as the folks like Cuellar who are democrat in name only. That way you get some greens in Congress to change the laws without taking good democrats out. Cause people like Cuellar aren't voting to promote democratic interests anyway. He's just running as democrat because he could not win as a republican in his particular district, but he votes along with Bush in Congress.

I bet you money that the progressive democratic groups would consider jumping party lines in cases like that. I certainly would. If he were in my district, I would vote for a progressive Green over Cuellar in a flash. Wouldn't even have to think about it.

At Fri Apr 21, 10:53:00 AM CDT, Blogger Tom Cleland said...

I’m delighted that you’re starting to think Green, and I agree it’s good advice to target the most conservative Democrats. A lot of our members are focusing on local races—I tend to be more interested in state and national issues.

Michael’s Democratic opponent, Amy Klobuchar, has no timetable for getting us out of Iraq, and is not calling for an independent investigation into the Ohio vote count. She’s a party hack who has paid her dues and now she has the inside track to the nomination. She’s very glib. I call her Amy "Glib"uchar.

Even some of the most progressive Democrats, though, aren’t really that progressive. Jay Pond, our candidate for Congress from the Minneapolis area, observed the incumbent in the first half of 2005 and writes, "Both Obey and Sabo's questions sounded as though they'd come straight out of the accounts payable tutorial in QuickBooks."



Post a Comment

<< Home