Chlorophyll

In which Peter complains about websites and asks more leading questions.

KEEPING THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE DARK

Traditionally, part of what right wings do to keep control is to prevent information from reaching the membership of the group they are a part of.

For instance when the primaries and state conventions were being held in preparation for our convention in 2004, the Green Party national website avoided printing how many Greens attended conventions or participated in caucuses or how many voted in our primaries and for whom. They only listed the number of delegates allocated to candidates.

When did we establish that it was the job of the national website to publish such statistics? To say it "avoided" printing them assumes - again - that there was intentionality and malice in this. There is no proof for this. Indeed, Peter offers no hint of evidence. (To be sure, I'm not opposed to publishing such numbers, I just don't see how the national is required to do this.)

If they had listed the actual votes in the primaries and the size of the State conventions it would have been so transparently clear that Cobb had lost overwhelmingly inside the Green Party.

If this is so, then the Greater Evil Greens shouldn't have any trouble doing this job themselves. The proof should be readily available. However, they would need to be careful to get every state's statistics, because if they continue to cherry-pick their evidence, it would not be difficult to point out. Again.

Do you think for one second if Cobb had done well in the primaries those figures would not have appeared as headlines in the Green Party web site?

Certainly, I do. Assertions (and leading questions) like this are not evidence. They are speculation.

After being crushed in three primaries where thousands of Greens voted in California, New Mexico, and Massachusetts, the pro-Cobb Greens did not want the membership to see those figures.

"After" these three primaries? Is this meant to imply that such statistics were on the national website before?

They still do not exist on our national web site.

Here, let me try a leading question or two of my own: Do you think for one second that if such figures actually bolstered Peter's case that he would hesitate to lay them out right here, right now? Might it not be the case that he can't question the results, so he tries to cast doubt on the process by leveling senseless accusations at non-participants?

Now through the effort of Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI)we have started to discover what each state party's membership is. That is what these states themselves say they have. Do you think for one second the Green Party's national web site will show the membership what those figures are?

Why should it? Membership is a state issue, not a national issue. There is no individual membership in the national party. More importantly, there is no uniform and agreed-upon definition of "membership" at the state level, so by definition, the national party (and its website) could not have such figures. Those figures can exist at the state level, but cannot be compiled at the national level, because their significance is not consistent across states.

In the future that should become a standard list adjusted once every four years for anyone to see.

That would be a fine idea... once we have a universal measure of what "one Green" is. To repeat myself, it is entirely unacceptable to take registration into account, because it is not universal. Besides, we don't need this or any government to calculate or validate our internal affairs.

MY MEETING WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE (SC)

I was invited to go to Washington DC and meet with the Steering Committee during the 2004 campaign. I agreed to do that. At that meeting, an interesting exchange took place when I mentioned that it was wrong to hide the results of our primaries or to not report how many Greens attended each state convention. Brent McMillan who has worked hard to provide a lot of the information available, protested thinking it had been posted.

Not being the world's best co mputer person I figured I as wrong and apologized. I assumed I just didn't know where to look. When I got home I searched where Brent had told me to go and emailed him asking for further help since I could not find the figures. Finally Brent realized himself that in fact the votes at never been posted.

So, let's see what we've learned, here. The section is labeled "Meeting with the SC," yet makes only the briefest mention of the SC. That's not really the interesting part, thought.

The interesting part is that Peter attempts to establish that Brent was negligent in failing to provide the information. What he in fact points out is that Brent believed it had been posted. This seriously undermines Peter's contention that somehow someone had "avoided" posting the information.

UTAH

The main question of interest, at least for some of the SC members was what I had said in Utah to the Utah Greens. In Utah the Green Party had a rule that they had to reach pretty high level of consensus before decisions could be made. Some of the members had asked Cobb to come to Utah for a meeting and others asked that I also be invited so both points of view could be heard. David was unable to make the meeting so it turned out I was there alone to speak to a meeting of about 15 or so Greens. Some time after my meeting in Utah the Utah Greens could not reach a consensus on what to do regarding whether they would place Nader or Cobb on their ballot and decided not to place either. All three of the delegates sent by the Utah Party to Milwaukee had returned saying they were quite upset by what they saw.

Immediately the Cobb current went to work and split the Green Party. There were two Greens in charge of the treasury, one a Nader supporter the other a Cobb supporter. The Cobb supporter went to the bank and cleaned out the $3,000 or so dollars the Green Party had in Utah. This is usually referred to as a robbery. They proceeded to hold an emergency conference by phone where only certain Greens were invited and declared other Greens expelled.

They proceeded to "elect" a new leadership so that it would be 100%pro-Cobb and then went into court declaring the Cobb current the Green Party. The lower courts ruled against them. They appealed using the funds they had taken from the Green Party all the way to the State Supreme Court but they all ruled against them.

Because I attended a meeting in Utah, some of the Steering Committee members seemed to want to find a way to blame me for the split. I oppose the split.

Now the committee in charge of accrediting states within the Green Party, under the guidance of Steering Committee member Jody Haug, has declared the Cobb split the legitimate and official Green Party of Utah. Neither the SC nor the CC has approved that decision yet to my knowledge. Nor has there been any effort by the national leadership to reunify the Greens or even to have non-partisan investigation. Utah is the first case where such a split has taken place and where Greens were "expelled" for supporting Nader.

The "expelled" Greens and many other Greens in Utah who supported Nader waited to see if the Green Party Steering Committee would stop this split.

They informed me that in their opinion Dean Myerson and Holly Hart were orchestrating the split, and that in fact the national leadership supported splitting the Utah party in two. Utah Green candidates withdrew their candidacy in protest against the pro-Cobb coup. But those who would not go along with Cobb felt the Utah Green Party was being destroyed. Both wings now have a web site. The pro-Nader Greens consider the pro-Cobb Greens as part of the Green party. They want unity. The Cobb supporters want to continue the split. The national party web site only lists the Cobb Green's web site and has refused to include both.

In Utah some Greens pointed out to me that some of the leaders of the splitters where people who had supported Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich.

They also explained how this was the second time the Greens in Utah had had a split. The first time it was a group that also wanted to work with the Democrats. They split and then decided to join the Democratic Party.

Another example where Jody Haug is also involved is Vermont. The Vermont Greens decided not to place anyone on their ballot. Now the Lesser Evil current wants to do something about this. Note the difference in approach.

We GDI Greens who believe the Lesser Evil current did not carry the 2004convention fairly do not want to expel anyone.

Gosh, that's mighty big of you, Peter.

I won't do a better job responding to this than the people on the ground in Utah, so look for information here, here, and here.

We want to try and work things out with them and accept there are differences in our approach to the Democrats. That cannot be achieved without coming to an agreement around issues of democracy. The Lesser Evil current supports the split in Utah and is seeking action against Vermont and opposes one Green one vote.

ON THE WRONG TRACK

They are on the wrong track. This is the opposite of what is needed now. We need to mend the Green Party, establish rules that both currents can accept and try to maintain unity, and not seek to create a split. Forget the Democrats. They are not going to help us build the Green Party. The Democrats are part of the problem not the solution.

Continue on to part 4