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

government

Oregon Greens splitting?

As if the Green Party hasn't had enough to deal with these days, now this. On August 24, Liz Trojan, the Co-chair of the Pacific Green Party stepped down from her post and exited the Party altogether. Only six days later her fellow co-chair, Jeff Strang abandoned his co-chair position but remained a member of the Party. The two are furious over a recent incident in which an Oregon Green candidate for the House of Representatives, Teresa Keane, switched races and decided to run for US Senate instead.
CounterPunch
September 7, 2004


It sounds frivolous enough. But Trojan and Strang claim that Party by-laws were broken in the process, undermining Green ethics.

"I was called on the phone and told to come meet with Teresa [Keane], Jeff [Cropp] (Keane's campaign manager) and Marnie Glickman (ex-Co-Chair of the national Green Party) at a local pub to discuss Teresa's candidacy," Trojan says. "Teresa, who was nominated at our convention to run against US Representative David Wu, had realized she no longer lived in District 1, Wu's district, so we met to discuss what it is she should do."

Upon investigation, however, Trojan and Strang found out, that according to Oregon law, it does not matter in which district Teresa Keane resides, only that she be an Oregon resident. She did not have to switch races.

"So we show up," Trojan continues, "and find out Glickman and Cropp had already decided to switch Keane to run against Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Jeff [Strang] and I contended that nominations can only be made at a convention, and Keane had only been nominated to run against Wu in District 1. I told them this would be breaking our by-laws. Marnie [Glickman] then told us that 'by-laws are just guidelines.' It was a coup."

Glickman of course had no reason to even be at the meeting, as she holds no position whatsoever with the Pacific Green Party, and did not even attend the convention where Keane was nominated.

"Of course we should follow by-laws," Glickman told me over the phone, "[but] I've never read the Green by-laws."

Glickman's statement is odd to say the least as Glickman has just graduated law school, and is waiting to hear back on whether or not she passed the Oregon Bar Exam. Again, Trojan and Strang wonder why she was even involved.

"Glickman has been one of the powerful people pulling strings for the Green Party this year," says Clint Coopernoll who was a Washington Green Party delegate at the Party's national convention in Wisconsin last July but now devotes his energies to the Ralph Nader campaign. "I've seen Glickman at work for a few years now. During a campaign forum in Portland last year, I heard her say that, after talking to friends at Emily's List where she has deep connections, and used to be employed, that she wouldn't be supporting Nader's candidacy in 2004."

Glickman denies making any such comment. "I had hoped Nader would seek the Party's nomination, but he didn't," Glickman explains. "So I backed [David] Cobb."

Glickman in the past has not been shy about her support for Democratic candidates. While seeking the co-Chair position of the Green Party she wrote on her resume that she had raised in excess of $10 million dollars for the Democratic Party during the 1990s. "Ten million isn't that much," Glickman admits. But how much has Glickman brought into the Green Party since her entrance? Zilch.

"Glickman, [Medea] Benjamin, Ted Glick, Jody Haug (another co-Chair of the National Party), and others sabotaged Nader at the convention," another delegate who attended the convention told me.

"It's true," Coopernoll says, "Haug was one of the worst. She and her cronies who sat on the Rules Committee at the convention actually passed a resolution that refused to allow motions from the floor. No kidding. The Republicans still allow motions from the floor. They just didn't want Nader friendly delegates to have a voice. It was blatantly undemocratic. And now we are left with David Cobb, who is a safe-state strategy himself, as he is unknown wherever he goes."

Liz Trojan, who was one of the lone delegates from Oregon who supported endorsing Nader, concurs. "It is true what they say, the convention was rigged."

"I heard Glickman in the bathroom say, 'I won't be that involved [with the Greens] now. My work is done here.' I took it as if she was admitting she had done her job, her and the others got Cobb nominated," said another Green delegate from Washington who did not want to be named.

"These guys like [David] Cobb and Glickman would love to see the Greens become a caucus of the Democratic Party," says Coopernoll. "It's very sad. And you have to understand, Green Party members for the most part aren't wealthy people. So when a national convention comes up we can't all go and be delegates. But Medea [Benjamin] and others financed trips for many pro-Cobb delegates." And many believe Benjamin got the money to do so from the Nader-hating Democrat billionaire, George Soros who has funded her Global Exchange organization in the past. This rumor has yet to be proven however. Benjamin could not be reached for comment.

Fast forward to Oregon. Glickman, who is still listed as a fundraiser for the Green Party on their official website, may have ulterior motives regarding the Teresa Keane nomination.

Democrat David Wu is running a tight race in Oregon against a well-financed Republican woman named Goli Ameri. Senator Ron Wyden on the other hand is leading in most polls by more then 25%. Why switch Keane from Wu to Wyden then, if not to protect David Wu?

"It's not about that at all," says Keane's campaign manager Jeff Cropp. "We decided that since she [Keane] isn't from District 1, that it'd be best for her to run a state-wide campaign against Wyden ... That way she can go to places that don't have a Green on the ballot."

In other words, Keane is now running a sort of "safe-in-state" strategy, where she'll have no impact whatsoever on the election in which she is running. Sounds like an ominous trend for Greens.

"I'd rather see Keane run against Wu," Glickman says. "But she wants to run against Wyden."

Unfortunately not all Greens believe it is Keane's decision who she can run against. Nor is it the Coordinating Committee's who was called by Keane after her candidate swap and asked whether or not they would have supported her nomination at the convention had she sought it. A small majority said they would have, but one who voted in favor now says he would not have done so if he knew by-laws were being broken. And where does this leave Pavel Goberman, who wanted to run against Wu but lost to Keane during their party's convention?

"No where in the by-laws does it say the Coordinating Committee can make that decision," Trojan says. "It does say we can interpret, but we cannot create. And nowhere does it say anything about a candidate switching races. It's outrageous. Glickman and Cropp are way out of line."

Lloyd Marbet, a long-time Oregon Green Party loyalist who ran on the Party's ticket as Attorney General in 2000 agrees. "If this decision is not reversed I will leave the Party," Marbet says, "This is disturbing for a lot of reasons ... it is just contrary to everything I thought the Green Party stands."

Marbet is currently seeking legal counsel to help set things straight. "This isn't a Nader-Cobb issue. This is an issue of how we should be as a party," he says.

Jeff Cropp, who is an ardent Cobb supporter, sees it much different. "Their (Trojan, Strang, and Marbet) attitude is deplorable. They didn't get their way at the convention so they are using this hyperbole to fight back. They are being babies," Cropp fumed.

Babies or not, the fact remains the Green Party is splitting in Oregon. The Teresa Keane saga is just one of many we will see unfold within the Green Party over the next few months. You can bet on it. As more whistleblowers come forward and expose the internal mayhem of the Greens, we may see some dramatic shifts in the way progressives view the vitality of the party.

So this is how the Green Party functions at the state level. One can only imagine what they are capable of at the national. If the rumors turn out to be true, and Medea Benjamin did in fact use Soros money to fly Cobb delegates to the party's national convention in Milwaukee last July, the Greens will never again be trusted as the standard bearer of progressive causes. Or maybe they have lost that title already. Either way, it is clear that the Greens are unraveling from within.


Joshua Frank, a contributor to CounterPunch's forthcoming book, A Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, is putting the finishing touches on Left Out: How Liberals did Bush's Work for Him, to be published by Common Courage Press. He welcomes comments at  frank_joshua@hotmail.com.
There are sheep and there are wolves 07.Sep.2004 20:11

Pravda or Consequences

The reason I do not join the Green Party is that it appears that the Green Party means doormat for anyone with political ambition and the result is fissure.

Unlike every other political party, the Green Party of Oregon should established its principles and endorse only those who put those principles above their own aspirations, regardless of their feelings, their evolution, or worse their arrogance which is articulated by their compromise for the good or even survival of the Green Party.

IMHO, take a clue from those you despise for being stupidly stubborn, for their vision is forged in reality and what is doable.

Worse than that 07.Sep.2004 21:43

Turquose

It's really worse than that. The "party" seems to be by invitation only. Certain members seem to think that what should be an inclusive party is actually their private little club and if you don't attend every meeting, you should remain silent.

The coup de grace for me was this:


[Jeff Cropp, who is an ardent Cobb supporter, sees it much different. "Their (Trojan, Strang,
and Marbet) attitude is deplorable. They didn't get their way at the convention so they are
using this hyperbole to fight back. They are being babies," Cropp fumed.]

To tear at these three should be the death knell of king smarmster Cropp, but alas no one seems to want to carry the torch in his stead. I had high hopes at one time of being active in this group but it seems that there is no room in the clubhouse for anyone that has issues with Cropp.

Who'll fill the gap left by the merging of the Dems and Repubs?
In Oregon, it won't be the PGP

How to get it right? 07.Sep.2004 22:13

Lynn Porter

The question in my mind is, how do you do it right? How would we organize a leftist political party so it would be democratic and stay true to the original vision? There must be something we can learn about what not to do from the Green attempt.

I went to one Green meeting in Portland a while back. There were 20 some people there. They seemed to have their hearts in the right place and to have energy, but no coherence to speak of, which seems typical of the left. Everyone around the table seemed to have a different idea of what to do. I was disappointed to see that there didn't seem to be a lot of support for running Nader again for president. But also no consensus on what else to do. I wonder if the problem might be, partly, that the party started out without a clear idea of what it was about?

Later I moved to Eugene and was not in a position to go up to Portland for the convention. I understand that Oregon will not provide minor parties with a primary, but conventions aren't very democratic. I also understand that the Greens did not have the money to mail out their own ballot to their members. So how else would you go about it? There ought to be some way of doing it by email, since that's the only way leftists can afford to communicate. Is there some way we could structure an online poll so it would be representative?

If any attempt is made to start another leftist political party in Oregon -- there has been a little bit of discussion on the Nader Oregon email list -- it should be very carefully focused, so that people who join have a common notion of what the party is about. The Greens seem too broad to me. What I would focus on is economics, the plight of the U.S. working class, which has been slowly losing ground for the last three decades. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to deal with that, but it seems to me to be the major background issue behind everything else.


here's what I would do: Toward a Bioregional State: 07.Sep.2004 22:27

reporting in

here's what I would do:


 http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~mrkdwhit/bioregionEC.htm

Toward a Bioregional State:
This is a site of letters similar to the Federalist Papers, though it is written by a bioregional "Publius."

Publius was the pen name adopted by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, as they made their arguments in popular newspapers for their popularizing of the United States Constitution, in the 1780s.

However, unlike them, this is a bioregional Publius who wants democracy in practice instead of democracy in the abstract, and one who wants sustainabilty instead of unsustainability.

We are facing a similar project presently, I am arguing--how can we achive a democracy that is environmentally sustainable, when the present frameworks of democracy are what are leading us into environmental degradation? The following is a list of requirements, as well as arguments for why these requirements should be adopted, and why the present forms of government in the United States are leading us toward environmental degradation, low voter turnouts, and unrepresentative parties.

However, what I am arguing is that these are general structural requirements for all states as they move towards sustainability, instead of talking only about the United States. The United States can be considered the running example in these letters though. Structurally, the state in general requires changing, instead of only a change on the the level of political party ideas for instance.

These bioregional letters propose how existing unsustainable states could be 'made over' into sustainable states: typically, a different topic is addressed in each letter.

There are 27 bioregional Publius letters--so far. State structures are far from the only aspect of importance, though they are a formal requirement. (I am working on other issues beside the state--science, finance, and consumption; see a list of the letters and bioregional maps of Wisconsin political districts, or read them in the order they were created by following the pages below for continuity, since they build upon themselves instead of represent separate topics.)

The 20th letter is a petition that 'ecologizes' the U.S. Constitution, compiling into a single document all the formal framework ideas for working towards sustainability. See the link from the list of all letters, above.

This site is devoted to the formal state, and what kind of formal state is required for sustainability. I begin with discussing why the Electoral Congress is important to keep, as it is a relatively current issue:


 http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~mrkdwhit/bioregionEC.htm

Title: TOWARD A BIOREGIONAL STATE: People Have Right to Stop Ecological Tyranny & Make Democracy
Author: web
Date: 2003.12.25 12:52
Description: "Presently we are trapped within these unecological democracies that are underwriting and protecting this process of politically sponsored ecological degradation. How do we instead explain to others that the state has an Ecological Contract with its people, and if such a contract is neglected, they can overthrow it as an ecological tyranny?" . . . ". . .a people's self-interest is geographically specific and protective of a particular geography. . . .Citizen feedback is always in and from particular geographic spaces and human-environmental contexts. To create the additional checks and balances for an ecologically sound developmentalism is merely to latch onto and facilitate an already-existing affirmative feedback from watersheds/bioregions that is ignored though waiting to be formally organized. This is done by aligning political feedback as closely as possible to a direct feedback from particular geographically specific areas into the state. My [first] suggestion is through watershed based vote districting."
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277248.shtml

Huh? 07.Sep.2004 22:59

Lynn Porter

As a working-class person, I cannot relate to "sustainability" as the focus for a leftist political party. Our problem is that we don't have enough money. Politics is about self-interest. If you want to mobilize people you've got to show them what's in it for them. I never got a clear idea of what the Greens, if they were elected, would do for people like me. If you want our votes you've got to be very concrete and express yourself in plain language. We don't like vagueness.

Sustainability would appeal to intellectual middle-class liberals, but they're already in the Democratic party, and they're not moving.

Yes Lynn, but........ 08.Sep.2004 06:05

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

The fact that the US does not have a "left" party does not mean that the Green Party should be that vehicle. The fact that you consider "environmentalism" irrelevant (and you have lots of company) does not justify stealing the name "Green". As you have pointed out, people have a right to support what they perceive as their OWN interests and there are those who while "envirnmental" also have "social justice" concerns and at least in theory, "green party" is the designation for that coalition of interests.

The situation is different in Canada where the presence of the NDP means that those who think like yourself already have a political vehicle and don't need to take over another. Do you understand what I am saying? There may be a place in US politics for a party which is "red but not green", and if we look at the question honestly, many do believe that eliminating injustice between humans WILL (miraculously?) solve our environmental problems. However for those of us lacking this (quasi-religious) faith, who believe that a society socially just between humans could STILL be out of balance with the rest of Nature, there is the "green party" concept -- work for BOTH social justice AND balance with the environment.

If that seems strange to you, too middle class liberal in conception, please try to explain to me what do you mean by social justice on a dead planet, the equality of the grave? Or if you have the belief that "capitalism" is the sole cause of all our problems (and I'm not interested in arguing that) why you feel eliminating a "cause" automatically results in healing damage already done. The point is not that you have to answer these questions but rather why you feel that there is something wrong with the folks for whom these are important questions shouldn't have a political party.

Hell, Forget PGP 08.Sep.2004 07:06

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

I think I want to be in Lynn's party. Strategy is not my strong point, but I'm a filing dynamo after all these years at low-level office jobs. Lynn, hire me !! :)

If Marbet has walked, I'd say that's a good reason for me to seriously reconsider my own membership in the Party once this years' elections are over. I've always considered him one of the most principled and together people we could hope for on the campaign trail for any issue or office. What a shame...

What a bunch of bullshit! 08.Sep.2004 07:45

StevetheGreen

Joshua Frank has once again revealed his obvious anti-Green bias by providing a story filled with half truths whose core assertions about the Pacific Green party lack any objectivity or cursory fact checking.

It is incumbent upon any writer to at least attempt to get both sides of any story (if credibility and integrity means anything to them), which with Joshua Frank, it obviously does not.

It is always amazing when those on "the outside" attempt to evaluate internal political battles by filling in the blanks with their own assumptions. Michael Donnelly did this recently and now Joshua Frank has decided more half truths are in order. Sadly, Counterpunch has decided to give these people a forum to propagate their one-sided views.

How about some facts?
Or would that be against Counterpunch's bylaws?

Teresa Keane lived in a district that was gerrymandered a few years ago which led her to the false assumption that she lived in David Wu's district. Just days before she was to file her candidacy against Wu, she realized she did not live in the district. This created a dilemma for Greens. Should Teresa go ahead and run against Wu even though she did not reside in his district (and provide fodder for Democrats to attack her candidacy with), or should she provide opposition to the sell out Ron Wyden while touring the state and promoting the Pacific Green party?

This decision was not remotely evaluated based on the impact she would have on the Democratic races that were judged to be close. In fact, it was her initial decision to run against Wu (in what should be a hotly contested race) that proves she and the Pacific Green party were not impacted by the criticisms from those who buy into the spoiler logic.

Ultimately, it was Teresa's desire to do what was in the best interest of the growth of the Pacific Green party in Oregon that made her decide to run against a national senator who had betrayed every progressive value known to man.

While there was some disagreement about the state CC's interpretation of our bylaws in this situation, the reality is that there does exist a provision that allows the state CC to override our bylaws in emergency situations. Reasonable people can disagree with whether or not this situation constituted an emergency, but the time frame involved required immediate action. The state CC voted 4-2 to nominate Teresa Keane outside of our convention, but only after calling every voting member to gauge support for such a move.

Bottom line:
What took place here is no different than the internal battles that take place in all political parties. (But strangely enough, counterpunch seems to avoid similar criticism of the duopoly.
If it is deemed our bylaws were broken at the next Pacific Green party convention, we will take the appropriate action. The fact that some core members felt so strongly about this particular episode they felt the need to resign is not uncommon and should in no way create the impression that our party is divided. People in political parties disagree every day. It's called democracy.

Those people who care about promoting the social justice movement who seek to make this episode into something that it is not, should check themselves instead of digging for stories where none exist.

Liz Trojan is real deal 08.Sep.2004 09:21

Samantha

I'm a Green and I have worked with some of the people mentioned here. While I've distanced myself somewhat from Greens these past few months to work on the Nader campaign as well as issue-related campaigns dear to me, I just wanted to pop in here to say experience has shown me Liz Trojan is a sincere and diligent advocate for any cause lucky enough to have her support.

It saddens me to see Jeff Cropp issue an immature statement against such fine people as Liz Trojan, Jeff Strang, and Lloyd Marbet, as he is usually a more composed and respectful man than that. I can only hope the current pugnacious political climate doesn't sustain itself past 2004 and lines drawn in the sand are blown away by more cooperative winds.

laughable 08.Sep.2004 11:51

reader

"The fact that some core members felt so strongly about this particular episode they felt the need to resign is not uncommon and should in no way create the impression that our party is divided."

You have got to be kidding . . . I've never seen a level of cover-up like this since . . . well, since Cobb was elected and people tried to say it was all done properly and democratically!

Give me a break! So your core members resign all the time?

Laughable if it weren't so Rethugnican/Democrap.

Mike 08.Sep.2004 13:38

Lynn Porter

You are putting a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say.

I do feel that environmentalism is important and have worked with Hanford Watch for 12 years. I run their website and email list. However, environmentalism is far down on my list of political priorities. Economic survival is at the top of my list. You can't expect people to get excited about saving the environment when they don't have enough money to live on or guaranteed healthcare. That is the position I'm in -- retired on very low Social Security, food stamps and Oregon Health Plan-Standard, which the state legislature keeps doing its best to wreck, and I can't depend on it.

I have no interest in "stealing the name Green" or taking over their party. I was a registered Green for a few years but recently switched my registration to independent after the Greens decided not to run Nader. I'm presently running the Oregon Nader website and email list, the Eugene-Springfield Solidarity Network/Jobs with Justice website, and two email lists for Health Care For All - Oregon.

As far as I'm concerned the Greens can go ahead and do whatever they want to do, but I think some of us need to look in a different direction. I would like a party that would make the economic plight of the working class its top priority. Inequality is out of control in the U.S. and we need to redistribute income downward. Too many of us are struggling just to get by. We need more jobs, living wages, universal health care, full funding for safety net programs, adequate unemployment insurance for everyone, clamp down on outsourcing, fair trade and a lot more unions.

Also, in 2008 we will need a political party in Oregon willing to put Nader, or his successor, on the ballot, so we don't have to battle the Democrats again just to get ballot access for the economic left.

alsis38: I wish I could hire you. I wish I could hire me. Meanwhile, I suggest subscribing to the Nader Oregon email list by sending an email (no message necessary) to:
 naderoregon-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Nader campaign seems like the most likely source for an economic left political party.


Corrections to Frank's slander 21.Sep.2004 15:47

Jeff Cropp

Hmmm...I just found this. Although it's unlikely anyone's going to read or post to this anymore, I wanted to add several corrections to this latest attack on the Green Party by Josh Frank. I've already sent a personal note to Samantha clarifying some of this. I won't even bother to dignify the snide personal attacks made by "Turquose."

For the record, Josh Frank is hellbent on punishing the Greens for nominating Cobb instead of endorsing Nader. His articles attacking Greens are essentially slander. The relevant point is that I NEVER referred to Liz, Jeff & Lloyd as "babies." Frank also claims I was "fuming" while talking with him. It's a load of crap. I was very aware that I was speaking with a reporter who is out to get the Green Party, so I was very calm and composed throughout the entire interview. Frank twisted my comments grotesquely and made up a few things. It's very disappointing that someone like that could consider himself a "journalist."


Here are some of the corrections Marnie Glickman posted regarding this article (for the sake of brevity, I won't include any more of my own):

FRANK WROTE: "So we show up," Trojan continues, "and find out Glickman and
Cropp had already decided to switch Keane to run against Oregon Senator Ron
Wyden. Jeff [Strang] and I contended that nominations can only be made at a
convention, and Keane had only been nominated to run against Wu in District
1. I told them this would be breaking our by-laws. Marnie [Glickman] then
told us that 'by-laws are just guidelines.' It was a coup."

THE TRUTH: Jeff Cropp and I did not decide to switch Keane to run against
Wyden. Our state party is governed by a coordinating committee. The
coordinating committee had a vote to decide whether to switch Keane. The
vote was 4-2. Trojan and Strang lost the vote. Cropp and I do not serve on
the coordinating committee.

FRANK WROTE: Glickman of course had no reason to even be at the meeting, as
she holds no position whatsoever with the Pacific Green Party, and did not
even attend the convention where Keane was nominated.

THE TRUTH: I was asked to be at the meeting because I am a state party
volunteer. All of our state meetings are open to the public.

FRANK WROTE: "Of course we should follow by-laws," Glickman told me over
the phone, "[but] I've never read the Green by-laws."

THE TRUTH: I have read portions of the Pacific Green Party bylaws.

FRANK WROTE: Glickman's statement is odd to say the least as Glickman has
just graduated law school, and is waiting to hear back on whether or not she
passed the Oregon Bar Exam. Again, Trojan and Strang wonder why she was even
involved.

THE TRUTH: I'm a registered Green in Oregon. That's why I was involved.

FRANK WROTE: "Glickman has been one of the powerful people pulling strings
for the Green Party this year," says Clint Coopernoll who was a Washington
Green Party delegate at the Party's national convention in Wisconsin last
July but now devotes his energies to the Ralph Nader campaign. "I've seen
Glickman at work for a few years now. During a campaign forum in Portland
last year, I heard her say that, after talking to friends at Emily's List
where she has deep connections, and used to be employed, that she wouldn't
be supporting Nader's candidacy in 2004."

THE TRUTH: I met Coopernoll once in September 2003. I did not say that
"after talking to friends at Emily's List" that I "wouldn't be supporting
Nader's candidacy." On the contrary, I haven't spoken to an employee of
Emily's list for at least three years. More importantly, I supported
Nader's candidacy until 2004 when he confirmed that he would not accept the
national green party's nomination.

FRANK WROTE: Glickman in the past has not been shy about her support for
Democratic candidates. While seeking the co-Chair position of the Green
Party she wrote on her resume that she had raised in excess of $10 million
dollars for the Democratic Party during the 1990s. "Ten million isn't that
much," Glickman admits. But how much has Glickman brought into the Green
Party since her entrance? Zilch.

THE TRUTH: I never raised money for the Democratic Party. I raised money
for Democratic candidates and progressive non-profit organizations. I did
say that ten million wasn't much when you consider that Democratic
candidates and PACs raise hundreds of millions of dollars per election
cycle. Moreover, I raised the money over a period of more than six years.

FRANK WROTE: "Glickman, [Medea] Benjamin, Ted Glick, Jody Haug (another
co-Chair of the National Party), and others sabotaged Nader at the
convention," another delegate who attended the convention told me.

THE TRUTH: I didn't sabotage the convention. I was bound to vote for Cobb
by the Pacific Green Party's presidential convention. I did not serve on
the rules committee that created the nomination system.

FRANK WROTE: Liz Trojan, who was one of the lone delegates from Oregon who
supported endorsing Nader, concurs. "It is true what they say, the
convention was rigged." "I heard Glickman in the bathroom say, 'I won't be
that involved [with the Greens] now. My work is done here.' I took it as if
she was admitting she had done her job, her and the others got Cobb
nominated," said another Green delegate from Washington who did not want to
be named.

THE TRUTH: My term as co-chair of the party ended at the national Green
Party convention. As a co-chair of the national party, I volunteered more
than 40 hours a week to the party. Now that my term is over, I am going to
volunteer fewer hours.

FRANK WROTE: "These guys like [David] Cobb and Glickman would love to see
the Greens become a caucus of the Democratic Party," says Coopernoll.

THE TRUTH: I left the Democratic Party because I saw that it had sold laws
for campaign contributions. I became a Green because I share Green values.
The Green Party wants to break up the two-party system and replace it with a
system that reflects ecological sustainability and grassroots democracy.

FRANK WROTE: Fast forward to Oregon. Glickman, who is still listed as a
fundraiser for the Green Party on their official website, may have ulterior
motives regarding the Teresa Keane nomination.

THE TRUTH: I have never been a fundraiser for the Green Party of the United
States. We have a volunteer webmaster. He makes mistakes.

FRANK WROTE: Babies or not, the fact remains the Green Party is splitting
in Oregon.

THE TRUTH: The party is not splitting. It is growing. We have already
seen at least one new county chapter start this week.

Greens vote to break their own bylaws 25.Sep.2004 09:32

Liz Trojan elizat8@pobox.com

Marnie did call the meeting in question. She called me and asked if I could be at
McMennimins Pub in one hour. This was the meeting that took place 48 hours in
advance of the candidate filing deadline. As co-chairs, Jeff Strang and myself
opposed switching Teresa Keane to a race other than the one that she had been
nominated for at convention. Our bylaws state that nominations happen at convention.
Undeterred she and her minion Jeff Cropp spent the next day phoning CC members
and Greens who had attended the nominating convention asking, "If Teresa Keane
had asked to be nominated for Ron Wyden's senate seat would you have voted for
her?" Great question but the nominating convention was over and and the real question
was "Are you willing to break/circumvent the Pacific Green Party bylaws to make
this "nomination" happen." Three of the four CC members who voted "Yes" were
newly minted CC members who hadn't yet read the bylaws. At the end of this
meeting at the Pub I suggested that we ask our Advisory Committee for advice.
The advice of this group was of particular interest to me since many of these
advisory committee members were also authors of our bylaws. Blair Bobier,
one of the PGP founders and also an attorney, responded that the CC did not
have the authority to "nominate" which was what we were being asked to do.
We were being railroaded into rubberstamping a "nomination", something
our bylaws do not give us the power to do. I do not like being pressured and
strong-armed. If this is Green Party politics it's time for me to move on. I
resigned the next day.

Liz Trojan
former Pacific Green Party of Oregon co-chair


Marnie Glickman wrote:

> Over the past two weeks, CounterPunch "journalists" have written two
> articles attacking me for being among other things a Democratic Party spy
> and a tyrant of my state party.
>
> I'm not a spy.
> I'm not the tyrant of my state party. Like other state parties, our party
> is run by an elected body called the Coordinated Committee. They make all
> of the decisions for the party. I do not and never have sat on our party's
> CC.
>
> The articles are based on rumors, gossip, lies, and innuendo.
>
> If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them.
>
> Marnie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa [mailto: lisa@losangelesgreens.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:30 PM
> To:  womens-caucus@gp-us.org
> Cc:  glickman@lclark.edu
> Subject: re: green women candidates
> Will Marnie Glickman address the issues raised in this Counterpunch article
> about Teresa Keane's campaign switch from House to Senate and other GP
> issues?
>
> Many Greens and people on the left consider Counterpunch a reputable
> source so I'm sure this is going to arise elsewhere.
>
>  http://counterpunch.org/frank09072004.html
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lisa Taylor
> LA Greens Volunteer Coordinator
>  http://www.losangelesgreens.org
>
> P.S. I have never met Marnie, barely recognize her name from the National
> GP, and have no axe to grind; I just read.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Marnie Glickman wrote:
>
> Dear Green friends,
>
>
>
> We just launched the campaign of our awesome US Senate candidate, Teresa
> Keane.
>
>
>
> She is challenging US Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat who supports Bush's
> Medicare reforms and "Health Forest Restoration Act."
>
>
>
> Teresa is a nurse practitioner and union member who supports universal
> health care and a zero cut, zero extraction policy on our public lands.
>
>
>
> To learn more, visit www.votekeane.org < http://www.votekeane.org/> .
>
>
>
> There is at least one other Green woman that I know who is running for the
> US Senate, Efia Nwagaza in South Carolina.
>
>
>
> Is there a way for our caucus to help our Green women candidates this fall?
>
>
>
> Marnie Glickman
>
> Portland, Oregon
>
> 503.313.7919
>
> _______________________________________________
> Womens-caucus mailing list
>  Womens-caucus@lists.gp-us.org
>  http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/womens-caucus
>
>
>

503-970-2069