Howie Hawkins, long-time Green Party activist in New York, recently announced that he is seeking the Green Party’s gubernatorial nomination. He lives in Syracuse, and the Syracuse Post-Standard featured this story about his announcement.
In 2004, Hawkins ran for U.S. House in the 25th district and got 9.61%. In 2006, he was the Green Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate. For Senate, he polled 55,469 votes, or 1.24%. If he had been running for Governor, that vote total would have been enough to qualify the Green Party for qualified status. The Green Party in New York has only been a qualified party for the four years 1998-2002. The only year it has ever been able to poll 50,000 votes for Governor was 1998, the year it ran actor Al Lewis (“Grandpa Munster”) for that office. Lewis polled 52,533 votes.
Pingback: New York GP activist Howie Hawkins declares for Governor, gets publicity | Independent Political Report
I’m ready to collect signatures.
I really like Howie Hawkins. I don’t know him personally, but he seems like such a cool kind of blue-collar guy. He’s been doing what he does forever, and is so workmanlike about it. He reminds me of a Cormac McCarthy or a Stan Brakhage or a Charles Bukowski. Except, instead of being a writer or filmmaker he has chosen grass roots politics as his art. I don’t know if he likes the people I just mentioned, but like them, Mr. Hawkins seems to be a textbook case of an individual who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of innovation within a specific area regardless of the attention, or lack thereof, that has been paid by the established voices who disseminate information about such art. Mr. Hawkins is just the kind of guy I’d like to see raising money beyond his realistic expectations, rising suprisingly high in the polls, and attending fundraisers where large crowds of well wishers surround him to chear him on and pat him on the back.
it will be very interesting in New Paltz and Woodstock how the DEMs handle the Green Gov. nominating process this time around on our local political stage in Ulster County.
In a level-playing-field world, with equal access to the media and debates, and public financing of campaigns, and ranked voting, AND an informed and intelligent citizenry, Hawkins MIGHT be the ideal prototypical Green candidate. He knows the issues, has a consistent platform, and is an articulate spokesman.
But all that is irrelevant in a world that’s driven by money, fame, backroom deals, ego, greed, and power-hungry sociopaths. In that world, being THIS world, Hawkins is either unknown and going to be KEPT unknown by a media PAID to shut him OUT of coverage and debates, or is known as a perpetual LOSER, who has run and run for many offices and NEVER WON a single race, even for a local office! (As the FIRST Green to win RE-election to municipal office in NY State, I have MORE electoral credentials than Hawkins, but, then, I left the Green Party after McCourt proved even a KNOWN entity couldn’t pull 50K votes for Gov in a rigged race!)
I fear that Hawkins will be the 2010 NYS version of David Cobb’s disastrous performance in the 2004 Prez race, where the Green Party plummeted nationally from Nader’s impressive 2000 showing. As Green enrollment is down significantly in California, the largest state membership, and has shown no growth to speak of anywhere, certainly not in NYS, I fear the Greens have simply blown any opportunity to regain whatever traction they had with Lewis’s success and Nader’s boost.
I will still vote for him or any other Green candidate that supports the Green principles, but maybe it’s time for a NEWER party that doesn’t carry the negative baggage the Greens have heaped on themselves or allowed to be heaped on them.
Steve, I support your right to say things like that, but I kind of wish you wouldn’t. Here’s why Howie Hawkins gets 50,000 votes: 1) He’s better than McCourt. 2006 was like “Oh yeah, lets nominate some guy that’s kind of sort of famous but mostly due to his relation to a more sucessful brother, and who doesn’t know how to campaign, and who might know the issues but doesn’t convey an image of someone who’s even comitted to the party and who cares if anybody outside of the City’s ever heard of him.” 2006 never felt right. He’s also better than the academian from 2002, who knowbody remembers. 2) For a lot of politicians it’s a matter of finding the right race. Because Hawkins is well known among Greens statewide, and is so dedicated, and has had the opportunity to learn from McCourt’s campaign, and because he got 55,000 votes for Senate, and because the Democrats suck this year, and because he’s in his late 50’s, this is the perfect time for him to run in this race. 3) Alliteration. Just say it: Howie Hawkins! I’m not joking about this. 4) He’ll get some military and union votes.
Did you watch the Cobb-Badnarick debates? Cobb got his clock cleaned. Cobb sucked. The Greens should endorse Nader for President as long as Nader breaths.
HOWIE HAWKINS will get 50,00 votes in 2010.
50,000! votes in 2010. Richard can we correct typos?
Oh, who cares about typos in comments in a blog?
There are states in which Green Party registration (or enrollment, to use the New York state term) is much higher now than it has ever been. I will be collecting new registration data for all states that have registration by party in June, but I already know the Maine registration for the Greens is huge, and I suspect in most states it will be higher in 2010 than it was in 2008.
I remember Stanley Aronowitz, and Howie has even less awareness amongst, or credibility with, the general public than someone of Stanley’s professional stature. Union votes in NYC alone SHOULD have given SA 50K votes, and he couldn’t pull that off.
Being “better” (a subjective opinion, at that) simply doesn’t cut it in THIS world and THIS political reality.
The Green Party simply lacks public confidence or party maturity (being without a deep bench of solid elected officials of proven competence) where the ordinary voter will pick whomever the Party nominates, as they would in countries where there’s proportional representation and third parties have the support of substantial numbers based on their platforms.
Here, it’s a matter of being well-known or well-backed to break through the media blackout, and Hawkins lacks that, as was the case with Aronowitz. At this stage in the Green Party’s existence, short of outside factors (see below), only a famous or semi-famous person, like Lewis or McCourt, has the chance to be CONSIDERED worth a second look.
Hawkins was unable to be CREATIVE enough to get into the Senate debates, or otherwise really stir things up and get coverage. I see no improvement since that suggests he will do better as gov candidate.
The votes Hawkins got for Senate were in large part a reaction against Hillary, as the 117K votes for Julia Willebrand, an even lesser-know quantity than Hawkins, were a reaction to the Hevasi scandal. It had NOTHING to do with their even being SEEN or HEARD by the public, but simply a no-confidence message against the eventual winners.
Cuomo will pull a Spitzer; the Dems will insist it’s a close race and so will frighten everyone into voting for the Dems, even though it was and will again be a landslide for them. And the phony-baloney Working Families party will regain their ballot status on Cuomo’s coat-tails, rather than EVER put up their own candidate.
If ever there WAS a time when the Greens SHOULD be riding high, it’s NOW, but when (other than 2000) have they ever not missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity?
The smartest and most politically savvy Greens I ever knew are now EX-Greens, or are still, like Charlie Brown and the football, living in denial and wishful thinking, hoping that one can do the same thing over and over but get different results.
Most of the so-called party leaders, particularly on the national level, from my own experience on the national committee, are not qualified, ethically or by principles, to be elected dog-catcher, and I’m not much more impressed with NYS stalwarts.
Steve, Andrew Cuomo just might be this year’s Hevesi. He’s not really as popular as we’ve been lead to believe. You must see that. He’s Andrew Cuomo! He’s certainly not as popular as Spitzer in ’06. He’s got too much baggage. Lazio’s not all that popular either. He’s Rick Lazio! In the current political climate voters occasionaly vote for candidates other than Republicans or Democrats. In 2002 Golisano did very well, well enough to steal the thunder of all the other alternative candidacies. 2006 was a midterm year in a Democratic state during the second term of a Republican administration. The Democrats were effective at conveying the message that only they could provide some relief for us from the evil Republicans. However, because voters found Bush so distasteful, they were ocassionally willing to vote against Democrats who had demonstrated acquiescence regarding Bush policies. Specifically Hilary and her war resolution vote. Hawkins got some of those votes. 2006 was Hawkins’ first stab at statewide office. He was being groomed, so to speak. Most voters won’t think about him now as the perennial loser of Syracuse area races. They’ll think of him as that hard working ernest guy who ran for senate four years ago and who got a few votes. They’ll see him as a dedicated kind of tactition who’s going grey but who’s a good guy and could possibly deserve a pat on the back. And who really wants to vote for Cuomo? Or Lazio? And if this guy Hawkins can point out there shortcomings, well….Steve think how modest this goal is. Success is all a matter of the Greens learning to get good at things they’re historically bad at. They just need a little PR work. They need to stop being the party that fails to get the two registered members they’ve got in a given council district to show up. But statewide office is a different game than local office. This campaign is all about using cheap tactics to send a broad message across lots of terrain. It’s easier, in a way. This is not a time to fret over personal experiences at elected office, but to think of the big messages all the new people out there just waiting to hear it. The pathetic Democratic Party’s anger over 2000 is wearing off a bit. Just 50,000 votes againts Cuomo, Lazio, and a Tea Party clown. He can do that. This is a good opportunity for Greens!
I would love to see an open minded green party governor. Unfortunately, in the community where I live, New Paltz, the local Green party membership is generally people who are 100% locked into their values and believe that any kind of compromise is morally wrong. I strongly believe in green values, but know that compromise can get far more accomplished in the long term that sitting outside the tent and whining. I don’t yet know this candidate, but I am fully willing to hear what he has to say and to put some of my resources behind him if he is smart and willing to accept a partial advancement of green values rather than fail at demanding it all.
The Greens/Nader would rule the nation as the last real non-fusion party standing (Reform Party, LP and IP excluded from this discussion) as well as NYS if and when the slim possibility of Obama and the DNC/RNC nbc eligibility cabal finally implodes.
Clay:
1- Golisano self-financed his campaigns to the tune of millions. (He BOUGHT his way into the public’s awareness, and essentially financed the Independence Party’s ballot status; when he didn’t run again on the IP line, the IP flopped.) Hawkins can’t do that, and the GPNYS is essentially broke.
2- The least expensive means of publicity is the website. I know because I was the webmaster for the GPNYS site up to and through the 2006 election. The number of site hits and requests to be on an e-news list was paltry, and not enough to suggest it was making any serious difference.
3- Most voters are legacy voters, upwards of 80%. They vote the way their grandfathers voted. They have to be really turned off by something to NOT vote for the nominee of their party. In SPITE of the scandal, Hevasi got 2.348 million votes, nearly 3/4 million over the unknown Callaghan. I’ll take that margin any day!
Sorry, but Cuomo has instant name recognition, holds high office now, and has a history of public service and the legacy of his father. He’s a lock to win handily, but, even as you note, they will PLAY it as a touch-and-go race, to frighten support from those who MIGHT vote third-party (except for WP, who will make sure that they keep their ballot line by riding the Cuomo coat-tails).
4- Hillary was and is a controversial figure with high negatives and a carpetbagger to boot. She generates strong visceral feelings, and that DID translate to some votes for Hawkins. Cuomo doesn’t reach that level of animus, and he is seen as someone who has the COMPETENCE to do the job. When has Hawkins been an executive or RUN anything comparable to a business or government agency? A Senator can get away without ability to LEAD or RUN a huge enterprise, but not a governor!
5- MOST voters won’t think about Hawkins at all! Period! He will be ignored by the media, except as a crank gnat tilting at windmills, up there with the candidates who wear rainbow wigs and tin-foil hats. 95% of voters won’t even know his name until they see it in passing on the ballot.
Steve Greenfield did a masterful job of pointing out Rep Maurice Hinchey’s shortcomings, but nobody heard it or paid any attention. Hawkins posted great press releases on Clinton’s shortcomings, which I dutifully put on the website, and which few bothered to read.
6- That a known person like McCourt couldn’t get the modest goal of 50K votes (if EACH Green Party member had voted for him, and gotten ONE family member to do so, THAT would have been enough!), convinced me that the GP had blown it, and was LOSING traction.
Weak and uninspired leadership, lacking funds and creativity, mired in petty personal pique (Have YOU ever been to the state committee meetings? I have, and they were models of frustrating and un-democratic manipulation by petty tyrants and nasty backbiters.), the GPNYS wouldn’t know what to DO with any power if they had it!
7- The GPNYS has HAD every opportunity to demonstrate creative and low-cost approaches to reaching and inspiring the public, and they’ve failed at every attempt. Any local wins were based on the candidate’s personal ability and the unique circumstances of that race, and the state party was either uninvolved or useless. Any statewide votes were more a matter of unfamiliar-with-the-facts voters supporting the IDEA of a Green Party than the efforts or work OF the GP itself. I say this as one more than tangentially involved in local and state and national party activities.
8- I STILL, to this day, find myself posting factual rebuttals to the whiny Dems STILL blaming Nader for “giving us Bush”! The anger and scapegoating is STILL there, and the Dems keep it boiling, to make sure the Greens are NOT allowed to join the game! If a great and influential person with a spotless record, like Nader, could be smeared and demonized, it’s obvious how easy it is to do the same to lesser individuals.
Steve:
1. How much Hawkins raises is more important than how much GPNYS has in the bank. Greens tend to get a high rate of votes per campaign dollar spent, so if Hawkins can raise upwards of $50,000 he’ll be in a good position to make the goal.
2. In 2006 the Green Party wasn’t making use of available online resources. In 2010 Greens are using more online media, and there are more online media available to generate free publicity.
3. People tend to form voting habits early in their voting career, based on their first few experiences. Young voters are thus the most likely to try something new when they vote – and they are also the bloc most receptive to Green ideas. Focusing on outreach to young voters could be a rewarding strategy for Hawkins.
You are ignoring the fact that in both 2002 and 2006, Republicans were in the driver’s seat in both Washington and Albany. In 2010, Democrats have been disappointing their base in NY for 4 years and nationally for 2. A Nader-hating scare strategy is not going to be effective after Spitzer got 70% in 2006.
4. Like Hillary, Cuomo is also seen as a political insider. Hawkins’ outsider status compared to elite dynasty Dems could be a plus for independent voters, if we play it right.
5. Hawkins has experience campaigning and he’s already gotten some press in the past couple of weeks. Many Greens can and do get press because they have relationships with journalists and do news-worthy things; Hawkins is one of them. We can also do more than just post press releases on the web site – in 2010, you can post them to blogs, social media, video sites, etc. Not to mention the growing independent media.
6. Does the fact that the Green candidate for governor got 40,000 votes in 2006 mean that Howie Hawkins can’t get 50,000 votes in 2010? Of course not. The political atmosphere in 2010 is much better for Greens than it was in 2006. There are more and better ways to promote the Green Party in 2010. Howie Hawkins is a knowledgable, articulate, experienced candidate. The goal should be raised to 5% of the vote.
7. Good volunteer work on Hawkins’ campaign will draw in those voters who support the idea of a Green Party, growing the party and helping it become more mature and effective in the future.
8. We all have to deal with Nader haters. But this is the first year where I can bring up Greens on progressive blogs, and the discussion doesn’t turn immediately to Nader-hating. Sometimes Nader doesn’t come up at all. The Democrats have no more excuses – of course a few still parrot DLC talking points, but there are many Obama voters who are ready to go Green. There are certainly enough to win ballot status for GPNYS and turn the party’s fortunes around. That’s what I’m going to work towards – I hope others will join.
Dave:
I presume from your website link that you are young, idealistic, and long on can-do wishful thinking, if relatively short on in-the-trenches experience. Much as I was 40 years ago.
Some practical advice based on much experience: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then move on… no use being a damn fool about it!” Many of us have tried many times to fight in the face of overwhelming odds (I still do, on local matters!), and I would never want to discourage your attempts, but don’t get caught up in your own desires and beliefs, confusing them with what the vast majority is thinking, or rather NOT thinking about at all. YOUR enthusiasm should not be confused with reality!
My past experience is that YOUNG Green enrollees are the LEAST likely to vote, least likely to show up for meetings, least likely to volunteer to DO active things. Very unreliable and treated enrollment as no more than joining a record club. Maybe it’s a generational thing. Those of us who cut our teeth on the movements of the 60s simply seem to have a different ethos when it comes to commitment.
There may be MORE online outlets now, but that only means more FOG and more stuff to compete with for attention. Damn, I LIVE in Cyberia, and I can’t keep up with all the stuff that comes in for me to read, much less respond to.
Assuming Hawkins will “relate” to young voters is a stretch. Assuming older voters will want an untested person with NO experience IN government, when even an insider like Patterson has shown himself swamped by events and circumstances, is even more of a stretch. When a state is in crisis, you don’t go with someone with NO connections or powerful base, or no history of getting things DONE.
Cuomo is a NY STATE insider, not a carpetbagger like Hillary. In tough times, you look for someone who can DO what a governor has to do; Cuomo will play up his experience and point to opponents’ lack thereof. He will ignore Hawkins entirely, as Clinton did. And the media will oblige that lack of coverage.
The numbers for Greens in NY have been going down, not up. It peaked in the early part of the decade and nothing has come along to reignite it. The best and sharpest have left. The Greens are seen by most as yesterday’s flash in the pan, and without any new spark or proof of maturing into a ready-for-prime-time party.
But do the young, idealistic thing and knock yourself out! Maybe you’ll actually succeed in making a dent. But to what end?
We already HAD ballot status and practically NOTHING came of it when we HAD it! A handful of local office holders, including myself, and no real increased organizing or growth. The Independence Party had ballot status for a few years and where are THEY now? The WFP has ballot status, and all they do is rubber-stamp Dems!
The game is rigged, the deck is stacked, and unless major systemic changes are made (and the chances of that are slim to none, unless a cataclysm occurs), a third party will NEVER reach critical mass or public acceptance.
Steve, your insistance on dwelling upon past failures brings nothing constructive to the conversation. What do you want to accomplish? If you’re such a big suppoorter of the guy who lost the Democratic primary in 02′, go cote for him. Why fool around here at all?
Those who won’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, n’est pas?
I’m not “dwelling” on anything, merely laying out some facts relevant to any strategic analysis of the reality of the situation, using past experience and logic to try to puncture Pollyanna illusions based on wishful thinking and denial.
Going down a wrong road AGAIN serves nobody here; suggesting one avoid that wrong road isn’t constructive? Why not?
Who said I’m “such a big supporter of the guy who lost the Democratic primary in 02”? Where did that strawman misrepresentation come from? Care to cite ME to support that claim? I don’t have to LIKE or WANT someone to point out the likely scenario to be played out, and the general perceptions that will be operative.
I don’t know who YOU are, Clay, how long you’ve been IN the GPNYS, if you even are, what campaigns you’ve worked on or RUN in, what offices you’ve held IN the GPNYS or anywhere, but if you can’t take the advice of someone who’s been there and back, you aren’t going to learn much, except, perhaps, the hard way.
I’m just a slob on a blog here. No qualifications necessary. This should be fun. We’re all friends here. We’re lucky to have this forum. I think the Green Party’s cool and I want them to do well. Period.
On 10/04/20 02:08, Clay Easton wrote:
> I’m not involved with anything and it doesn’t matter anyway. I’m just
> some slob with a laptop and I can’t get what you’re after.
Well, it DOES seem to matter, or why are you taking YOUR time to comment and then comment back?
I’m someone with experience and knowledge and it seems you are not. Which one trumps the other?
> Think about
> what this exchange even is. I mean think about the nature of our
> interaction for a second…
See above. Re-read my comments from that perspective.
Facts and evidence trump wishful thinking and denial.
> I just think the Green Party is cool and I
> want them to do well.
Well, isn’t that peachy? I have BEEN an active member, officer, and representative of and for the GP and one of a handful of ELECTED Greens, and I therefore know more about it and them than you probably could. I know their strengths and weaknesses, their successes (few) and failures.
They had their chances and they’ve usually blown them.
> Isn’t that what you want?
I WANTED them to live up to their principles FIRST, and they usually failed to. I wanted them to be SMART and CREATIVE, and they rarely were. I wanted them to be PROACTIVE and they usually blew that too.
> Why jump on ba news if
> that’s not the case? Or at least propose something…a different
> candidate maybe? SOMETHING positive mister capitalization-happy…
Why didn’t you answer my questions? Had you tried, or even READ them, you’d see that I don’t think THAT even getting ballot status would likely “mattter anyway,” for the reasons I gave.
Preventing stupid and pointless activity IS a positive SOMETHING, mister nit-picker.
Politics ain’t beanbag, as Tip O’Neill said. If you want “fun,” get a Wii or Playstation.
We’re talking about how we organize and implement our social actions in concert with those who agree and disagree with our beliefs and desires. There are strategies that make sense and those that don’t. I like my actions to result in more than mere “seeming cool,” but have practical results that make things better.
As I said, IF Hawkins IS the GP gov nominee, I’ll likely vote for him, unless someone better comes along. Unlike YOU, I have met him and followed Hawkins’ actions for years. Unlike many Green activists, he has been consistent, principled, articulate, committed, and issue-centered. He’s among the best there are when it comes to knowing and presenting the Green platform.
In an IDEAL world, ALL Green candidates should and would be of his type, but this world doesn’t work that way.
Richard, it will be interesting how the regisitration totals will be in California, with all the troubles of a certain political party.
If anything else appears on this thread attributed to me it’s because it’s been lifted from another source and was never intended by me to be viewed on this blog. This includes quotes of my remarks used in #19. I have no confidence in Mr. Krulick’s willingness to protect my anonymity or the private nature of any communications I may have with him in the future relating to this matter. This is my last post on this thread.
As you said in the subject line of the email you sent me Clay, “Relax dude.”
I have no confidence in Clay’s willingness to respect my privacy and time when he sends me unsolicited direct emails instead of responding to my public questions and comments IN public.
Clay did NOT ask that his email, which only expanded a bit on the post he wrote here, be kept confidential.
One of the greatest shortcomings of many forums is that people can avoid accountability by hiding behind anonymity.
As an outspoken and fearless community activist, I have often been attacked with threats and name-calling, lies and misrepresentations, by anonymous cowards who can get away with their lobbed verbal grenades because they didn’t have to face me or the public as identifiable persons who had to stand behind their posts. Needless to say, I have little tolerance for online anonymity, except in obvious cases of whistleblowing, possible loss of jobs, or medical or personal matters that could lead to prejudicial or selective treatment.
Indeed, I finally got our local newspaper to change their online forum policy that allowed anonymous posters to say anything about anyone, unmoderated and undeleted, with no legal recourse to hold them accountable.
The Green Party in particular is rife with examples of Green officials writing butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-their-mouth posts in public forums, while writing harassing, nasty, threatening, foul-mouthed, and hypocritical emails behind the scenes to avoid the nanny wrist-slapping their selective censorship policies and persecution of critics would otherwise trigger. It’s one of the reasons I learned to have no confidence in the integrity of numerous national and state Green Party “leaders.”
And it’s common practice, when someone can’t address the questions and refutations posed to them in public, to throw in the towel and blame it on some fabricated factor. I tried to engage Clay in the issues of this thread, but he decided to personalize it instead and avoid the points I raised regarding HIS points and those raised by others concerning the possible Hawkins candidacy and related matters.
I see no reason to dwell on this narrow sub-thread further.
“I presume from your website link that you are young, idealistic, and long on can-do wishful thinking, if relatively short on in-the-trenches experience.”
I am young and idealistic, and I have in-the-trenches experience as well. That’s the profile of the type of person behind winning Green campaigns. I certainly have a can-do attitude towards goals that can be realistically accomplished, and getting 50,000 votes for Howie Hawkins as the Green gubernatorial candidate in 2010 can be realistically accomplished. The attitude that “Malachy McCourt only got 40,000 votes in 2006, so it’s impossible for Howie Hawkins to get 50,000 in 2010” seems to be more based on emotion than logic.
I hope you’ll join me in supporting Hawkins’ campaign as a vehicle to rebuild the New York Green Party and bring the right sort of people to the party, people who are “consistent, principled, articulate, committed, and issue-centered.”
If you ARE young, Dave, then your “in-the-trenches experience” must be relatively short, ipso facto. There’s a lot that experience can teach that youth and idealism simply won’t listen to or believe. There are lots of “been there, done that” veterans of many campaigns that could offer their wisdom, but youth always knows better, doesn’t it?
You misrepresent what I said. I never used the word “impossible” nor is there any reason to castigate my analysis as based on “emotion” rather than a decades-long involvement with, and understanding of, statistics, probability, voter psychology and dynamics, public relations, mass communications, and realpolitick.
Could Hawkins get 50,000 votes in a statewide race? Yes; in a different race with different dynamics, he already has. But the same Nader who got nearly 3 million votes in 2000, only got one-sixth of that amount in 2004, yet almost doubled his 2004 tally in 2008.
Same guy, same office, different dynamics.
Likewise, getting protest votes by people who hated Hillary doesn’t necessarily translate to whether the average voter will want to vote for a relative unknown, with no election success or office-holding record, for a near-hopeless job that would today tax the most accomplished executive.
Maybe you’re too close to the GP to see, as I had been by having been very involved, but am now standing back and HEARING what people were saying to me all along, but I was too much in denial and wishful thinking to accept. WE HAD many of the “right sort of people” in the party, and most of those, with few die-hard exceptions, have left in disgust and frustration.
We even tried to get rid of the worst offenders in the national party clique but they had too strong a stranglehold, based on unproportional leverage and cronyism, and used that power to crush dissent, reform, justice, democracy, accountability, and anything resembling “green” principles.
And NYS wasn’t much better. Believe me, most registered Greens in NYS had no idea WHO their reps even were, or what they stood for, or how they acted. Any Green success was usually IN SPITE of the Party, not due to it.
Again, even when we HAD ballot status, the dysfunctionalism and divisions within the party hierarchy foiled most attempts to take advantage of the opportunity. I see little reason to view things differently now, particularly as with time lost, we’ve lost momentum and credibility that is hard to recapture in the public’s mind.
Good luck, however. Far be it for ME to tell anyone not to pursue their goal or desire, fantastic or improbable as it may seem. Who knows… I might even put a Hawkins sign on my lawn IF he is the GP nominee.
But I would like to think that there would be a REAL active search FIRST to bring in OTHER, perhaps more well-known alternatives. At least a debate and some choice would be nicer than a coronation by default.