On Aug 20, 4:11 pm, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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-st...
>
> > - 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-
No, David S describes the procedure accurately but left something
out...who gets to decide? The P&F party isn't a party of 'registered'
members per se. All decisions are made by the State or County Central
Committees. To get on the CC of either you have to be elected during
the primary election. In other words, you have to run for the
position. Also, if you were a candidate in an election on the P&F
slate, you get auto member****p on your county and State CC.
I was on the State CC for a number of years back in the early 1980s. A
real blast. Anyway, the Nader people actually did their work...they
went out and petitioned to get on the ballot for the CC slate and then
won election.
The P&F "registrants" (there are 60,000 of them) play almost no role
in the P&F by choice...I suspect people register because they line the
name, it's "progressive" for "peace" etc. I think if the P&FP changed
their name to the "California Socialist Party" registration would drop
to a few thousand, at best.
The other thing that Stevens is wrong about is that there was "Sate (-
only) CC" meeting...ALL meetings of the P&FP are open to anyone
registered as a member.
David
|
