[NC-Discuss] Words from a wise friend and careful observer in MA....

[John Walsh]

Hi John,
The question of how best to use the presidential campaign to benefit the
Green Party needs honest fact-based discussion, not groundless advocacy and
slogans.  It's easy to have a faith-based position.  But having a position
that has been fact-tested takes a little more work.

The 2004 Cobb campaign was a non-event if not a disaster.  Here are some
figures:

• In  2004, Cobb/LaMarche received 10,623 votes in Massachusetts.  This was
about 1/7 of the 76,530 votes that Stein/Lorenzen received in a four-way
race for Governor in 2002.  Two years after the Cobb run,   Ross/Robinson
received 43,032 votes, a loss of 44% from the achievement of
Stein/Lorenzen.   As a result of the Cobb/LaMarche showing, the Green Party
lost ballot status in six states.  This does not indicate Party-building
success.

• Cobb/Lamarche did even worse elsewhere.  Nationwide in 2004 ,
Cobb/Lamarche received 119,862 votes.    As Steve Greenfield says "We
actually tallied less than one tenth of one percent in 2004. Let that flow
over you."  The Cobb/LaMarche nationwide total was about 1/3 of the votes
that Jill Stein and Jamie O'Keefe received *in a single state* in 2006.

While the Presidential race may have benefits in some states in some years,
it is very difficult to make it work nationwide.  Developing a good strategy
requires honesty, care, and work.  It also requires a willingness to reject
the  slogans about how lack of ideological purity is responsible for our
lackluster showing.  The evidence is pretty clear that running a dedicated
Green with little national stature, who is touting party-building, is a
disaster for party-building.  Voters don't want to hear about how wonderful
the Green Party is, or will be some day.  That only goes over in the tiny
inner circles of true believers.  A successful candidate has to talk about
gut issues that people really care about - and third parties is definitely
not such an issue.  This is based on fact, not faith.

The one sure thing we know is that when Ralph Nader ran for President, the
Green Party made tremendous strides in votes, membership, and ballot
status.  The GP benefited from having a well-known and articulate candidate
who was respected far beyond the small groups of Party insiders.  Of course,
this is bitterly resented by those insiders who think they can lecture to
the Party even if they have been proven totally incompetent on the larger
field of electoral politics.  The fact that they won't apologize for 2004 is
very significant.  If you can't learn from experience, you are destined to
be a continuing failure in strategy formulation.

For the moment,  I will not comment on how well Cynthia McKinney might do if
she is the 2008 nominee.
......
I received the above from a careful observer of the GP national and
statewide scene here in MA.
Best,
john walsh (MA delegate)