Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, and Jim Gray on Progressive Radio Network

As you can see, the event is happening as I am posting. If you see this in time, listen live on Progressive Radio Network.

=================

Saving Our Democracy from Duopoly

THIS MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2012, at 7pm (ET) / 4pm (PT):
A Blockbuster Radio Event on Saving Our Democracy from Duopoly

Featuring all three of the most popular third-party 2012 candidates, in a roundtable discussion about the deficiencies of our two-party system.

Presidential Candidates Jill Stein (Green Party) and Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), plus Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential Candidate Judge James Gray will join us LIVE in a conversation facilitated and moderated by Gary Null on The Progressive Commentary Hour — exclusively on The Progressive Radio Network.

Never before have these three been brought together in such a forum. Never before have third-party candidates had so much to agree on. We will ask them to join forces, to acknowledge their differences, but also to recognize how crucial it is in this time in American history to put up a united front against the partisan bickering and corporatocracy that rules Washington and erodes the people’s power.

Join us Monday, June 11, for this incredible event, spread the word to friends, send us your questions for the candidates, and let’s take back our democracy with the help of these remarkable minds.

I'll post some thoughts on the conversations at the conclusion.

Update: Still digesting all that I heard. If you'd like to listen for yourself, below is the embedded, archived recording of last night's program.

Rocky Anderson:

"American voters deserve to hear from more than two people and two parties. Over the past four years, for good reason, 2.5 million voters have left both the Republican and Democratic parties. They are fed up with the current system controlled by the .01%. Third party candidates have a great deal to say and they will not be muzzled by the corporate billions spent to buy the election."

"Fifty-four percent of voters say they want a new political party. We’re here."

Jill Stein:

One hundred and forty-six million people – that’s nearly one in every two Americans – are now living below or near the poverty level. The stress falls hardest on our most vulnerable and disadvantaged, with the majority of children, half of our elders, three quarters of Latinos, and two thirds of African Americans living in or near poverty.

Last year, one million Americans lost their health insurance, raising the numbers of the uninsured to almost 50 million of our people. Over 6 million Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure.

Overall, nearly 25 million Americans are unemployed or unable to find full time work. And even those who have jobs are struggling, because wages have been declining for American workers, and are now lower on average than in 1996. Household income has fallen faster since the official end of the recession than during the recession itself, because the so-called “recovery” is made up of mostly low-paying jobs.

While the economy is not working for the vast majority, it does work for a privileged few.

America’s creed is “With Liberty and Justice for All.” That is a creed of equality. But right now we are experiencing the worst economic inequality in our nation’s history. The gap between the very rich and the many poor has never been so great. The wealthiest 1% in America now own as much wealth as 90% of all Americans. Such inequality is unacceptable, unconscionable, and un-American.

Jim Gray:

I do not want to "legalize" anything. When you think of the legalization of drugs, think of aspirin. There are no restrictions on advertising, quantity, age of purchaser, or location of sale, and the price is set by the free market. What I wish to install is a system of the strictly regulated distribution of some of these drugs -- starting with marijuana. This would be similar to what we do now with tobacco and alcohol. And in order to keep the marijuana from being advertised, the government would have to own the product. Would there be problems? Of course, because as I said, no program is perfect.

But this system would be far, far, far better than what we are doing now. In fact, anything would be better than what we are doing now.

(Some contend that) people will no longer need to commit crimes in order to pay for their drug use. That is silly. But that crime would be greatly reduced. Look at the results in Portugal, where they decriminalized the use of all drugs back in 2001. In 2009 Glenn Greenwald of the CATO Institute published a report about the results and he observed that overall drug usage became slightly lower, but problem drug usage was reduced by about half.

Now that the government was no longer spending such large amounts of money on the investigation, prosecution, and incarceration of drug-addicted people, they had much more money to use for drug treatment. So those treatment programs were funded. This is seen as a truly effective program, and is one we should not only study, we should emulate. [...]

And if we followed the experience of Holland, where all drugs were decriminalized several decades ago, after 6 to 12 to maybe 18 months, probably usage would decrease as well. The Minister of Health of Holland held a news conference numbers of years ago and said that their country, where anyone 16 years of age or older can go to a coffee house and get marijuana, they only have half the marijuana usage per capita as we do in the United States -- even for teenagers!! And then he went on to explain why by saying that "We have succeeded in making pot boring." Of course, we glamorize it in our country by having it illegal, and by having an incredible profit margin to sell it to us, our neighbors and our children. We must learn from Holland's experience.

The Weekly post-conventions Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is back from the state conventions and focused on the fall as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff reminds you that your voter registration status is in the hands of a bureaucrat who might mistake you for someone else.

 BossKitty at TruthHugger knows why politicians always hire professional marketers. Americans have been conditioned to react predictably, and marketers know how to sway the voter and consumer. That's why America is Pavlov’s Dog.

The James Cargas campaign sunk to a new low over the weekend with an e-mail to precinct chairs criticizing a single mother's primary voting record. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs reminds voters of Congressional District 7 that there's a corporate Democrat and a community Democrat running for the Democratic nomination, and which one represents the party in November should be a very easy choice, no matter where on the spectrum you fall.  

WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it's time for Democrats to change tactics and advocate for the poor, working and middle classes again. There is nothing left to lose.

Neil at Texas Liberal posted about 2012 Juneteenth observances and celebrations in Galveston, Houston and College Station. This post also has Juneteenth history links. Juneteenth 2012 is on Tuesday, June 19.

Texas Dems elect a Latino chair; Rs add guest worker program to platform

Which really tells you everything you need to know about the two major parties.

Gilberto Hinojosa, the  state Democratic Party’s newly elected chairman, is a 59-year-old Brownsville attorney and former Cameron County judge. He’s the first Latino party chairman.

I congratulate Judge Hinojosa on his election. But as I have written previously, Texas Dems had a choice between a progressive Latina or a Boyd Richie-endorsed conserva-Latino, and they went with the latter.

In the article above, there are some disturbing cut-and-pastes in the comments from "San Benito"; they are not unattributed but there is was a comment linking to a blog article that also provides an opinion about the incident in question, a fraudulent vote-counting maneuver a play-for-pay scheme in South Texas during Hinojosa's tenure involving state distict judge Abel Limas, Hinojosa, and Rep. Rene Oliveira. I don't want to repeat the allegations here; they're just too iffy to consider seriously without complete sourcing. *ed. note: strike-throughs made on 6/16/12 to reflect update below.

[Sidebar: See, we bloggers can write a lot of things about a lot of people, but IMO if you're anonymous (even though a recent Texas Supreme Court decision on a local libel case upheld it as First Amendment privilege) and if you don't cite your sources -- a standard higher than most corporate media reaches these days -- then you are just not as credible as you can be.]

==========

Update: Citation and details of the judicial corruption trial of Limas Ray Marchan here. Here also is the account of the alleged vote-counting fraud involving Hinojosa, which was conflated in the strike-through above. Full post on these developments is here.

==========

It's a shame that there are dark clouds swirling around Hinojosa even as he assumes office. I would not have supported him based on Richie's endorsement alone. I believe that Boyd Richie was a proven failed leader of the party for too long, and I welcomed the regime change. I had -- though diminished with this rumor, still have --  a small amount of hope that Hinojosa can follow through on reforming the Texas Democratic Party such that it can win a statewide election in this cycle.

That's probably still too much to hope for. Twenty-fourteen, perhaps?

So I'll move on from that to point out that the Republicans thought they did something clever with their party platform.

Late Friday night, Texas Republicans approved an unprecedented change to their official party platform: a call for a national guest-worker program.

The more moderate language is a welcoming gesture to Hispanics who have avoided the GOP because of what they view as its hardline position on immigration issues.

"It takes away a tool that Democrats have used for years to drive a wedge between conservative Hispanics and Republicans," said TexasGOPvote.com's Bob Price, who is also a delegate at the Republican Party's state convention.

Ah, no it isn't and no it doesn't. And I am once again disillusioned by the new corporate-sponsored media's attempt to portray this as a "welcoming gesture". And let's please shut up the right-wing clamoring that economic refugees are a problem at all. If there is any problem (I remain convinced that immigrant labor and their tax contributions are a boon to the US economy) it's the fault of the businesses -- excuse me, "job creators" -- that hire them.

Oh, the Rethugs have raw milk and motherhood planks also. Don't ask me to explain it. Ask them.

Meanwhile, the Texas Democratic Party wrote a platform that includes marriage equality, repeal of the death penalty, and decriminalization of marijuana. (The party's website still has 2010's platform as of this posting but did send an e-mail with all of the details. By the time you click this link tomorrow it may be there). Update: Here's the .pdf.

Now that's what progress looks like.

You may recall that when the old-guard SDEC failed to pass similar resolutions for the May 29th primary ballot, that was the last straw for me. And a party platform that now includes them as well as young fresh blood on the SDEC are both good signs, but let's not kid ouselves. In the words of a former Tea Party warrior/darling:

“Clearly these people feel strongly about (the party platform),” said convention-goer and former gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, noting delegates’ late-night meeting. “And yet most of our candidates never even bother to read the thing.”

That's pretty much how I feel. The platforms don't match the power of the wind generated from the discussions in the process of writing them.

But hey, glacial progress is still progress. Some people see it as a glacier calving an iceberg and then rolling over, creating a tsunami. Far be it from me to disparage that feeling.

Finally, I look forward to a blog post from Mean Rachel after reading this...

Attending her first Democratic state convention, social media enthusiast Rachel Farris of Austin was less than impressed. Farris, 28, whose blog is called “Mean Rachel,” said the best thing the party could do as far as she was concerned is start over. Farris stood toward the back of the convention hall, while on the stage in the distance U.S. Senate candidate Paul Sadler spoke to a distracted crowd. Sadler, a respected former legislator, hasn’t held office since 2003.

“In social media, everyone has found their own personality,” Farris said. “The Democratic Party needs to find its personality. We need leadership. We need people who are willing to take risks. I’m an agitator, so I think it’s time for a change.”

Longtime party activist Deece Eckstein, also of Austin, didn’t disagree with Farris. “Now the brand is completely dinged,” he said. “We’re Edsels. We need to come out with a Ford Mustang. I don’t think it’s going to be a person. It’s going to be an idea.”

Too bad for the Castro twins.

Who's the real Democrat, indeed

A precinct chair in CD-07 sent me a copy of the following -- well, there's just no other word for it -- unhinged response from the James Cargas campaign, drafted and distributed sometime during this past weekend's state party convention.

It's simply an uncareful and overly emotional answer to this post, if you needed background. Rather than respond to my account of the dirty, underhanded espionage his campaign performed on the Lissa Squiers campaign, he instead sent out the following:

Lissa Squiers has never voted in a Democratic Primary until this May after she suddenly decided to be a Democratic candidate.  NGP VAN, the Democratic Party’s voter database, shows that James Cargas voted in the four out of the last five Democratic Parties; Squiers’ record is void of any participation in primary elections (this year being the only exception) during the past ten years, the period of data retained in NGP VAN.  (Copies of Squiers and Cargas’ NGP VAN voting records are attached)

“To call yourself a Democrat at minimum means you publically declare yourself a Democrat when you vote in the party’s primary,” said James Cargas, candidate for the democratic nomination for 7th Congressional District. “Calling yourself a staunch Democrat means you care deeply about good candidates advancing and ultimately winning elections,” he continued, “it means you have to show up and vote for them.”

In light of her lack of tangible Democratic credentials, it is shameful that Squiers has been questioning Cargas’ three decades of Democratic roots.

“For thirty years, I have fought and defended democratic values,” James Cargas said.  “If working in the Clinton Administration, and on the campaigns of every Democratic nominee for President since I was 18 isn’t democratic enough, I don’t know what constitutes being a Democrat!”  Cargas was a paid campaign staffer for Gore2000 in DC, Iowa and Texas.  More recently, he was invited to work for then Sen. Barack Obama in Canal Winchester, Ohio, as suburb of Columbus, in the 2008 election.

Further telling is her deep association with the Green Party, including Perry Dorrell, a self-described Green Party Delegate, activist and blogger, and who also serves her campaign as communications director.Squires was not a delegate to this weekend's Democratic State Convention in Houston.  Cargas was a delegate from Senate District 13.

In addition to her voting record and claim to be a stauch Democrat, Lissa Squiers has made numerous other misrepresentations about herself, James Cargas, and candidate Cargas’ wife throughout this campaign.  The Democratic Party and the electorate deserve better leadership.  They deserve James Cargas.

-- First, I will let Ms. Squiers address his "concerns" about her voting history. She can speak for herself in that regard. As has been the pattern, it's nothing James Cargas' campaign in their most feverish of dreams can understand or relate to. She will do that in a response of her own sent to the same people who received the above. I will point you to this statement detailing her full-time involvement in volunteer efforts on behalf of children's education, women's rights, and equality issues during and following the years she spent raising her children.

-- I find it out-loud laughable that Cargas brags about being a "paid campaign staffer for Gore2000". Is there anything you won't do for money, sir?

-- It is false -- not just wildly exaggerative but downright wrong -- that Squiers has a "deep association" with the Green Party. The only semi-Green she knows is me. And as for me being bluish-green, this is ground I've covered several times, beginning here. Now to be clear, Cargas is fairly pointing out Ms. Squiers' associations; I have quite obviously done the same with his. He may be right that there are Houston-area Democrats who don't like Greens, or even *gasp* don't care much for me. It has long been my experience that Democrats dislike Republicans a whole lot more. And as I have noted time and time again, his campaign is full of them.

-- I am NOT Ms. Squiers' communications director. That statement is abjectly false. There is no one who has this title in her campaign. She has NO paid staff. As I have said repeatedly, I am a volunteer activist. That would be volunteer as in "unpaid".

Speaking of being paid (again), the Cargas campaign raised about $28,000 -- mostly from people who have the letters "CEO", or "M.D." or the words "energy consultant" as employment descriptions -- and spent about $13,000, according to their 4/15/12 FEC filing, as compared to Squiers' approximate $1000. She in fact raised and spent about 30 cents a vote compared to his approximate $20/vote.  His campaign expenditures, hilariously enough, include the purchase of an I-Pad ... and I-Pad accessories. Really. Go look at page 30, the last page (and page 18 for the accessories).

We don't need to be reminded that the Cargas campaign plays fast and loose with the numbers, do we? So whom would you trust more when it came to making decisions about the federal budget?

-- The "numerous misrepresentations" part is just another echo of Hector Carreno's previous missives. They keep saying things of this nature without providing any correcting narrative.

That's because everything I have written is 100% accurate, and they know it. If anything I wrote -- or more to the point, that someone else wrote that I linked to -- was even slightly false or misrepresentative... well, Cargas is an attorney. He ought to be able to know what to do about that.

But all I keep hearing is this "she's saying mean things about me" whining. If I ever do meet James Cargas, the first thing I'm going to say to him is: "Man up, buddy. Pull up your big boy Underoos and grow some tolerance for a contested primary."

If James Cargas wants to pick a fight with a woman, that's his business. It's not very professional or even manly business, but it does reveal another unsavory side of his character.

If James Cargas wants to pick a fight with me, we can certainly have one.

James Cargas isn't worthy of one single Democratic vote in CD-07, IMO. He is in fact the worst Democratic candidate I have researched in a very long time. From his slimy business associations with quasi-Republicans to his disgusting personal conduct toward Ms. Squiers in pursuit of the nomination, Cargas consistently reveals himself as a greedy, contemptuous one-percenter. That's Republican behavior personified, folks, and that's what I'm referring to when I call him a Republican. Voting history and campaign work notwithstanding, he's the Democratic equivalent of Smokey Joe Barton.

There are several reasons why Cargas finished behind Ms. Squiers on May 29th, and the one good thing about the above communication is that he seems to be helpfully reminding potential runoff voters of a few of those reasons. He's simply embarrassed that despite his superior stature, fundraising, consultants -- indeed, his Romney-esque exceptionalism -- he's losing to a woman who's not just out-working his campaign all by herself but is the better Democrat in the contest.

I will say again to Mr. Cargas: renounce your campaign operative's subterfuge, return the documents he acquired under the false pretense of supporting the Squiers campaign, disavow these repulsive tactics, and pledge yourself to run an open, honest and fair campaign on the issues.

I further declare that if Cargas cannot comply with the above -- and if he somehow manages to win the runoff -- that you, dear reader, can be goddamned certain I will throw my support to the Green candidate, Lance Findley, in the fall. And I'll spend every day from the end of July to the beginning of November reminding every single Democrat, Green, and independent in the district that Cargas is completely unworthy of being elected to Congress.

James Cargas is nothing more than John Culberson Lite.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Or Bethany's either, for that matter. Click on all the links I have posted, read for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Please.