Opinions vary among Green Gals on the 2004 election dilemma I'll bet that headline got your attention, right? Good. That's what I was aiming for. I set out to survey some Green activists of the female gender on the burning question-what should be the Green Party position on next year's presidential election. So I focused on my own county, Santa Clara, and got an earful.
By Charlotte Casey
Shiloh Ballard has been registered Green since 1998 (?), is very interested and active in San Jose local politics, and puts a lot of energy into working to increase affordable housing in Silicon Valley. She summed up her stand in a simple phrase: "Big tent." She said, "The biggest threat to everything anyone left of center cares about is the current administration. We need to work together, collaboratively, with the Dems to make sure there is a regime change in DC. Very specifically, that means, big name Greens should actively campaign with and for the front runner 'non-Bush' candidate. There's simply too much at risk, especially given the trend in the Middle East."
Shiloh adds, "These alliances are also good for the Green Party in the long term. As we build relationships with more mainstream, conventional constituencies, we can better share information and create an environment that is more receptive to policies that are priorities to the Green Party."
Stephanie Schaaf is a young activist whose concerns range from the environment (she chairs the Political Committee of the Sierra Club's Loma Prieta Chapter) to justice for Palestinians. (She visited the occupied territories last year.) She says, "I am inclined to agree with Peter Camejo, who says that it is very arrogant of party leaders to unilaterally decide not to run a candidate. It is disrespectful to voters to assume that they will not be able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of voting a certain way and come to their own opinions. The Green party has its own platforms and beliefs that differ significantly from those of other parties, and as a political party, it is our job to put forward candidates that represent that platform. Personally, I plan to support a progressive Democratic candidate (namely Dennis Kucinich) in the primary season, but if a candidate I don't consider progressive gets the Democratic nomination, I want the opportunity to vote for a candidate I truly support and agree with: a Green presidential candidate."
Here's what Sarah Brandt had to say: "Although I belong to the Green Party and voted for Nader in 2000, I do not think the Green Party should run a candidate in 2004. I plan on re-registering as a Democrat so that I can vote in the primaries for who I think is the best candidate period, and that is Dennis Kucinich. He is the closest thing to being Green without actually being one, and I believe a Democrat has more of a chance of winning at this point. Of course we need more than a two-party system, but at a time like this, the important thing is getting Bush and his detrimental policies out of the White House. Running a Green Party member would take away from that goal by splitting the vote of those on the left." Sarah is a student, active in anti-war protests, and is determined to do everything possible to defeat Bush in 2004. (I informed Sarah that she can register "decline to state" and still be able to vote for Kucinich in the primary.)
> Green Focus Home
> Subscribe to Green Focus