Reflections on the Election of 2010 and the Arizona Green Party

It's now several weeks after the November 2 election. Even the closest races have been or will be decided soon, and we thought we'd give -- for ourselves, if no one else (like our entire campaign) -- some reflections on it.

Today's Arizona election results update shows that we got 3,407 votes in the Sixth Congressional District. (Sincere thanks to all the folks who voted for us.) That's more than the other two on-the-ballot Green candidates for Congress, the ones who were "endorsed" by the Arizona Green Party, not pointedly sued in federal and state court to keep us off the ballot like we were. Of course, we got 1.36% of the vote, and Leonard Clark in the Third District got 1.58% (3,298 votes) and Rebecca DeWitt in the Fourth District got 2.57% (2,365 votes). The Arizona Green Party also endorsed William Crum in the Second Congressional District, but he ran as a write-in (apparently the AZGP's antipathy to write-in candidacies extends only to those candidates they don't like anyway) and there are just 290 write-in votes (just 0.11%, some no doubt for Mickey Mouse or Lady Gaga).

Our 1.36% share of the vote in the Sixth Congressional District is about what the "endorsed" U.S. Senate candidate, Jerry Joslyn got: 1.44% statewide. For someone who ran a "serious" campaign and who appeared on TV debates, that was a pathetic showing. In the state Treasurer's race, Thomas Meadows achieved 2.58% of the vote, beating the pants off Joslyn in a similar four-way race. Compared to Joslyn's 24,603 votes, Thomas Meadows managed to garner 46,115 votes, making him the Arizona Green Party's top vote-getter along with the Arizona Green Party's champ of 2010, 20-year-old Benjamin Pearcy, who got 47,121 votes running for one of two open seats on the Corporation Commission. Go Benjamin! Not bad for a 20-year-old kid who lives on Mill Avenue (near the Starbucks that was his campaign HQ) and who couldn't testify at the federal trial when the Arizona Green Party tried to kick all of us non-endorsed candidates off the ballot because he was in jail at the time.

Indeed, if Pearcy or Meadows -- who's 27 and was described as "a tarot card reader with less than a dollar to his name" in the New York Times article about Republican Steve May recruiting Mill Avenue street people to run write-in candidacies in the Arizona Green Party primary -- had been the Arizona Green Party's gubernatorial candidate and had gotten 3,000-4,000 more votes, the party would have achieved the magic number of 50,000 votes to make its place on the ballot secure for the next four years (as state Green Parties did in New York, Massachusetts and Texas), without having to get petitions again in 2012 or being subject to the law that made the party vulnerable to write-in candidates winning primaries with a literal handful of votes (we won with six votes).

The non-endorsed Arizona Green Party candidate for governor, Larry Gist -- who petitioned his way onto the ballot -- had the worst percentage showing of any party candidate, endorsed or not -- with a truly bad 0.93% of the vote: 16,128 votes (again, remember that Meadows got 30,000 votes more than he did although they both ran in four-way statewide races).

Another supposedly "sham" candidate, Theodore Gomez, got 42,645 votes running for the other seat on the Corporation Commission. If the good results (at least by Arizona Green Party 2010 election standards) for the candidates supposedly recruited by the Republican Party to siphon off votes for Democrats don't gall the bosses of the Arizona Green Party, you can blame it on their trademark stupidity.

Suing the ballot-qualified candidates in federal court and then in state court -- a miserable failure both times -- was the perhaps the height of the Arizona Green Party's stupidity in this election. It will be their major contribution to the 2010 election and only solidified the public image of the Arizona Green Party as a laughingstock in the minds of both conservative and liberal Arizonans.

And it was needless. The Arizona Green Party is very touchy about not "endorsing" Democratic candidates even in races where there is no Green candidate, but they didn't hesitate in letting the Arizona Democratic Party pay for their lawsuits. Nor did they care about employing aggressive and untruthful tactics (the federal complaint contained numerous lies and errors, and in court the Democratic Party's hired lawyers said the Arizona Green Party didn't want to be associated with us because of a swastika on our blog here, completely ignoring the obvious context in which we were protesting the Nazi-like SB 1070).

Indeed, as Leonard Clark, an endorsed candidate for Congress, said in disgust, the lawsuits had the effect of showing the Arizona Green Party disregarding several of its Ten Key Values (Grassroots Democracy, Social Equality, Decentralization), the party's credo that we explicitly swore (and still affirm) our allegiance to many times -- though that wasn't good enough for the poohbahs of the Arizona Green Party to consider us anything more than a "sham" candidate.

We never understood the Arizona Green Party and Democratic Party contending that the "sham" candidates would siphon off votes and allow the Republicans to win some races they otherwise wouldn't. The laughable logical conclusion of this argument seemed to be that they expected the "sham" (non-endorsed) candidates would actually do better than the "real" (endorsed) candidates in garnering votes! If any Green candidate would take votes that would otherwise go to Democrats, why did it matter if she was endorsed by the party or not?

The AZGP bosses don't seem to understand that a political party on the ballot isn't a club; it's a party. It uses the state to hold its primaries. Anyone can join at any time. The Secretary of State or local elections officials have no business asking any Arizonan why she is choosing to register as a member of a political party or if she is a "sincere" or "genuine" member of that party. Thank God in America we don't have to uphold loyalty oaths to political parties.

Secretary of State Ken Bennett was right when he said he had no choice but to uphold the candidacies of people who, like us -- or Benjamin Pearcy, Thomas Meadows or Theodore Gomez -- who upheld the letter of the law and got their paperwork in without anything being wrong with it. If you don't like it, Arizona Green Party bosses, then you're fools for working so hard to get on the ballot. You can't guarantee that the candidates you disfavor will not win your primaries; just ask the Republican party leaders in Delaware, Nevada and Alaska.

The Democratic Party also were hypocrites in the so-called "Siphongate" brouhaha. It's clear that Arizona Democrats were complicit in covertly supporting Libertarian candidacies among conservative voters, just as Democrats in other states got fake "Tea Party" candidates on the ballots to siphon off votes for Republicans.

Meanwhile, challenging the non-endorsed Arizona Green Party candidates was moot, given that there's not one race in the entire state where any Green Party candidate, endorsed or not, made a difference in who won an election. The margin of victory for every Republican who won was greater -- usually much greater -- than the percentage of the vote garnered by any Arizona Green Party candidate.

Indeed, in the race where a third-party mattered most, Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' successful re-election in the Eighth Congressional District, the 3.93% of the vote for the Libertarian candidate was twice the size of Giffords' 1.46% margin of victory. There was no Green candidate, and if there had been no Libertarian candidate, the Republicans probably would have picked up their third Democratic U.S. House seat.

It appears that none of the endorsed Arizona Green Party candidates for the state legislature ran in any district that was not reliably Republican or Democratic. Linda Macias, who we (as a member of the Pinal County Greens) endorsed for State Representative in District 21, got a really impressive 17.15% of the vote, but she ran in a race with two Republicans and no Democrats or other candidates.

We were not impressed, as we said, in our meeting by phone conference with the Arizona Green Party. If we were so abhorrent to them, why did they allow us to vote on endorsing other candidates for Congress and the state legislature? Why did they invite us to join their Yahoo Group for Arizona Green Party candidates?

What surprised us was the low level of educational attainment among the Arizona Green Party leaders. Of course, in Arizona, there's a much lower percentage of college graduates than in most states, so that's kind of understandable. But the stupidity of some of their questions and remarks floored us. Some of them didn't seem to understand that members of Congress serve in Washington, D.C. and not Phoenix or were not subject to the state Clean Elections laws. They seemed ignorant about electoral history and few seemed actually to have taken part in campaigns despite being around for a while. Perhaps it was more naïveté or ignorance than stupidity, but these were the leaders of the Arizona Green Party.

Anyway, we wonder what their contribution to the election of 2010 was. Arizona Green Party bosses seem content with their little fiefdom -- one gets the impression that these are people who are content to be big machers in a little world rather than foot soldiers in the Democratic party.

Of course we would be hypocrites if we didn't understand that. Nobody runs for Congress or the state legislature or anything else without being somewhat of an egotist. It's just that egotists are helped if they're also a little savvy.

And so, since we still adhere to the principles of the Arizona Green Party's Ten Key Values -- like transparency, which is why we posted the memo by Claudia Ellquist that so pissed off the party bosses -- even if they don't, we've decided to remain a registered voter in the Arizona Green Party.

And just to piss them off and give them advance notice of 20 months, we are today announcing that we will be a candidate for the Arizona Green Party nomination for Congress in the 2012 primary. That is, if they can do the work to make sure we're on the ballot again. All we need is one write-in vote to win! And our name's easier to spell than "Murkowski."

* * *

(We're posting the Arizona Green Party logo on top of this post because it concerns the Arizona Green Party. Previously the party bosses complained to Google's Blogger service about us using the logo without permission and so we removed it from some posts. Apparently the Arizona Green Party doesn't believe in the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law and so we await their next legal move, as they apparently have nothing better to do.)

Pinal County Greens Endorse Dave Ewoldt, Green Independent Candidate for State Senate in District 28

Yesterday the Pinal County Greens issued the following statement on their website:

Apache Junction, Ariz., Sept. 24, 2010 -

Today the Pinal County Greens, a group of Arizona Green Party members in Pinal County, announced its endorsement of State Senate candidate Dave Ewoldt in Distict 24. A former Arizona Green Party member who fought the party's bosses in Pima County, Ewoldt is now running as an independent.

"There is no official Green Party member running for the State Senate in District 28," said the Pinal County Greens in its statement, "and it's only because the party bosses are vindictive that they are not supporting Dave Ewoldt, who embodies the Green Party's Ten Key Values better than most of the so-called 'endorsed' Arizona Green Party legislative candidates."

"Dave Ewoldt is by far the best and only choice for Green Party voters for the State Senate in central Tucson's District 28," the Pinal Greens' statement concluded.

Pinal County Greens Endorse Democrat Terry Goddard for Governor, Oppose the "Anti-Green" Green Party Candidate Larry Gist

Earlier today, the Pinal County Greens, which previously endorsed our candidacy, had this press release on its website:

Apache Junction, Ariz., September 22, 2010 - The Pinal County Greens, a political organization made up of members of the Arizona Green Party in Pinal County, today announced its endorsement of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard, whom it called "the only progressive candidate for governor and the only alternative for Green Party members who support our ten key values."

At the same time, the Pinal Greens announced that they were opposing the candidacy of Larry Gist, the phony Green Party candidate who got on the primary ballot but who does not endorse the Green Party platform.

"Larry Gist is just another right-wing wacko Arizona politician," the Pinal Greens said. "The only thing truly green about him is the money he used to buy his way onto the ballot by paying people to get his petitions signed."

"We urge all progressive voters to avoid even accidentally supporting the right-wing wacko Larry Gist," the Pinal Greens said. "Don't be fooled by the 'GRN' after his name. He is a Green in name only. Terry Goddard's positions are much closer to those of the Green Party's Ten Key Values, and he's the best choice by far to replace the failed governorship of the incompetent Jan Brewer."

The Pinal Greens also censured the Arizona Green Party for not having a true Green candidate running for Governor. "If the Arizona Green Party bosses had thought things through," the Pinal Greens' statement said, "they would have made sure we had a gubernatorial candidate who supported the party's Ten Key Values before getting enough signatures to get the party on the ballot in 2010."

Noting that if its candidate for governor gets at least 50,000 votes, the Arizona Green Party would get permanent ballot status in future elections, the Pinal Greens said, "we should have at least tried to get someone our members and other progressive voters could have supported. Now the Arizona Green Party is in the ludicrous position of opposing the head of its own ticket."

The Arizona Green Party has gone on record as opposing Gist. So far only the Pinal County Greens have endorsed Democrat Terry Goddard.

RICHARD GRAYSON FOR CONGRESS AZ-06: THE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE OUTSIDER WHO FOUGHT AND BEAT THE ARIZONA GREEN PARTY BOSSES TO STAY ON THE BALLOT

Now that I'm indisputably going to be on the November ballot as the Green Party candidate for Congress in Arizona's Sixth Congressional District, I've added a new description to this campaign website, "the liberal/progressive outsider who fought and beat the Arizona Green Party bosses to stay on the ballot."

And to those who keep asking if I was "recruited" by Steve May, the answer's a definite no. I'm twenty years older than Steve and was gay in the '60s before he was even born.

Arizona Green Party Candidate for Congress in Sixth Congressional District Richard Grayson Reaffirms His Longtime Support for Party's Ten Key Values

I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this to counter the lies put forward in newspapers, blogs, and in courtrooms, but I, Richard Grayson, the official candidate of the Green Party in Arizona's Sixth Congressional District, hereby reaffirm my unqualified support for and endorsement of the Arizona Green Party's Ten Key Values:

GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY

Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

ECOLOGICAL WISDOM

Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

NON-VIOLENCE

It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

DECENTRALIZATION

Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE

We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work. Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY

We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY

We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

The Ten Key Values of the Green Party of the United States vary slightly, but I wholeheartedly endorse those as well. My positions on issues are informed by my unreserved support for these values. I am proud to advocate them in the November general election as a Congressional candidate of the Arizona Green Party.

It is too bad that the bosses of the party do not live up to these fine values. I'll try to do better than them at supporting the Ten Key Values.

Shonda!: On Rosh Hashona, Arizona Green Party Lawyer Misleads Court By Saying Jewish Congressional Candidate Richard Grayson Is A Nazi!

Leonard Clark posted this as a comment on Ballot Access News (much thanks, Leonard; we will call you soon):

Richard, this is Leonard Clark. I agree with much of what you say. Today, the plaintiff’s lawyer tried to mis-lead the judge by stating in court to the effect that you weren’t a real Green because of a swastika posted on your site without telling the judge that this was posted to show not that you were a fascist but that you were saying Arizona was red and fascist! This was B.S. and I’m sorry that they misrepresented you.

This is especially upsetting to find out on a day when I've been to shul, on Rosh Hashona. To that shyster representing the Arizona Green Party bosses, this is for you:
Es zol dir farshporn fun fornt un fun hintn!

Breaking News: Judge Rules in Favor of Us Ballot-Qualified Arizona Green Party Candidates!

The first report of the ruling:

Judge won't kick Green Party candidates off ballot

By JONATHAN J. COOPER
Associated Press Writer
© 2010 The Associated Press
Sept. 9, 2010, 9:31PM

PHOENIX — A federal judge has denied a request by the Arizona Green Party to kick a majority of the party's candidates off the November ballot.

U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell made the ruling late Thursday, hours after hearing arguments in the case.