Green Party to change name to Jonestown Party. Moving party headquarters to Guyana.

It’s good to see that there is a political party for people who have suffered from blunt head trauma. Here’s some choice bits:

The Green Party national leadership huddled here in Washington this weekend to plan strategy for next year’s elections. Some Greens long for their 2000 standard-bearer, Ralph Nader, to run again, while others speak warmly of left-leaning Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich. But mention of one name in particular draws scorn from Greens: Howard Dean, who some strategists now see as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

THEY MAY BE unorthodox in their views and relatively few in number — 2.8 million Green votes cast for president in 2000, compared to 100 million for the two major party candidates — but the Greens are likely to play a significant role in next year’s elections.


In the strategy session this weekend the shadow of the 2000 election fell across the planning for 2004. Some Greens proposed a focused campaign: the Green candidate, they argue, should only exert his or her efforts in “safe” states: places where there’s no chance of the Green vote “costing” the Democratic candidate the election.

So, for example a Green could run energetically in heavily Republican states such as Utah, without any dire consequences for the Democratic candidate who is almost certain to lose that state in any event.

Conversely, in predominantly Democratic states, such as Rhode Island, a Green could run without fear of siphoning so many votes from the Democrat that he would lose that state.

Apparently the problem with some of the Greens is that they haven’t grasped the concept that you’re supposed to win elections, not just make a good showing. Election Day isn’t Everyone Gets A Trophy Day.

Here’s a real braintrust who thinks she should be President:

New Mexico Green Carol Miller, who is also seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said, “A lot of progressives are focusing too much attention on the presidential election. I’m very worried about the make-up of the Senate. I would like not to see a filibuster-proof Senate. I don’t want to see 60 senators of a single party.”

As for the presidential election, Miller said, “I think Bush and Cheney are probably not going to run. There are very troubling accusations (about Iraq).”

Miller likens Bush to Lyndon Johnson, who withdrew from the 1968 race after a humiliating showing in the New Hampshire primary. “Johnson should have had his second election in the bag. But he had a war that didn’t turn out as he had planned.”

Yeah. Bush and Cheney won’t run because they’ll be, you know, like, embarassed and stuff. Then they’ll just give back that $170 million in campaign funds that they are slated to pick up and move back to Texas to open up an organic microbrewery.

Fortunately a few Greens have an inkling of a concept of a glimmer of a momentary flash of a thought:

“Were the Green spoiler effect in 2004 real or merely perceived, a Bush re-election combined with a Green spoiler would be the death knell for the party,” warn Maryland Green activists Diane Cameron and Joseph Horgan.

Medea Benjamin, the San Francisco anti-war agitator who was the Greens’ Senate candidate in California in 2000, said, “I’m not even sure we should run” a presidential candidate next year. “It’s a time of great dilemmas when defeating Bush is the top priority. We have to figure out how to grow and build our party and defeat Bush at the same time.”

To state it so that even a Green could understand it:

No, duh.



Yeah. Like I would tell you....