The recent publicity that Mike Bloomberg and Ron Paul will appear on the Virginia ballot as candidates for president and vice-president is wrong. Although the Independent Green Party of Virginia did circulate a petition for president with those candidates’ names on it, Virginia law explicitly gives the petitioning group the right to substitute. The Independent Green Party of Virginia has promised to place the Constitution Party national ticket on the ballot, via substitution. Meanwhile, the Independent Green Party of Virginia has been enjoying the publicity.
Also, reports that the Independent Green Party of Virginia got 70,000 signatures on its presidential petition are also wrong. The party got 70,000 raw signatures for all its candidates put together. Virginia requires separate petitions for each candidate, so the 70,000 figure was arrived at by totaling the party’s presidential petition, its U.S. Senate petition, and its various petitions for U.S. House.
Oh well. On the positive side, it looks like Paul might be on the ballot in Louisiana.
I thought that Baldwin already had a VA ballot line. Does VA allow fusion?
Richard,
Your story is incorrect. Ron Paul has essentially accepted the nomination. We intend to keep him on the ballot. If Mayor Bloomberg does the same, we’ll do the same.
We have had conversations with the Constitution Party, and in fact put them on the ballot for President in 2004 in Virginia by collecting about 16,000 signatures.
Now we are calling for a Unity Alliance with the major-minor parties to put Bloomberg/Paul on the ballot nationwide in the next two weeks.
William G
3rd District Chair, IGVA
um…Won’t happen…???
It has already happened.
…you be spinnin’
I stand by my story. Bloomberg has no power to keep his name on the ballot if the Virginia Independent Green Party wants Baldwin on instead. And Carey Campbell has promised the Constitution Party that Baldwin is their nominee.
And it is not true that Ron Paul has accepted the nomination. There is a difference between passively doing nothing, and accepting a nomination. Ron Paul is being passive. One accepts a nomination by putting his or her signature on a piece of paper.
Wow! Ron Paul has NOT accepted it and Jesse said they are NOT encouraging people to vote for it.
It’s the dumbest combo I’ve ever seen.
See, this is why we ought to encourage Ron to demand he be taken OFF.
Why in the world would they take Pauls name off the ballot if he’s OK with it? The vote totals, fundraising, and level of support would be huge. Are these people really this obtuse?
“Carey Campbell has promised the Constitution Party that Baldwin is their nominee.”
He has also been quoted throughout the media this week bragging about the 70,000 signatures, implying that they were collected for Michael Bloomberg, NOT for all their candidates combined, and saying they’ve “kept their promise to Mr. Bloomberg.” Carey Campbell is apparently determined to prove to the world why he was kicked out of the Green Party.
Richard, if you haven’t done so yet, you need to look at the various stories around the country that appeared yesterday on this, from the New York Times on down. And yes, there is no doubt that the Campbell crew is enjoying their intense but mercifully brief moment of publicity.
How on earth can anyone (least of all Virginia voters) take an organization seriously that bounces back and forth among Ralph Nader, Michael Bloomberg, and the Constitution Party? And where does the Constitution Party stand on the IGP’s obsession with solving every social problem with (don’t laugh) a government-financed light rail system?
I have two questions.
Why on EARTH does the Independent Green Party like the CP/Baldwin?
Secondly — If the IGVA wants to uphold its promise to the CP–simply put Baldwin/Paul on the ballot…
Ditto Trent Hill’s question. What is the link,
ideological or other, between IGVA and CP?? I don’t doubt the story; I just wonder why.
The Virginia Independent Green Party holds itself out as a conservative ecology party. Its candidates have generally been pro-life. It doesn’t follow logically that just because a party is concerned about the environment, that it belongs on the “left”. In fact we would all be better off if the concepts of “left” and “right” would fade away.
Richard: I’m sorry, but that libertarian analysis is just plain wrong given the total and complete bent of the Green Party of the United States to the left (and I spent about ten years before that in the Libertarian Party). After about nine years in the Green Party I have yet to meet one single person in the party, aside from Carey Campbell and his minions, who thinks that “Green” as the name of an American political party implies anything other than flat-out, left wing progessivism. “Pro-life” as the term is used in this country is not a Green position. “Conservative” is not a Green position.
The plain and simple truth is that Carey Campbell uses the word “Green” to confuse people and latch onto whatever name recognition it carries. His group signed on with the national Independence Party many months ago, so why don’t they simply use that name? Because it doesn’t carry any controversy, publicity, or recognition with it. The IGP simply gloms onto whomever will work with them, and it is usally a case where the people involved have no clue who Carey Campbell — a very facile and charming talker — is or what the history of his group involves. Based on his staff’s comments in the media yesterday, Michael Bloomberg apparently falls into that category. A short conversation with anyone in charge at the Green Party of Virginia or the Green Party of the United States would quickly disabuse him of any desire to be placed on any ballot as an IGP candidate.
“It doesn’t follow logically that just because a party is concerned about the environment, that it belongs on the “leftâ€. In fact we would all be better off if the concepts of “left†and “right†would fade away.”
As a generality–I agree that “Green” means ecologically concerned or environmentally conscious,and doesn’t neccesarily imply Progressivism. But in the political realm…Green = Progressive.
Im glad they’re placing Baldwin on the ballot, just a bit confused is all. I do also hope they’ll place Baldwin/Paul
In previous elections, the Constitution Party has run
Vice Presidential candidates in individual states who
were not the ‘National’ nominee. So placing Ron Paul
on the Virginia ballot would not be out of character.
That assumes Ron Paul decides to not actively act to
have his name removed. Should he leave his name on the
ballot it would prove interesting to see in which of
Virginia’s Congressional seats the ticket would fair
the best in relation to Ron Paul’s vote in Virginia’s
Republican primary last March.
Now as to Green being Progressive. That is a modern
idea imported from Germany where for many years the
German Green Party has run on the typical platform
that is associated with the Green Party USA. Remember,
the United States is the first Country in the world to
establish a specific National Park to preserve nature
for future generations. That was during Grant’s tenure
and no-one can say that he was liberal in any sense of
the word politically. The American Consevation move-
ment was never aggresively political which allowed the
European Greens to seize the mantle of “protecting &
preserving nature”. Before the 1960’s California’s
Sierra Club was much more focused on preserving the
California Sierra’s in a far more balanced manner than
is their current practice of trying to restrict all of
the people from ever seeing any of our Natural Trea-
sures.
“That was during Grant’s tenure
and no-one can say that he was liberal in any sense of
the word politically.”
Um,yes we can. Grant was EXTREMELY liberal. He deployed the Navy to solve a foreign conflict, he participated in the anti-federalist Reconstruction.
Well I have supported Ron Paul and assited with Paul’s run in VA. Chuck Baldwin would be a great president.
Yeah, Chuck Baldwin… I am going to vote for him.
David’s assertion of no link between the conservative wing of Green people and the Greens of the US does negate the actual smaller government, fiscal conservative approach advocated by the German Green founder Petra Kelly. I’d venture to say this is a template that Mr. Campbell follows having lived in Germany and directly involved with Petra and Joshka Fischer.
Petra Kelly was a socialist, arguably a Marxist. Joshka Fischer was a Marxist and is still at the very least a social democrat.
Richard Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 7:27 am
The Virginia Independent Green Party holds itself out as a conservative ecology party. Its candidates have generally been pro-life. It doesn’t follow logically that just because a party is concerned about the environment, that it belongs on the “leftâ€. In fact we would all be better off if the concepts of “left†and “right†would fade away.
Richard’s logic is correct. I consider myself to be a Left Conservative (a la the late Norman Mailer), for example.