The problem seems to be that neither candidate wanted to run an aggressive campaign that would help build the party, much less create some sort of movement for electoral reform. They were running to raise money or generate publicity or stroke their own ego.

Regarding your comment about Ms. McKinney seeking the Peace and Freedom Party’s presidential nomination (even though she was already on the ballot in California as the Green Party nominee), I will mention that Barry Commoner attempted to obtain our nomination, in 1980, even though he was already on the ballot as an independent candidate for president. He did not recive the PFP-CA nomination. By the way, I was part of the delegation for Gus Hall at that convention. We did not receive the nomination either.

Phil I have to agree with Charles on this one. The Green Party-McKinney was disgraceful to say the least. Ralph’s first preference was to run on the Green Party Ticket and he made numerous speaking engagements at a number of Green Party functions in 2007. In January 2008 the Greens held a debate in San Francisco amongst their declared candidates. Nader appeared separately after the main event because he was not a declared candidate and was prohibited under FEC rules. At the end of the debate one of the participants, Jared Ball, got up and announced that he was withdrawing from the race and was throwing his support behind McKinney and would do anything to support her race. After the event Ball made a number of public statements supporting McKinney. As February drew to a close Nader announced that he would not seek the Green Party Nomination and for all intents and purposes ceeded the race to McKinney. A few days later in a gesture of brazen disrepect towards Nader Ball publicly called on Nader to run as McKinney’s Vice Presidential running mate. After that Jared Ball dropped of the face of the earth and was never heard from again despite his prior statement of commitment for McKinney.

McKinney locked up the Green Party California Ballot Line at their convention in mid July. Despite that McKinney makes a stop out to the P&F Convention two weeks later to secure their ballot line even though she was only on the ballot on 21 states at the time ? After Balls’ earlier outburst this curious decision left me with the impression the McKinney Campaign was more about stopping Ralph Nader than it was running Cynthia McKinney.

When it came down to the actual McKinney/Green Party Campaign the ineptitude defied belief. They failed to properly file the paperwork for Federal Matching Funds. McKinney and the Greens barely raised any money worth speaking of. Less than 200,000 dollars. Nader raised 4 Million and received 889,000 dollars in matching money. McKinney said nothing during the campaign to indicate she knew anything about Green Party Policy or articulate Green Party Principles. If she were a Green she would have been out front challenging Barack Obama’s plan to escalate the military conflict in Afghanistan. She spoke nothing of Green Party Tax Policy after it became clear that financial markets were tanking. Late in the campaign it was all the Nutty Stuff that Charles has already addressed.

Phil I don’t know how anyone can consider McKinney a credible candidate despite what she says about the party’s platform when she conducted such a minimal campaign. Nader raised 8 Million Dollars in 2000 running as a Green. Nader raised 4 Million dollars running as an independent this year while McKinney couldn’t raise 200 grand. Does that tell you who had the heavy end of the log 2000 ? The only items of value in the Greens are their ballot lines which are dwindling with each and every election.

Phil, I, like Charles have had my fill with the Greens. I was there in the beginning and put in substantial effort to found and grow the party. But since it’s initial successes the party has become very good at saying what it’s not rather than sying what it is. The resultant sectarian infighting has lead it to a state of paralysis which outside groups are more than willing to exploit. P&F and other state party’s need to know that they can no longer can expect to survive on a sustained basis as a small political party at the margins. Your comment about the Republicans fading is quite correct. The Capitalist Centers of Power in this country pumped cash into the Democrat Party on a scale that towered over anything they kicked in to the Republicans. It will be interesting to watch what happens in 2010 and 2012 but if they keep up that trend the Repubs won’t be around, at least as a major party, for long. The key questions then are when will the American Citzenry at large recognize this and what will they do when the realization hits.

In the meantime, the Republican Party is packing its bags. That can only be a good thing. My prediction is that the GOP will be a minor-sized party by the year 2012 – and that it will never again win an election on the national level. The Republican Party can thank the Bush-Cheney Administration for much of that.

Given that political theory is rarely taught until the undergraduate or graduate level and even then it can be avoided.

In my own State of Minnesota I noticed that their was no Socialist-Communist party on the ballot, just as write-ins. I founds this to be a bit curious, but then again Richard, if I may put something into his mouth, might just be trying to get around to making a ballot access point;

I suspect that their was a time when their was only one Socialist and one Communist party. Today, their are probably over a dozen.

I tried to have a self-described Socialist friend of mine explain why these factions existed, given that they seem to agree on policy, but he could not do so. Then again, we are now seeing this factionalism with the Libertarians.

Richard might just argue that because of harsh ballot access laws, parties are more likely to become splits into factions. Thus the notion that harsh ballot access rules are needed to avoid a clutter ballot of splitered parties would be challenged.

As theories go, I am not sure its a bad one. If a party cannot expect to get on the ballot or even into the debates, it may become more likely to focus on ‘purity’ and ‘litmus’ tests internally.