More infernal debate

A new paper by several GDI folks, including Cat Woods from California, appeared today on Counter Punch. There really isn't anything new here, so before I get to it, I want to bring up a bit of actual news from the Oakland gathering this past weekend. Cat Woods passed a leaflet out that called for the Green Party of California to disaffiliate from the national party (GPUS) so that in the future, if we don't like the national candidate, we can appoint our own. In fact, she wanted to do this in 2004, when she sought a special state meeting to decide to whom to give our ballot line. The meeting never happened, but I asked whom she would have put on the ballot, given that the Green voters voted for Peter Camejo and the national convention selected David Cobb. Ralph Nader, of course. So the Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI) would have had a group of less than 100 people override the process of the national party and the voters in the state to select a candidate that is not even in the party! Well, that is certainly independent.

Back to the article. It is another revisiting of 2004, the rise of GDI, and the rejection of its proposals at the national meeting in Tulsa: At Tulsa, two currents came into conflict over the future of the Party--an assertive, radical wing embodied by the Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI) and a passive, liberal wing led by David Cobb and others closely tied to the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).

The article hinges on hyperbole and half-truths. I won't refute them here, but if you want to hear more about it you can e-mail me.