Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #1 
We need candidates from all  levels. It does not matter what level or whether you win or lose. What is important is to start getting the message out. A seat on Parks and Recreation, School Board,  city council, Justice of the Peace,  or any other position is important in representing the Justice Party.

Something to consider is if you are not running against a Green Party Candidate and support the 10 Points of their Platform then a fusion candidate is a possibility. We should be open to working with others to meet common objectives.

If you do run, please contact me at eh.griffith@yahoo.com and I will see if we can work together to get a New Progressive Alliance endorsement and description of your issues on the NPA website.

Good luck!
Ed Griffith
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #2 
Experience?   Strategy?  Financing?  Workers?

Will there be enough, and how would you accomplish that.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Experience?   Strategy?  Financing?  Workers?

Will there be enough, and how would you accomplish that.


I am not God and, speaking strictly for myself,  will just do what I can with the New Progressive Alliance at

http://newprogs.org/

If you wait for things to be perfect or for the democratic/republican Uniparty to reform then it will be a long wait. The NPA endorsed 54 candidates from 23 states in 2012 and published their campaign information on our website.  I believe the Justice Party would certainly help that much as well.  Most bravely ran without resources to make a point. Except for President (which we endorsed) I did not see anybody else run from the Justice Party. I am stating such brave people are appreciated and needed. I will do what I can to help.
pierre790

Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #4 
This is the perfect time to address this issue.If the Justice Party can run some good candidates in the 2014 elections and maybe even win one or two,it will help a lot for the 2016 race.If people put enough effort into this now,a 50 state campaign is achievable.
Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #5 
Where were you BEFORE the election? I could have used an NPA endorsement here in VT, where I ran as an 'independent' 'Justice' candidate (as did Rocky).  Being as I too, am not god, and just doing the best I can to muddle through, I really coulda used some help...  But then again, VT is such a progressive state, the actual Progressives prolly scooped up all the love   I tried to reach out to the VT Prog party, but they didn't really want to deal with national politics, and they are closely allied to the Dem party here.  I think that overall, we need to build more coalition, and have less divisiveness overall.

Ben Eastwood, VT SPP

__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #6 
Ben -- and honestly, I am not trying to rub anything in -- see, this is why some coordination and planning is needed before "heading out" on the campaign trail.  If this party had just taken a deep breath, figured out a few ways of combining energy in a constructive manner, you would have been spared additional grief.   I understand maybe this is a minor event (it probably is), but now you have an example of why I am so stubbornly advocating decent planning and strategizing first.

I am not blaming YOU, just the lack of foresight by the leadership at large.  Who knows what might happen if we were to measure twice, and cut once.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #7 
Ben, please contact me (Ed Griffith eh.griffith@yahoo.com) if you run again and I will try to give you a little publicity. All any of us can do is muddle through the best that we can. It beats sitting back and complaining about others who are trying to do something.

I agree with No Difference's comment
Quote:
Who knows what might happen if we were to measure twice, and cut once.


I am speaking as a member of the New Progressive Alliance (NPA) who would like some coordination between allies and not as a member of the Justice Party so take my below comments for whatever they are worth.

  • The NPA and Green Platform's ten points are similar and have been a basis for cooperation. If the Justice Party gets a Platform (not too long) then that Platform could be the basis for further cooperation between the Justice Party and others. I worry a little that the JP's emphasis on a balanced budget may mean they are buying into the idea of discredited austerity measures.
  • Some small parties have had success with Fusion candidates. For instance each party could support its own candidate and endorse candidates of another party where their candidates were not running.
  • I am worried about time. Rocky Anderson did not leave enough time to build up a good campaign for president. It looks like the JP is doing it again by holding its convention in fall of 2014 instead of fall of 2013. If you are serious about building a party, two years is enough time to do "some coordination and planning,"  run some people in 2014, and then take the lessons learned and apply it to 2016. Waiting until fall 2014 until the first get together means you are delaying any runs until 2016 and are not serious about building the JP. The time to do this, if you are serious, is right now.

What is involved in this necessary planning? Off the top of my head:
  • a Platform 
  • A list of Candidates running in 2013-2015 and their contact numbers/email addresses in a conspicuous place on the website. It does not matter if there are only three running for dog catcher. It is a start from which you can expand.
  • Think about fusion candidates and joining with others. No one party can possibly  cover the United States alone.

I am sure there are many other items to coordinate and plan for. I am just suggesting that if the JP is serious about building for the future the time to take No Difference's advice for action is right now.



No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed2291
All any of us can do is muddle through the best that we can. It beats sitting back and complaining about others who are trying to do something.

Ed, Ben:  Actually, what I am suggesting is that we do not need to "muddle" through the best we can.  Please give me a chance, people.

What I am really suggesting is that we need to slow down, as I am stating here, which you say you agree with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by (my original quote)
Who knows what might happen if we were to measure twice, and cut once.


With regard to NPA and other parties and groups, I admit to my usual cynicism, and I hope you will be patient with me there.  My worry, after having tried to work with the PDA and some other groups outside the Democratic Party while I was with the GP, I discovered that the PDA people are manipulative.   Ultimately, they want to treat you like a potential convert, not as a respected equal.  You are not allowed to argue with them or you will be heaped with a huge guilt trip about not supporting Democrats because they are oh-so-much-better than the other pig party.

Worse still was the backlash from the GP.  I have to admit that it probably was a mistake to attempt to work with the PDA without ground support for doing this from the GP (my bad, although I think the GP did not even try to evaluate a strategy for doing this).

My concern is that like most of the so-called "Left" in this country, it is tied up in one or more connections to the Democratic Party.  The difficulties of that issue could be a separate thread alone!  I won't belabor it here, regardless of our respective stands on that.  Just let me remind folks here that the key difference between the Democrats (and their front groups PDA, OFA, DFA, MoveOn, etc) and parties on the Left is that the Democrats take corporate money and we do not.  (I haven't heard of any smaller Left parties taking ugliemonie.)   Please, wherever else these threads on cooperation with Democratic Party, Democrats, and fusion candidacies may go, let's be vigilant in rejecting the influence of ugliemonie.

I am not saying that the time to take action is right now.  I am saying, rather, that the time for carefully planning and determining our path should be started now.  But not starting campaigns and the like just yet.  The reason I say this is because I think we need time to figure out who is on board, and which direction we want to go exactly.

You even point out that there seem to be elements of right wing dysfunction in the platform as it stands; I agree and I am not up for supporting that at all.  So we need to get that addressed first.  What you don't want to do is change the attack in the middle of the battle; it will appear we are waffling.  And please don't excuse this one or that one item as "minor" because these are key issues.

I want to say that I appreciate the seemingly endless energy of youth.  I hope that youth here will find a way to appreciate the skills and wisdom that come out of the experience of life (and since you already have some, you should not find that so difficult).  So, please slow down enough that some of us can participate also.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #9 
Well said No Difference! At 60 with a failing body, I especially appreciate you saying "I appreciate the seemingly endless energy of youth." Perhaps my impatience is I would like to live to see the start of a change. Other groups have promised change and faded away over the past 50 years or so.

Quote:
I am not saying that the time to take action is right now.  I am saying, rather, that the time for carefully planning and determining our path should be started now.  But not starting campaigns and the like just yet.  The reason I say this is because I think we need time to figure out who is on board, and which direction we want to go exactly.


So, how is it going? Can I help? From the outside looking in, I just don't see either the planning or the campaigning. I'm just a guy that wishes you luck because I believe a vibrant JP is in everyone's best interest.

·     

No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed2291
So, how is it going? Can I help? From the outside looking in, I just don't see either the planning or the campaigning. I'm just a guy that wishes you luck because I believe a vibrant JP is in everyone's best interest.


Not sure how you mean this exactly.  When you say "how is it going?" I can't help wondering if you are poking me just a bit, in fun.

I think your perceptions are right about the lack of planning and campaigning.  My point is just that trying to rush something into existence by repeated appeals and cliches won't do anything to make something happen.  I picture it something like beating an animal to get it to move and running after it faster and faster beating it so it will continually speed up, only to have it drop dead from exhaustion.

Ed, what happens to most smaller political parties?  I've sat through endless "strategy" meetings in the GP.  I use quotes because they really don't have any.  They instead co-opt the term to mean petitioning for ballot access, so everyone works on ballot access until finally, after much time, money, and energy is pissed away, we get ballot access.  Then, since we don't have any candidates, the GP starts recruiting anyone and everyone they can to run for an office regardless of having any experience or not.   Whether they have any knowledge of the politics and issues involved.  Whether they are prepared or not.  It doesn't matter; we have all these wide open ballot slots, so we therefore need to fill them.

And how many Greens make it into office?   The highest offices the GP have ever held were a few state legislative offices.  Usually, though, what happens is that the lone Green in the Leg can't do it on their own and end up caucusing with the ... Democrats (no duh, who'da thought, right?).  If they don't jump parties altogether.   Thanks for all the hard work you had me do, people, really appreciate it.   I was supporting the Green Platform, but you have effectively tricked me.  I end up feeling like a loser because all that hard work just got another Democrat, not a Green, elected.  (oh yeah?  watch how quickly their position changes once they are under the protective wing of the DP.  Puhleese...)

My idea of strategy addresses this and a few other issues.  And it is not some silver bullet; depending on which state and how their ballot access laws work, the strategy changes.  And I am not even considering fusion voting or other make-believe democratic reforms which are not.  Cross-endorsements may make sense where a Democrat is refusing dirty campaign money, but that's the only case.  Fusion is just cross-endorsement one step higher.  I want nothing to do with dirty money since that is what has sold our democracy in the first place.   And these approaches could be helpful to party development and branding, or they can be exceedingly harmful.

All I am asking for is an opportunity to do some well-thought-out strategizing before even considering candidates.   Getting ballot access is all very doable, as my own experience has demonstrated.  It's been done many times, so it is not an issue, and let's not focus on that.  Think about this:  If we had a solid strategy, we would have no problem getting ballot access; in fact, the public might come flocking to us, rather than us having to pester people for sigs at the monthly art walk, without having to worry that we might be petitioning illegally, etc.   And I am discussing this in the context of the laws as they now stand, not how it ought to be or could be if ... if ... if ...   My approach is grounded in the reality of the day.  (Not to say we should not support changes, but let's work with what we have.)

To me, getting ballot access for a party of few or no candidates is like putting the cart before the horse.  A political party does not necessarily have to rely on the state's strict rules for entering a race.  There may be other alternatives also.  For instance, there is nothing that says you can't brand all of your campaign literature, signage, and the like with your party logo and name, even if the race is non-partisan or you are running someone as an independent.  In fact, in many cities, you have to do this, because the elections board will not print the name of the party next to your candidate(s).



__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Robert

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
It is absolutely right to warn of the corrupting influence of money. Both 350 and the Sierra Club seemed to change to an Obama cheerleader as the election got closer.


Are you actually suggesting that 350.org and the Sierra Club enthusiastically supported Obama because of the corrupting influence of money? I for one don't buy that charge and I hope nobody else does. May I suggest an alternative hypothesis? Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney, appeared ready to gut 40 years of environmental regulations. In addition, Romney would not agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. Don't you think it is possible that the main motivation of these two organizations was to keep Romney out of office to protect the environment? I hope that on this web site that when people make charges about the corrupting influence of money on specific organizations or individuals they would take time to connect the dots. If the dots can't be connected then the charge should not be made.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed2291
Many of us in the NPA have shared No Difference's frustration with the Green Party. Sometimes they seem like a front for the democrats, other times they act as if their enemies were other third parties instead of the democratic/republican Uniparty. That is why a vibrant JP is in everyone's best interest. (There are many shades of Green in the GP. Some you can work with, others are democrats or people who believe it is better to retain purity and lose alone rather than win with help.)


I'm not sure if the Greens are "like a front for the democrats" -- I have other impressions, but not that one.  I do agree that smaller parties do fight amongst themselves, as well as the never-ending internal factiousness and fractiousness.  But, as I have written elsewhere, it is just my opinion that the Left is both blessed and condemned, simultaneously, to have so many different opinions and approaches.  Not all of them are necessarily well-founded, and once again, some of these splits are due to leadership issues, not any quintessential philosophical differences; let's hope those are the more rare causes.  I think it is safe to say that the Trotskyists, Maoists, Leninists, and others don't agree on certain points, enough so that splits really are understandable (to them at least, even if not to the rest of us).

The Greens, in this regard, are no different than their smaller party brethren.  You are both right to point out the stark similarities in platforms between the Greens and JP, and even many other smaller parties.  But there are reasons all of these evolve.  I mean, let's be realistic here:  If we are going to point to other parties splitting the Left, what about the JP, which didn't even exist until about a year ago.  How might the Greens, WFP, and others view the rather sudden appearance of the JP when they have been offering similar platforms for decades?

I'm not suggesting the JP is wrong for starting a new party.  But we might be cautious before we cast the first stone in that disagreement.

BTW, the Greens are just as anti-corporate in their political philosophy as anyone else on the Left (and here, by "Left," I do exclude the Democrat Party for these purposes).  They do indeed recognize the common enemy of us all; make no mistake about that.

All political parties desire a certain level of purity, which is why they exist in the first place.  The only exception I can think of would be fusion parties which exist mainly for symbolic reasons than any real split with one of the duopoly parties.  I think the term "purity" is being cast about here because perhaps there is a misunderstanding about what it means to organize and run your own candidates.  If one feels so strongly that it is better to work with Democrats, then they should go do that.  If one feels their own agenda is different enough from the DP, they should make a go with an alternative.  But I don't like to hear wholesale discounting of what I (and others) may feel are important distinctions and worthwhile, humanitarian goals.   We all know the DP will not get us there.

Again, if there were no real differences between candidates of one party from another, there would be no need for the variety of parties that do or might exist, even in this hostile and undemocratic system.  I think the differences are often quite palpable, and therefore do serve a useful purpose.   Now if we could only get one of them to actually turn into a real contender to the duopoly.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #13 

A few quick points:  The VT Progressive Party ran a candidate for governor specifically to block any other candidates from the party from running and challenging the Democrat.  When the candidate (who was also the party chair) was nominated she withdrew.  Meanwhile, the party nominated sitting democratic Sec State to represent the Progs.  This man accused his challenger in the primary 2 races ago of not being a partisan enough democrat, and this year ran as a Democrat,Republican,Progressive,working families candidate.  Fusion candidates can be a bad thing.  the progs were unwilling to support Rocky, because of their local focus, but are basically as terrified as most of the other sheep, that the evil republicans will swoop in and wreck everything if they ever disagree with the Democrats. 

I am all for measuring twice and cutting once, but then again, if nobody is giving you the tape to measure with, sometimes you have to eyeball it.  Rocky and the JP screwed the pooch by attempting to run so soon with no support, but I felt it was important to get him on the ballot as a starting point to building the party.  Building the party is also part of why I ran, though I also ran because I wanted to raise awareness of the GMO bill here, and, quite frankly, to learn.  I didn't figure I would win, but I knew I would learn from the experience, and I was already out there gathering signatures.  In VT is cost me nothing but my time to run.  Because I had to expend so much energy in fighting to get Rocky on, which included a sucessful lawsuit against the afore mentioned sec state, I had no energy or time left to campaign.  My family suffered because I was spending so much time on the election.  As it stands, the JP pretty much followed the pattern No Diff mentioned with the GP. 

We NEED to build functioning state parties to survive, let alone get candidates elected.  Right now the JP is a top down party, and a head without a body is pretty useless.  IF we cannot get the party formed in VT this year, we won't be able to run candidates in 2014 except as independents with little no party support allowed.  If we can't run a bevy of candidates, including some statewide, we won't have any chance in 2016.  If the JP can't do it in VT, which is the EASY state, then this party is pretty much an excercise in futility.


__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
As it stands, the JP pretty much followed the pattern No Diff mentioned with the GP.


Which pattern?  You mean the one big campaign "at the top" (presidential race) and little else to show for the effort?

Yet, if anyone were to suggest lining up candidates first, rather than last, we are viewed as somehow being insolent to leadership and not performing what they see as membership's primary duty to the party!

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #15 
I was referring to expending enormous amounts of money, blood sweat and tears to achieve ballot access only to see no plan beyond that.  You had mentioned that about the GP in one of your earlier posts somewhere. 
__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!