On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, David Stevens wrote:
> On the Peace and Freedom Party, I left a few loose ends that
> I ought to correct for the sake of the record.
>
> Although P&F is only a California political party today, it originally
> aspired to the national level. CPUSA theoretician Herbert Aptheker
> was a 1966 P&F candidate for US Congress in New York. The
> party also ran candidates in [the state of] Wa****ngton back then.
>
> Apparently, P&F still *aspires* to the national level: a Los Angeles
> meeting of its State [=only] Central Committee made a resolution
> to that effect on March 30, 2008. It all sounds very exciting, and
> they've promised to write if they find work.
>
> Also, I erred in describing the votes at the recent P&F convention
> as being those of "delegates," at least in the sense that most readers
> may assume those delegates to be associated in some way with the
> outcome of the primary election.
>
> Similarly, John Holmes was just plain wrong about it:
>>
>> But, since the party is just barely still hanging on to its ballot
status,
>> it has primaries, so for the presidential nomination at least, it is
the
>> actual PFP registered voters who decide who the candidate is, and they
are
>> not socialists. For other ballot slots, the machine, such as it is,
decides
>> who the candidates are, as nobody really cares, so they tend to be
>> socialists of one stripe or another.
>
> P&F's primary election is merely advisory. It does not appoint any
> "delegates" who then vote at the P&F convention. (I would have
> been more accurate to say "apparatchiks of the various P&F County
> Central Committees" or something like that). We cannot say that
> the "actual PFP registered voters .. decide who the candidate is"
> except in the sense that those who vote in the P&F convention are
> likely to look over their shoulders beforehand.
>
> In fact, Cynthia McKinney did much better in the primary popular
> vote (almost as well as Nader) than she did in at the P&F convention;
> and PSL socialist Gloria La Riva showed a strength at the convention
> dispro****tionate to her popular vote in the primary.
>
> P&F strongly opposed California's switch to "open" primaries, and
> they have consistently chosen not to allow party-switchers or
independents
> ("Decline to state" affiliations, in the local electoral parlance) to
vote
> P&F
> in primary elections. (The California Republicans generally don't,
either).
>
> So I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that P&F is
> an undisciplined party like the Democrats, aggressively distributing
> their primary ballots to us unwashed "Decline to state" m*****.
>
> To the contrary, the P&F has an explicit discipline, which might be
> characterized as electoral sup****t for "anything that moves":
>
>
http://peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/resolutions-and-statements/200-resolution-for-non-expulsion-motion
>
> - David Stevens
>
So then it was the P&F socialistic apparatchniks (other than Gloria La
Riva's people) who went for Nader! The rank and file, such as it is,
kinda like McKinney actually. Worser and worser...
-jh-
|
