portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

government selection 2004

Nader picks Camejo

Nader has picked Camejo
Read todays Guardian
Come on Greens, its time to back Nader and offer a real choice for US voters. And get Nader away from the nasty Reform party.
Get down to Benson High School on Saturday 26 June to nominate him


Nader Convention Sat June 26 5 PM Benson High 21.Jun.2004 20:53


Information about the Nominating Convention

THIS Saturday June 26th 5:00 PM
Benson High Auditorium
546 NE 12th AVE Portland
(1 Block from Lloyd Center Max Stop)

for info or to volunteer call 503-224-2647 ext. 112

Also there is less than a week! The word NEEDS to get out about this nominating convention. Tell all your friends, family, neighbors. Help flyer and put up posters. Posters are being torn down. PLEASE help by calling the number above to volunteer some time. It could make all the difference. I'm still running into a lot of people who haven't HEARD and are very interested in attending. Time is running out!

No Show 21.Jun.2004 21:08


I am a Washingtonian and Green Party member. I attended the Green Party state convention in Olympia. Peter Camejo was, at the time, one of 2 G.P. presidential candidates. He was a No Show! His part in the program was delayed for up to a half hour, while we waited. He sent no word as to whether he'd be late or that he would not show up. David Cobb, the other G.P. candidate from Texas, spoke. He is quite a radical.

Green and Reform Parties are Perfectly Compatible 21.Jun.2004 23:49

Green Democrat Supporting Nader and Reform Party

"nasty Reform Party???????"


Let me remind you of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party, in particular


I was one of 100,000 originating members of the California Green Party that first gained it official party status over a dozen years ago, and have been a registered Green ever since until recently registering Democrat to vote for Dennis Kucinich. If I had been a smarter Green back then, I would have voted for Perot instead of Clinton. I knew Clinton was not to be trusted, but I didn't give Perot a fair hearing because I thought he was a "nasty" conservative corporate Texas redneck. Other people paid the price for my mistake.

Look, first of all, if you're a Nader supporter, why do you think that he would be so unprincipled as to sell out his beliefs and loyalties in order to gain the Reform Party nomination? Nader offers a very well-defined choice, a Jeffersonian revival of our core democratic principles, updated with the inclusive arc brought on by waves and waves of immigration, civil rights movements, wokers' movements, consumer's movements and environmentalism.

I assure you, the Reform Party endorsed and nominated Nader, overwhelmingly with 2/3 of the delegates at their national convention, fully understanding who he was and what he stands for, and fully endorsing this fundamental vision of democratic justice that he has dedicated his life to promoting. It was very much a contested nomination, with other candidates with very different points of view, and Nader had to address the convention and answer questions, undergo a rigorous interview process, to win that nomination, and he did so without compromising his long held stances on any issues whatsoever. Nader doesn't need your or anyone else's help to maintain his principles, thank you.

But 1/3 voted against him, remember. Perhaps that one-third is what you would label "nasty".

The 2/3 that voted for Nader, however, do not consider their fellow party members "nasty" -- just in strong disagreement on some basic issues, and perhaps suspicious of Nader's connections to what some of them might even unhelpfully label, "those nasty Greens".

What the Reform Party has demonstrated, and which the Greens as a whole will demonstrate at their convention this Saturday, is an overriding commitment to the basic principle of open debate, hearing dialogue, and uncompromising faith in the supreme right, authority and capacity of a truly one-vote-one-citizen democratic process.

The most contentious plank of the Reform Party platform for most self-styled "progressives" is their stance on immigration. They advocate fully enforcing all immigration laws, effectively shutting down the entire traffic in exploited undocumented imported labor. We who are committed to the Greens' Ten Key Values must ask ourselves: Is it a Green position to be in favor of the status quo, in which federal and border-state governments collude with exploitive corporate interests operating on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border, sustaining the economic indenture of the Mexican people as a source of what is effectively slave labor? It is a circumstance that has defined U.S. - Mexican relations since the U.S. invaded and occupied Mexico just a few years after the Mexican Revolution in 1910.  link to web.uccs.edu

The question of amnesty vs. guest worker permits simply revisits the same tired old methods that the U.S. government, in collusion with wealthy American and foreign families through corporate entities, have used for 160 years to enslave Mexicans. THe first amnesty occurred in 1848, for property owners willing to renounce Mexican citizenship to become U.S. citizens. Mass importations and deportations of Mexican workers followed in cycle upon cycle of policy changes, always a mixture of legal and permitted illegal immigration and deportation (at times the government permitted private citizens to coerce Mexicans to return to Mexico without deportation orders, so there has been a history of both tacitly condoned illegal immigration and tacitly condoned illegal deportation).

If the Green position endorses any form of amnesty or guest permits, without a radical commitment to elminating the illegal traffic in foreign imported slave workers, it is simply colluding with a continuation of the same old policy of flexible disposable enslavement.

In the California gubernatorial recall election last year, Tom McClintock locked positions with Peter Camejo in the final debate -- McClintock insisted that illegal immigration should be stopped immediately and illegal immigrants immediately deported, because that is simply what the law states, and that's that, and called them "criminals". Camejo objected passionately that it is racist to call them "illegal" and "criminals" given the history of the exploitation of cheap Mexican labor by Americans. McClintock made no objection to Camejo's analysis, but simply said words to the effect of, "But they're still illegally here and illegally entering, and by definition that makes them criminals, and it's unfair to legal immigrants who wait for their turn and don't cheat the system." McClintock's principled stand on the rule of law in regard to immigration garnered him 17% of the vote, even as his fellow Republican won over 50%. Among McClintock's constituency was 9% of the Latino vote, extraordinarily high against a popular celebrity immigrant fellow Republican winner, and a Democrat and a Green both vying to be the first Latino Governor of the state.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/09/MN83136.DTL

The astounding thing about the McClintock/Camejo face-off was the striking logical compatibility of their two principled positions. I hope Camejo, who is slated to be Nader's leading spokesperson on Latino voter outreach, will articulate a historically informed and sophisticated position on immigration that incorporates both the McClintock/ReformParty stance on the vital importance of forcefully ending the illegal and inhumane traffic in human slave labor across the U.S./Mexican border, and the civil rights stance of forcefully upholding every person's right to equal treatment and due process of law, non-discrimination in housing, employment and all other practical aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would contend that both stances are vital to upholding the Ten Key Values. Consider, for example, the importance of consensus adherence to the rule of law in regard to limits and regulations on immigration, for upholding Key Values 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. And of course on the other side of the coin, the importance to Reform and Constitution Party members in remembering that there is nothing in the Constitution that states the Bill of Rights are applicable only to citizens -- on the contrary, it is absolutely clear from the founding documents of this nation that these rights were declared natural to all men -- and extended to women via the 14th and 19th amendments.

If the Green Party may tend to be lax in recognizing the vital necessity of vigorous enforcement of immigration laws as a means of ending the traffic in slave labor across our borders, and if the Reform Party may tend to be lax in recognizing the vital necessity of vigorously upholding the civil rights of all people, citizen or not, criminal or not, then both parties must learn and grow to reach the common ground Nader offers to both:  http://votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=33 -- and in the process each party will compromise nothing, but on the contrary, only evolve into a more robust, mature and faithful expression of their core values and missions.

Nader intends to take on the entire rat's nest that is our immigration policy -- tying it in fully with trade agreements, environmental and labor protections, civil rights, rule of law, sustainable U.S. population growth and sustainable economic development in foreign countries. He points out that illegal immigration contributes to the Brain Drain that the U.S. economy inflicts upon countries suffering from the ravages of American Corporate imperialism. Many people assume, without thinking it through, that the workers crossing our Southern border are the most desperate and poor of Mexico and Central America. They don't consider the amount of money and privilege it takes to obtain successful passage from Mexico or Central America to the U.S. and, where needed, falsified documentation to work and live in the U.S. There are of course desperately poor people, who become indentured or submit to slavery south of the border in order to obtain the privilege of being enslaved for higher pay north of the border. But there are also many who are making a decent living in their home countries who use their savings to get illegal work in the U.S. I met one man working as an L.A. parking attendant who told me he left his job as an Economics professor at a major Mexican university because illegal menial work in the U.S. paid so much more. Professors there don't make as much, comparatively, as they do in the U.S., but he wasn't starving back home. And the attraction of the menial jobs in the U.S. stole him away from contributing to the economic well-being of his country, which had invested greatly in educating him to help his fellow citizens.

(If any readers object to my use of the term "slavery" as a blurring of the difference between the treatment of Latinos and that of Blacks in this country's history, let me clarify that there are many kinds of slavery, and the African slave trade that slaughtered 60 million Africans and forced the surviving 20 million to feed, clothe, populate and build this nation on Southern plantations, federal and confederate armies and Northern factories, should be described not just as "slavery" but, at minimum, as "colonial genocidal rapist racist diasporic mental, physical and reproductive slavery").

While the Reform Party and Green Party do approach American democracy from very different standpoints, they share a common commitment to improving our adherence to the fundamental principles of our nation -- life, liberty, equality and the sovereignty and supremacy of the People over Government and over government-chartered legal constructs like corporations and money.

You aint no Avocado Green! 22.Jun.2004 07:14


#1) There is no such thing as a "Green" Democrat and I am highly insulted that anyone would try and lay claim to such a title. Greens are against everything the Democratic party has come to stand for.
To try and gain political ground by calling yourself a "green democrat" is an icon for the term oxymoron!
Two very, very, very different parties with very, very, very different values and focus.

#2) The Reform party is full of capitalist pigs and I would rather stand alone than to create alliances with the "likes of their kind" as Nader has done. What's next? The Liberatarians? LOL

#3) While my respect for Peter Camejo is immense and his selection as Nader's VP somewhat clouds the pending issue at this weeks Green party National convention, the reality is that Nader is not Green and is not supporting the growth of a viable third party running as an Independent.
(which he has repeatedly said must happen if we are to ever have a chance of recapturing our democracy) I guess he changed his mind when Greens wouldn't allow him to dictate to the party only to be tossed to the side of the road like a used condom after he took from them what he could.

#4) Finally, if you want to know what it means to be "Green", check with the core group of real Greens in the Pacific Green party here in Oregon.

Being Green is not a self proclaimed "addendum" to your personal political label.
You have to earn the title "green".

No! It doesn't mean that you send a check to the Sierra club once a year and shop at REI!
It means that you devote your personal time and money to grassroots democracy.

No! It doesn't mean that you pretend scumbags like Ron Wyden care about our forests just because he throws a crumb now and then in an election year, while participating as the architect of the biggest assault on our forest since the last Democratic led assault ("the salvage rider").
It means that you stay true to the principles surrounding the pursuit of social justice.

No! It doesn't mean you pretend that the current "bought and sold" duopoly and the "lesser of two evils" is acceptable or that it represents the interests of people and our planet.
It means that you walk you the walk.

Dellusioned liberals and progressives who hold on to the fantasy that they can change the Democratic party from within, can leave their blinders on if they want! But please spare us the rediculous oxymorons about being a "green Democrat".

perhaps... 22.Jun.2004 12:27


just perhaps, he meant "Green democrat" with a small "d", in the Jeffersonian sense. Remember "democracy"?

If we nitpick all our lives over these PETTY issues, the fascists will eat us for three meals a day forever.

The fascists will eat us anyway! 22.Jun.2004 13:01

green soul

The illusion that the coming election means anything other than America's conscious acquiescence to the world's most perfect example of satanic fascism is at this point no longer even sad. Between the Diebold/CIA/FBI/supreme court and other anexes to the modern version of Gestapo, the coronation next year will unfortunately come down first and heaviest on the truly innocent non-white, poor and dispossesed. The time to waste on delusional choices among compliant aspects of the tragicomedy is almost over because free access to and anonimous contributions to the internet are almost over. Nader will unfortunately be able to shae and rattle their the stalls of power only this last time and then will be heard no more. The rest of us are going to learn to live in diabolical fascism and like it or else... The difference with 70 years ago is that this time there will be no place to run to because the planet is about to succumb to it thanks to a cowardly public.

Please read things before responding 22.Jun.2004 13:14


Whoa! I think that you need back off and to read that posting carefully before responding. It's about anti-corporatist commonality. You have made very wrong assumptions based on knee-jerk reactions. Please reread that posting with an open mind. Indeed, I agree with the above poster on the interpretation of the word "democrat".
Plus, I don't like all this core group of "real green" stuff you propound. That starts to have snobby/elite undertones. Acting superior or in some sort of "in" crowd is no way to forge PRINCIPLED and effective political alliances or to gain new membership (I'm not talking supporting the two party system, either -- so don't make that wrong inference).
I am very bothered by that elitism, because I have faced this sort of thing from Democrats as of late. There are Democrats who find everyone who is not Democrat (Green, Republicans, Nader independents, etc.) to be effectively stupid or ignorant.
So, don't fall into that same trap which reflects so poorly on not ONLY you but the Green Party, as well.

Green Democrat 22.Jun.2004 16:31

so there!

I've been registered as a Green at various times, and contributed some time and money, and
I've registered as a Democrat at other times, and worked with them. It depends on what seems an effective use of my time, and frankly, how much I enjoy working in the company of particular fellow activists. Some of my best and most progressive friends (in the sense of actually walking the talk) are Democrats.

I'm as quick as the next person to say that the DNC are a bunch of Corporate Whores, but that doesn't
make the Democratic party or many of it's members inherently Evil. Look at Denis Kucinch for example,
or Paul Wellston, or many others. Historically some democrats have been great, and others MUCH less so.
I'm not loyal to the Dems by any means, but sometimes it's just pratical to wear different hats.

I personally would welcome Green/Democrat alliances to push progressive issues. It's called
collaboration, and the people very likely to decide they are Greens are those progressive Democrats
who are active and frustrated, but don't see the Greens as a currently viable political option,
and can you really blame them?

Building a social movement takes time, vision, and working with a diversity of people,
I only hope the Greens get better at that eventually.

Iím more like Guacamole 22.Jun.2004 17:13

Green Democrat Supporting Nader and Reform Party

#1) I borrowed the term "Green Democrat" from Kucinich. I agree completely that the Democratic Party is moribund, and I think Kucinich will fail to rescue it. In fact, the stronger he gets within the Democratic Party, the more likely it will cleave. I call myself a Green Democrat with a grain of salt, but I am registered Democrat (and still will be for about two more weeks), so I'm not going to pretend I'm not a Democrat. That's how I'm registered, so that's what I am right now. I'm not sabotaging the Democratic Party. I think the best thing for the Democratic Party's core mission is for it to split into a corporate faction and an anti-corporate one, the latter becoming what the Democratic Party was when Jefferson founded it. I'm helping to save the Democratic Party from the corporatists by strengthening its anti-corporate wing, hopefully to fly away.

#2) Libertarians have a flawed and over-simplified analysis that lends itself to corporate co-optation, begs for it, really. But that doesn't mean their principled stand on freedom from government intrusion isn't valid. They just need to extend that principle to corporations as well, and recognize that corporations are legal constructs granting special privileges and immunities to their officers, board and investors, not persons under the law, and not entitled to any guaranteed rights. The Reform Party may be full of capitalist "pigs", but piggishness exists among socialists too. There's a tendency for socialism to slide into a kind of elitist social technocracy, and I think that's what Nader has criticized as "the liberal intelligentsia". The Reform Party, for all its weaknesses, does promote a healthy skepticism against elitist ideologies. And if two-thirds of the Reform Party delegates voted for Nader over three other candidates, including one of the Reform Party's own leaders who has "walked their walk", then if you are right that they are "full" of "capitalist pigs", then they are anti-corporate "capitalist pigs". Would you call them "mom-and-pop-capitalist-pigs"? I call them hard-working Americans who think locally and are active to improve their communities.

#3) It's true that Nader is not a Green Party member and never has been. I don't much care for the use of "Green" as some kind of essentialist identity politics moniker. As for a viable third party, right again, he's working to create a viable Independent voter movement this time around, not a viable third party. But he's challenging exclusionary laws that harm third parties along the way. There are more Independents than belong to any party, and for good reason -- parties tend to become self-absorbed, so independents are needed to keep them breathing fresh air.

#4) I've never sent a check to the Sierra Club and I don't support it one bit. I don't shop at REI. I've spent my entire life as an activist, risked and lost more for various causes than I care to recite to you, because I don't choose to dwell on the negative personal consequences of my own political choices, cuz it just bums me out. If you are that close to burn-out, then it really is worthwhile to take a break from the full-bore 24-7 grind of activism and pace yourself at least. I know it's unlikely you'll take that advice -- I've never met an activist who could. Something usually breaks first, then you decide retroactively that this means you're taking a break. ah well.

Everything can be changed from within and without -- in and out have no real meaning except to party hacks and in-club-gatekeepers. Engaging people in earnest is what matters. Thank you for doing so here.

Nader Getting On The Ballot In Any Way Possible 22.Jun.2004 18:59

Cheney Watch

What I see is that Nader is using the Green Party to get on the ballot in states where he would otherwise be unable to do so as an independent. If he were a true Green candidate, he would have initiated his campaign under the auspices of the Green Party and he did not.

By the way, speaking of other candidates, there is a very interesting article on Skull and Bones in the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine . . . also a juicy quib on Tom (the Exterminator) DeLay.

Greens & Nader 22.Jun.2004 23:52

George Bender

If Nader had waited for the Green convention this month, and they did not nominate him, which was a strong possibility, it would have been too late for him to start his independent campaign. Nader was determined to run. He could not afford to wait for the Greens to have their convention and make up their minds. I don't know why the Greens decided to have their convention so late.

Also, there was a strong possibility the Greens would not run a presidential candidate at all. If they did run one, they might follow a "safe states" strategy where their candidate would only campaign in states that will clearly go to either Kerry or Bush, so a third candidate would not change the result. Nader is not willing to do that. I would not support him if he did. That's not real.

Unfortunately the Greens have been intimidated by all the Democratic hate directed their way over the last 4 years. So now it looks like they're going to run an unknown candidate, no threat to Kerry, in safe states only. Which will make them invisible, like the socialists, and irrelevant. In politics, if you're not a threat you don't matter.

I also wonder if political parties make sense any more. Seems like they bring out the worst in people. In American politics there is no party discipline. Each candidate decides his or her own platform, and exercises power, if elected, without consulting their party. Yet we're supposed to act as if the party means something. I'm disenchanted with the Greens, and I think I'm going to change my voter registration to independent. I want candidates who will stand up to the Democrats, and the Greens aren't willing to do that.

Nader and Ballot Access 23.Jun.2004 14:58


Cheney Watch,

Nader isn't "using" the Green Party to gain ballot access. Green party members are adults and can decide for themselves what they want to do, no one is forcing them to do anything they don't want. It's uncertain what they may do. By the way, Nader has always maintained that this year's run is an independent run. Nader has never joined any political party, so he is not a "real" green, anyways. But, it's not like green members are unaware of it -- it's not a hidden fact or anything. Getting on the ballot is loaded with obstacles for both third party and independent candidates (unlike the two major parties), so of course Nader is doing what he can to get on Ballots, even suing about unfair and possibly unconstitutional ballot access issues.

By the way, if the Skull and Bones article is by Alexandra Robbins, a caveat -- it will be a white wash with titilating details that amounts to giving a "conspiratorial" slant on the organization. It will tend to cloud an actual analysis of aristocratic power and monied interests that the organization supports. It will make skull and bones out to be a secretive frat that engages in strange rituals. In effect, making discussion of skull and bones into an entertaining curiosity, instead of a real concern. It will avoid the issue of what Skull and Bones truly is: an organization of aristocratic families who collude in secret alliances in people of this country.

Yeah, skull and bones is a fancy "frat" but that obscures the fact that it is a real danger to democracy. What I care about is the elitist allegiances that skull and bones members have. Skull and bones members, like Cheney, Bush and Kerry, use their aristocratic class priveleges and connections in order to get ahead in the world, further consolidating money and power. These wealthy, connected people use secrecy and "favors" in order to maintain class priveleges and advantages, including getting high positions of power within our government and business world. Sort of like a union for the most wealthy, in a sense. Skull and Bones members have a history tied to drug trafficing (opium trade, CIA), the CIA and Intelligence, and war profiteering (doesn't that sound familar?). The actions and power of its membership needs to be analzyed in a very serious and politically insicive fashion, instead of cloaked in mysterious auras. People belittle skull and bones as being mere conspiracy theory, but they forget that when you are discussing a group of people colluding in secret in order to gain and maintain power and advantage, that is the very definition of conspiracy.