portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article questions oregon & cascadia

government | political theory selection 2004

What Happened at the Pacific Green Convention?

Safe state or Cobb for President in Oregon.
Are they running a safe state campaign here in Oregon?

If not, how can one sign up?
In answer..... 16.Aug.2004 23:49

Nader Guy

Despite the childish pouting of Jeff Cropp (who threatened to BLOCK the resolution at one point,) the following was passed:

August 14, 2004
Greens Reject Safe State Strategy
Resolution passed on August 14, 2004 by the Pacific Green Party.

The Pacific Green Party encourages the National Green Party candidates to run vigorously in Oregon and in all states, regardless of projected electoral outcomes.

The Pacific Green Party rejects any "safe states strategy," and calls upon the national candidates and all state Green Parties to do the same, and we call upon all voters to reject any candidate that do not oppose the Iraq War.


This proposal was strongly supported by Nader Greens in the Pacific Green Party. The safe states strategy has been seen as a Green Party endorsement of Kerry and this is part of a growing resistance of Greens to candidates who support Kerry due to his ongoing support for the war and occupation of Iraq. We urge other Green Parties, especially those in battle ground states, to pass a similar resolution.

An issue of decentralization 18.Aug.2004 10:17

Jeff Cropp

The reason I considered blocking the resolution at one point was due to its language exhorting "all state Green Parties" to follow our example. The Green Party is a decentralized movement, and I felt that it's a violation of that ethic to force our viewpoint on other state Green Parties. Many of the Greens in attendance agreed with me, and would have supported the resolution if that phrase had been removed.

The author of that resolution, Greg Kafoury, has not been involved with the Green Party for many years, has made no attempt to understand the Green movement and is frankly just concerned with promoting Nader's agenda. Again, the majority of the Greens at that Convention did not support the language of the resolution. The final vote (when we couldn't achieve consensus) was 10 votes in favor, six opposed and seven abstaining. The abstentions were simply tired of useless debate over the issue and wanted to get the small number of "Nader Greens" to shut up so that we could move on to more productive issues.

P.S. It's easy to throw stones from behind anonymous pseudonyms, "Nader Guy." Have some more guts and identify yourself if you want me to take your comments seriously.

Jeff 18.Aug.2004 19:34

George Bender

So at a "state convention" you had 23 people? Why so small?

Is it true that the number of Green chapters in Oregon is declining? I heard that the Eugene chapter is dead.

What is happening with Green registration numbers in Oregon?

I changed my registration from Green to independent after you all decided not to support Nader. I hope the Green party eventually finds its way, but your way is clearly not mine.

I am glad to hear that a majority, however small, was opposed to the "safe states" strategy. That always struck me as a very sick plan. If the Greens don't stand up and fight, no one will have any respect for them.

Answers to George Bender 20.Aug.2004 16:21


Were you expecting overfilled rooms?

I was out of town but I'm glad 23 showed up. I think that's a lot to attend a boring GP convention in a drab PSU building on a lovely summer day in Portland.

At least our conventions are open to all. I think the Dems limit who can attend their state convention and your hero, Ralph Nader doesn't have one and get little input from anyone outside his inner circle.

We are run by volunteers.
We have little money to do publicity.
Green registration #'s continue to rise.
We never supported a "safe state" strategy to begin with.

Independent? Wow, that's really joining up forces with no one and showing everyone how to do it.

B 21.Aug.2004 17:00

George Bender

I don't know who Ralph Nader gets input from, and I doubt you do. He is the candidate, it's his campaign, so he is going to run it. For better and worse, that is the way we do it in America. Political parties have very little to say about it once the campaign starts.

The Oregon Nader campaign does have a discussion email list which people can use to ask questions and give feedback to those running the state campaign. You can subscribe through their website. At the moment that is about as much internal democracy as I want. I've sat through too many leftist meetings over the years where everyone had a different idea of what to do and you couldn't get any kind of consensus. Seeing what democracy has done to the Greens also gives me pause.

However, there has been a little discussion on the Nader Oregon email list about forming a progressive party in the future. If we do that, it will have to be more democratic. I would want some guarantee that it won't be taken over by people who sleep with Democrats.

Not that I never have.

where everyone had a different idea of what to do 23.Aug.2004 13:41


Geez George,

You get on the Green Party's ass because we didn't jump behind Nader's campaign even though he didn't want the Green Party nomination. Then you get upset when we select Cobb through an agreed upon, legitimate process where over 800 Greens from around the country participated. Democracy must seem oppressive when it doesn't give you your preferred results.