SF Mayor Race: "Mud flies over rumored Green Party invasion"

[eablair3]

The Revolution is ON! :)

I noticed that some real dems are endorsing Green candidate Matt Gonzalez for SF Mayor in the runoff race against establishment "dem" Gavin Newsom, who is backed by big money, big business and the establishment.

They must be getting a little concerned because the Establishment "Dems" are now letting the mud fly -- a campaign organizer for estblishment "dem" Newsom (the organizer is a REPUBLICAN) attacked the personal hygiene of Greens and compared the Green candidate for SF Mayor to the genocidal cult leader Jim Jones.

I'd say it was "Unbelievable", but I don't put anything past these establishment Dems, many of which are REPUGS! Many of them are REPUGS masquerading as Dems! They took over the REPUG Party and now they are trying to masquerade as Dems.

Here's the article from two days ago from the SF Examiner (sorry if it was posted before; if it was, I missed it):

Mud flies over rumored Green Party invasion

By J.K. Dineen
Of The Examiner Staff
[e-mail]
Published on Thursday, November 20, 2003


Green Party members from around the country are planning to flock to The City to rally behind the mayoral campaign of Matt Gonzalez, according to activists in Wisconsin, Oregon and Maine.

Greens in Portland, Ore. met last night to plan the logistics of the trip south, which they expect will include two busloads of volunteers.

"We're hearing from people all over the country who are planning on heading to San Francisco by Election Day to help Matt beat Gavin," said Marnie Glickman, co-chair of the United States Green Party and a Portland, Ore. resident.

snip

On Tuesday, Ryan Chamberlain, District 1 field organizer of the Newsom campaign and elected Republican County Central Committee member, sent out an e-mail warning that "1000-plus Greenies are bussing in to work full-time for the last two weeks of the campaign."

"Folks, we need you in any way, shape or form, around the clock," he said.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.sfexaminer.com/templates/story.cfm?displaystory=1&storyname=112003n_green

[dsc]

1. I have it on good authority

that calling candidates cult leaders isn't mudslinging. At least it isn't if the candidate is Dean.

[eablair3]

2. Dean?

explanation? sorry, I didn't quite get that one. You mean it's been determined by some or one that its "okay" for Dean to call other candidates "Cult Leaders"? I missed that.

[dsc]

8. one of the several attack memes on Dean

is that Dean is a cult leader and we are kool aid drinking cultits.

[eablair3]

10. sounds like a right wing attack method or "talking point"

I haven't heard that one, but I'm not following Dean *that* closely. I want Dennis Kucinich to Win!

I do know and have seen quite a few of the "attacks" on Dean due to his being the front runner so far. thanks

[JailBush]

3. I support third parties, BUT...

You'd better make sure those third parties aren't functioning as corporate operatives. The Green Party of Seattle is absolutely corrupt. Unfortuantely, so are King County Democrats. So who are we supposed to vote for - Republicans?

[eablair3]

5. please tell me how the Seattle Green Party is corrupt?

seeing as how Greens don't take money from corporations, I'd be interested in hearing how they are corrupt and/or are "corporate operatives".

and, you mean the Republicans are not corrupt? they are not "corporate operatives"?

[JailBush]

11. No, Republicans are corrupt, too.

I'll put my findings online as soon as I finish revising my websites. You can start by looking at Seattle Greens' issues and track records; there's virtually nothing to look at.

They're shenanigans are especially obvious in the field of public education - or maybe it's just that that's the issue I'm most familar with. Brita Butler-Wall recently got elected to the Seattle School Board after waging a "fiscal accountability" campaign.

What a crock! I tried to convince her to help campaign for an INDEPENDENT AUDIT years ago, but she just gave me the cold shoulder. Even now, she hasn't said a word about the recent Seattle Schools "audit," which was obviously phony.

Sally Soriano is another green who just got elected. She claims she's been an education advocate for 25 years. So why didn't I hear of her until just a few years ago? I've been extremely active in education activism for more than five years and ran for office THREE TIMES. Sally never contacted me. I supported an Asian American teacher who filed an extraordinary lawsuit against the Seattle School District; we never saw Sally Soriano's face in the courtroom. But I recently saw a photo of Sally protesting in defense of another Asian American school employee - one of the district's most corrupt administrators. What gives?

Four years ago, the Greens backed another spineless one-issue candidate, Dwight Van Winkle.

Then there's Joe Swajza (spelling?). He's a Seattle Schools teacher who ran for Congress. With all his publicity and political involvement, you'd think he'd be speaking out against the corruption in the Seattle School District. If you can find anything on the Internet, please let me know.

Brita Butler-Wall and Sally Soriano were lavishly praised by left-wing media whore Geov Parrish. I believe one or both were endorsed by the corrupt Seattle Weekly.

Parrish named FOUR school board challengers who he labeled outsiders - including one that's a member of Greg Nickels' administration!

And if these individuals were REALLY outsiders, why didn't the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the Seattle media put up a fight? They declared World War III against Charlie Chong, perhaps Seattle's best known outsider "activist."

Check out the Green Party of Seattle's website and the website of the Citizens' Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools (CCCS), which is practically a Green Party affiliate. Collectively, they boast hundreds of members, yet they apparently can't organize two or three of them to make decent websites or put any information online.

CCCS' number one issue is fighting commercialism in schools. That's a good issue, but it's also just the tip of the corporate iceberg. As a matter of fact, their incessant one-issue campaign is a great diversion from bigger issues.

I was shocked when another anti-commercialism group based in Portland, Oregon, presented an award - to the corrupt Seattle School Board! Even more surprising, this group is headed by Ralph Nader!!!

What the Hell's going on here? Are all these hundreds of Greens and activists unbelievably ignorant, stupid or corrupt? I've contacted them many times and told them what the score is, all to no avail. The verdict's simple: They're corrupt.

[thebigidea]

6. so who is left? You?

[JailBush]

12. So who is "left," as in REMAINING, or on the level?

Unfortunately, I'm just about it. If you can point me to any other Seattle activists who are genuine, please do.

[La_Serpiente]

4. Do you really think Gonzalez could win?

Which demographic groups would go against him? What are the unions saying? Also, what has Bernie Ward been saying? I don't think he likes Gonzalez.

[eablair3]

7. YES --- a poll about a week or two ago had Gonzalez ahead

it was close, but Gonzalez was ahed by 49-47 percent iirc -- a "statistical dead heat". I posted a thread on it in here, and there were about 50-60 replies. I don't have the search ability, or else I'd hunt down the url for that thread.

I just thought it was amazing to see an elected REPUG committee member as a campaign organizer for "dem" Gavin Newsom. Need there be much more said?

The demogrpahic groups that will go against Gonzalez are the REPUGS, the big money,l the big business, and the establishment corporate type. Bernie Ward is an establishment corporate type that I have not seen ever goes for the more progressive candidate, even though he espouses his "progressive line" on the radio. Bernie's all talk. It's a facade. It's for ratings. When the chips are down, he'll back the establishment Dem or even a REPUG (Tom Campbell or Richard Riordan as examples). Can you think of a bigger hypocrite than one who proclaims himself the "Lion of the Left" and then goes out and backs Repugs, and establishment Dems like Davis, when the chips are down? Should anyone that proclaims themselves to be the "Lion of the Left" ever back a Repug?

Bernie says how important it is to get Dems in office because of federal judgeships, but then he has backed Repugs. The guy is a hypocrite, almost as much as Rush Limbaugh. I still listen to his show though. In this race, Bernie is, of course, backing the guy he feels comfortable about, and, not surprisingly, that candidate is Gavin Newsom, who is backed by big money and the establishment. I haven't heard Bernie go negative, too much, on Gonzalez (at least compared to when Bernie talks of Greens in general or Ralph Nader), but he is very much backing the establishment dem candidate Newsom, who the REPUGS are backing as well. The REPUGS backed Newsom in the general election as well, and I think many dems in SF are starting to figure this out. But, it's certainly not because of Bernie.

[La_Serpiente]

9. Yeah

I was listening to his show one time and he was critical of this person who was even more left of center than him and was lambasting him. I didn't really like that, and I won't listen to him anymore.

[IndianaGreen]

13. While we may agree about putting a Democrat in the White House

in 2004 in order to save the country and the world, the sad truth remains that despite of the efforts of many good and conscientious Democrats, the party machinery and Establishment is controlled by the same big money interests that control the GOP.

We will never take back the country unless we take the party back! Failing that, the only alternative is to vote for progressive candidates regardless of which party label they run under.

I will point out, however, that the Green Party is not a panacea for all of our problems. The two Green groups in the US are still defenders of bourgeois democracy, despite their anti-globalization trappings. Once the Greens achieve power they are no different from the other bourgeois parties they criticized. Look at how Germany's Greens capitulated once they were in government and endorsed Bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UN vote that gave the imprimatur to Paul Bremer's regency in Iraq.

[Tinoire]

14. Sad but true

What we need is a REAL DEMOCRACY- one with many groups and proportional representation. You would think that in the 21st century we would have come further than this- instead we are stuck in a paleolithic 2-Party system that too many are trying to merge into one party.

[eablair3]

16. it's not true

what you say about it being a 2-party system is true. And, it will be tough to overcome that and institute IRV and proportional representation systems, as well as some others that are more true to real democracy.

but, if you are saying that what IndianaGreen said is true, then it's not. Which party is advocating IRV? Which party is advocating proportional representation to promote real democaracy? How do you think people can get the system changed to get a better democracy with those concepts instituted? Do you think, like IndianaGreen, that it's uselss or nonproductive to back Greens, who advocate those reforms, because once they achieve power, they will be "no different that the bourgeois parties" they criticized to get there? If you do, what's your solution? Armed rebellion? Sit on the net and make posts to DU?

[eablair3]

15. disagree

>>>I will point out, however, that the Green Party is not a panacea for all of our problems. The two Green groups in the US are still defenders of bourgeois democracy, despite their anti-globalization trappings. Once the Greens achieve power they are no different from the other bourgeois parties they criticized. Look at how Germany's Greens capitulated once they were in government and endorsed Bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UN vote that gave the imprimatur to Paul Bremer's regency in Iraq.<<<

Did anyone say that or contend that the Green Party IS a panacea for all of our problems? I hesistate to ask what you think are "all of our problems" so I won't.

"The two Green groups in the US are still defenders of bourgeois democracy, despite their anti-globalization trappings."

You sound like the idiot at WSWS who recently wrote the articles critical of Greens and of Peter Camejo, and which were based on so much patently false statements and information that it was a joke. But, since I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this sentence, I will ask you to explain. I'd especially be interested in the teh party -- you know the one that ran Ralph Nader for President. I think you said you voted for Nader. So, I hope you know which one I mean. You know, the one with the Ten Key Values. Not the one that wants to institute communism. Since you voted for the Green candidate for President, Ralph Nader, then you should have some idea of how he is a "defender of bourgeois democracy". I'd be interested in reading an explanation of that statement.

Once the Greens achieve power they are no different from the other bourgeois parties they criticized.

Why did you vote for Green Ralph Nader then? I disagree with this sentence of your post. I think that by not taking corporate money at any stage, which the Greens pledge and have done -- that it will go a good ways to reducing corruption in your "bourgeois parties", whichever those are. Are the Greens the saviour of humanity? No, but who claimed that they are? Are they better than those backed and bought by corporate money?

The part of where you cite to the German Greens was the most telling and made be again think of the guy with the falsities in his articles at WSWS. So, assuming that your post is mostly correct on this (and that's assuming A LOT), do you often condemn a whole party or group because of the actions of some? The guy at WSWS that wrote those articles sounded like he had a bad case of sour grapes, as the Greens were actually making headway and being included in national televised debates while all that the WSWS could do was to sit back and write critcal articles at an obscure website on the net, accomplishing little if anything.

[newyawker99]

17. eablair3

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.

NYer99
DU Moderator

[eablair3]

18. thanks

thanks for poiting that out newyawker. I didn't realize that was a hard and fast rule, as I thought it was more of a general rule subject to exceptions. I thought I needed to post this amount here to get the thrust of the article across, and I thought that paragraphs had to be more than one sentence usually. But, thanks for pointing this rule out, ... I'll follow it.

[Terwilliger]

19. Just like I said...Republicans

Dems fight just like the Pukes do :eyes:

[MSchreader]

20. If Gonzalez wins in SF, that just about guarantees

Peter Camejo will turn his attention to 2004 and the Green nomination for president.

Martin