This Turkey Talks Politics

Turkey That Thinks it's a Dog from Polidoc on Vimeo.

Here's a turkey, convinced that it's a dog. He'd much rather be a part of the political discourse then a main course at dinner. Kent Mesplay of the Green Party talks with his self-sufficient green-leaning Libertarian friend in San Diego about some of the similarities between the two minor parties.

Ron Paul debates Conservative Baldwin on Legalizing Marijuana

In this CNN video, Conservative Stephen Baldwin and Ron Paul debate legalizing marijuana.

Jesse Johnson Raises Symphony Hall - Puts A Call Out for Freedom

Polidoc will be releasing more videos this week. Until then, enjoy the soulful song candidate Jesse Johnson put out at the 2008 Green Party National Convention on July 12, 2008 at Chicago's Symphony Hall.

Johnson moved into electoral activism after years of absence from his home state. He was appalled at the destruction of his native blue ridge mountains by profit driven coal companies. A former Republican, Johnson represents the Libertarian Greens; in the past, he was endorsed by Mike Gravel.

Johnson continues his electoral activism in West Virginia, where the Green Party's affiliate, The Mountain Party, has nominated him to run for Governor. Johnsn is scheduled to be in two debates in October, when election season really heats up.

Libertarian Phillies Reflects on His Party's Internal Struggles Over Selection of Barr

Reprinted by permission of the Miller Politics, Ben Miller

Miller Politics exclusive interview with former 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate George Phillies:

MP: "Many traditional libertarians were unhappy with Bob Barr winning the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. Do you feel Barr is libertarian enough and are you supporting his candidacy?"

Phillies: "As State Chair, I am extremely busy getting our U.S. Senate candidate, Bob Underwood, on the ballot for this fall. The same nominating papers also put onto the ballot a full slate of electors. Petitioning for Libertarians in Massachusetts is momentarily challenging. People do not know about our Presidential candidate, and that does not help petitioning or recruitment. I am also busy with Liberty for America, my State and Federal PACs, my new Libertarian magazine, and with efforts to engender local activism in Massachusetts. Historically, Presidential campaigns have largely run themselves--there are a bunch of campaign finance issues here--and I expect Barr/Root will do the same.

"I confess I would be happier if my contact to Barr/Root, asking how to reach their volunteer coordinator, had not more or less indicated that they do not have one. After all, the main value of a Libertarian Presidential campaign is strengthening the party, volunteer mobilization is the larger part of party strengthening, and no volunteer mobilization means that the major value of the Presidential campaign is missing.

"Now, Massachusetts has the technical difficulty that our Secretary of State has changed his mind about whether or not we have substitution. Last Fall, the Secretary of State said we could replace our candidate when the candidate's name was determined. We chose President and VP
candidates, and started petitioning. At the moment we are petitioning for Phillies/Bennett rather than Barr/Root, because by starting early we collected lots of signatures. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State now says we cannot substitute. It is likely that this matter will be litigated. I advised the National Party they could keep petitioning and hope the lawsuit won in time, or they could start over. They chose to hope rather than to start over. If we prevail, Barr/Root is on the Ballot. If not, Phillies/Bennett is on the ballot.

"I view the outcome of our last national convention as a train wreck in process. Large parts of the party are disenthused about a Presidential candidate who was (probably correctly) afraid to debate his Libertarian opponents more than once. The Barr-Root deal (Barr has committed to
support Root's 2008 nominating campaign) possibly will not sit well with the party's radical wing. Running two ex-Republicans rather than, say, an ex-Republican and a conspiracy theorist did not anchor the party together.

"There are at least four or five fault lines causing our party to drift apart. We have a group of social conservatives, right-leaning Libertarians, conservatives who want to wreck the GOP... who line up with Barr-Root. We have an anarchist/radical/purist wing, attached to Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby, who are very unhappy about things. We have the people who believe all the conspiracy theories from 9/11 to the Federal Reserve being privately owned to gold fringies on the flag means that the court must follow Admiralty Law. These people border with the Ron Paul people, the larger part of whom are not libertarians. Finally we have a party centrist wing, which did quite poorly at the National Convention, but seems to have more support elsewhere.

"I have done a moderate amount of travel since the national convention, and I am encountering very little Bob Barr support among Libertarians."

MP: "You have launched a new website, LibertyForAmerica.com. On the site it says: 'Liberty for America is not currently a political party.' Down the road do you plan to start a new party?"

Phillies: "The statement as meant to be read literally, namely Liberty for America is not as I type this answer functioning as a political party. I could have omitted the 'currently', but then if anything happens and LfA becomes a party people could have raised 'inconsistent' lines. Happens? For example, LNC, Inc., the corporation behind the National Committee, has in the past decade repeatedly flirted with serious fiscal insolvency. If it had instead become insolvent, at some point a new organization with new leadership might have made more sense to many people. Historically, in Massachusetts we had a Libertarian State Party that did not do that the things activists expected, leading to formation of a parallel organization 'Liberty for Massachusetts' which started doing partylike things. LfM eventually absorbed the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts."

MP: "Do you have any plans for running for office in the future?"

Phillies: "I might, though I very much doubt for 2012, run for a Presidential nomination again. That's assuming that by 2012 or 2016 we have a functioning Libertarian Party, which is up in the air.

"As seems to be forgotten, in 2006 the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire decided to choose its own Presidential candidate, so that they would have time to do the needed petitioning. Why? They had the serious complication that New Hampshire does not allow substitution of
Presidential candidates, so they had to make their own choice who to run, and start petitioning early, or wait until after the National Convention, and probably fail to do petitioning successfully for lack of time.

"They invited everyone who was running to compete. I was chosen as the nominee. They did the petitioning. I filed the Declaration of Intent and paid the deposit. Barring unexpected events, I will be on the ballot in New Hampshire this November as a Libertarian candidate.

"Barr has also filed his Declaration. There will now be an attempt to petition for Barr/Root. The LPNH people question whether Barr will succeed. If he does, we have two Libertarian Presidential candidates on the New Hampshire Ballot, giving New Hampshirites unprecedented amounts of choice. If not, and this is the far more important outcome for the LPNH, no matter what happens they will have a Presidential candidate on the ballot this fall.

"The LPNH and the Libertarian National Committee discussed this matter last year, so the situation has been on the record for every Libertarian all this time. The LNC chose to take no action last year. None of my opponents for our Presidential nomination cared about the matter enough to make an issue of it. Mind you, when you jump into a campaign with a month or two to go, you lack time to get your ducks all in a row, but I was also running against fine Libertarians like Steve Kubby and Wayne Root, and they also said nothing."

Green Party Convention Offers Opportunity to Assess Tactics

The Greens were hoisted into a fast growth plan in 2000 which they were not prepared to maintain after the election. That said, there has been remarkable organizational development in some states, Illinois, NY and Maine, chief amongst them; but these have grown out of local or state campaigns, not the Presidential.

I had a chance to film David Sirota the other week and in his new book,”the Uprising” he contends that progressive parties need to be looking to fusion as a way of building a third party – that historically, it’s impossible to simply create a party at the national level. He also suggests that we focus on economic issues as a fundamental link between diverse communities.

Fusion is a tough tact for Greens to take. Many of them wanted to have a “Green” candidate represent them in this election so that the party can stand out. However, the reality of the young organization and its fundraising mechanics is that they might still need to consider such choices because no rich, articulate and electorally ready angel that is a true green has adopted the Green Party and said, “I’ll run for President.”

At last year's convention, there were a couple of Libertarians seeking the Green Party endorsement who promised that their fat coffers would carry them to the Presidency. One had even offered to fund our documentary - if we gave him control of it (LOL) ! Since then, their candidacies have shriveled on the Libertarian vine.

And if you doubt that a single rich person couldn't organize and finance a national campaign, look at the well-backed Unity ‘08 effort. It smoldered away in 2007, despite money, media attention and organization. Even that coordination of ideas was too complicated a story for a soundbite addicted media to tell. Why write a thesis when the supermarket romance novella sells just as well.

The Green Party Convention begins in just two weeks. All of the Green Candidates will be feeding back lessons learned from this, the party’s second primary (first one in 2004 which was its own slice of party history). Don’t be mistaken, these candidates, will be looking at their own political futures with a new awareness of the demands of campaigning and the ability to raise funds. Some may return in 2012. Some might be much too busy/effective in their local and state politics to run a national campaign. I, for one hope the latter is the case because they are each wonderful humans with a passion for grassroots politics and we need people like that in our local and state offices NOW fighting for sustainable causes.

Whomever your candidate in this next election is, don't hand her a Green towel - give her a real flag - with your insignia - to carry.

Pundit Punt of the Week

Everyone, including Senator Clinton, is wondering how to unify the Democrats quickly so that the assault on McCain can move forward. However, the opinions greatly vary on whether or not the dream team for the Dems will be, shall we say, gender balanced. Well, if it all comes down to race and gender and the race decision has been made, it's not like Obama could select another woman instead of Clinton without tearing further at the fabric of the Democratic party.

In the attached video, Clinton appears to be thanking, cooling, baiting her AUDIENCE all within the same 55 seconds.

I could not have made this part of the journey without you. I want the 18 million people who have voted for me to be seen, and to be heard, to be respected, to be given the real appreciation that you are due. We have won more votes than have ever been won who has run for any presidential nomination of any party of our nation.

If it were up to Greens, the ticket would certainly be gender balanced, maybe even all female this year.

Libertarians went for heavy testosterone this bid, despite their second place candidate being a female.

Libertarian Bobb Barr on Colbert Report

Stephen helps former Republican Congressman Bob Barr explain his marijuana policy shift with memorable humor.

Barr had authored anti-drug enforcement regulation and has since joined the Marijuana Policy Project. Barr might be remembered as one of the legislators who led the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He had also rescinded his opinion on the Patriot's Act.

Very funny interview.

Leader of Lakota Nation Speaks Out:On Reasons for Secession P1

Russell Means, a leader in the Lakota Nation, discusses his nation's reasons for suceeding from the United States of North America.
.

Lakota Nation

Newbie Libertarian Bob Barr Snatches Presidential Nomination from Libertarian Loyalists

Amidst the remaining seven Libertarian candidates vying for their party's nomination, former Republican Bob Barr captured the honor after the sixth round of voting on Sunday night at the Libertarian Convention held in Denver, CO.

Mary Ruwart, who holds a Ph.D. in Physics and is a long term Libertarian, fought it out to the end. However, she failed to persuade her party's members that her long-term devotion to the ideals of the party were enough to capture the potential 5 per cent national vote which would gain the party matching funds and ballot access for 2012. The Vice-Presidential nomination went to Wayne Root, who had followed her in third place. Roots is a media producer and very comfortable on Fox News. By the look of his platform, he does not suffer any compassionate tendencies for which Ruwart had been dismissed.

The news of Barr's win will shift some of the election angst Democrats feel regarding Ralph Nader's reappearance on the scene. Nader's struggles to gain ballot access have also dampened the possibility of him agitating the election outcome, though that will not hinder Nader from making his anti-corporate populist message heard.

It is ironic, though, that both the Libertarians and the Greens have sought out and, at least in the case of the Libertarians, have selected someone who is new to their party. Whether this is a fascination with a kind of celebrity status or a true respect for the years already passed in office is a deeper question which has yet to be vetted. Cynthia McKinney has been pursued for years by the Greens, and while her hold on the nomination is fairly secure, she has expressed doubts about being able to sustain a respectable campaign, given the party's lack of funds and organization. What is certain, the activists from all parties will be rooting for some third party to crack the system in this election.

Libertarians Host Convention Debate Tonight on C-SPAN

If it's televised, it's real. 7 pm tonight (MST).

The Libertarians are hosting a televised debate amongst 7 of the Presidential candidates. Frontrunners are Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Mary Ruwart and Johnny-come-lately, Mike Gravel. Also on stage will be Michael Jingozian, George Phillies, and Steve Kubby.


Here are some media links to the various Libertarian candidates:

Mary Ruwart:
I'd like to highlight Ruwart who is a long-term Libertarian and obviously, a female candidate. She has a strong commitment to Libertarian principles and has authored a book about healing the nation. Ruwart discusses in this radio piece the necessary irony of the newcomer champions who have come under the Libertarian tent to run. This would include Bob Barr and Mike Gravel, though no names are mentioned.

Here's her Velvet Hammer message:


Steve Kubby:
A Freedom Fighter to the enth degree, his outspoken, comical approach is worth a watch. He has fought for Medical Marijuana Rights and Eliminating Taxation. He ran for Governor in California in 1998 and helped author Prop 215, the medical marijuana act.


Michael Jingozian:
We met Jingozian at the Green 2007 Convention where he presented himself as a Green leaning Libertarian and sought the endorsement of the Green Party. Greens, however, were ultimately strict about not lending their ballot lines to the Libertarians, regardless of appeals.

George Phillies:


Bob Barr:


Wayne Root:


Mike Gravel (as a Libertarian):

Nader's Lawsuit Against DNC Bares New Teeth

Additional Civil Rights Suit Filed in Early April

We all like to win. It feels good and in the case of politics, it can feel so deeply right; on the other hand, losing can hurl one into a catatonic depression. Is an election worth winning at any cost? As citizens, we would rather not have to worry about this question; but, certain conditions over the last eight years have forced us to, whether it is because of missing ballots, disenfranchised voters, faulty touch screens, questionable backend voting software, or in the case of this story, obstructive lawsuits.

Many forces gathered to select George W. Bush as President in 2000; the nonchalant attitude about taking Florida even before the first vote count was in should be enough cause for serious scrutiny of all subsequent elections. This article does not address the less than virtuous strategies that Republican champions and their foot soldiers use throughout the course of a campaign or election. That will endure its own article.

Instead, it is about the right of an individual to run for office and the power held by the two-party system to stop that potential candidate.

In 2001, when power broker Terry McAuliffe took the reigns as Chairman of the DNC, the party had hit bottom, he told Washington Post reporter Thomas Edsall. “This party was demoralized in 2001." said McAullife. "People were madder than heck at the party. 'Why did we allow this to happen?' and 'Why didn't we fight harder?' . . . We went through a very tough time in 2002 after the midterm election."

He said “It was one of the darkest times in our party."

McAuliffe, or the Dem's "Comeback Kid", was returning to a high-ranking position in the center of the Democratic Party after a period of scandal over financial deals with political consequences. As the biggest fundraiser in the party, he intended to fully reclaim his power broker position with the Clintons at hand. He would devise a strategy to take back the White House and fiscally position the Democratic Party for the next 25 years. Desperate times call for desperate measures. DNC leaders committed to secure a win of the White House for the Democrats and specifically John Kerry. This effort included targeting several campaigns, including Al Gore's, as well as the other thorn in McAuliffe's side, Ralph Nader.

At the time, Nader was continuing to rankle the feathers of the Democratic Party by referring to the Democrats and the Republicans as “Tweedle-Dee” and “Tweedle-Dumb”, a sharp critique that stung the former more than the latter. Democrats resented Nader’s homogenization of the two-major parties; they recognized enormous differences between its policies and platform and that of the Republicans.

However, from Nader’s perspective, the Democrats nursed on corporate funds for its campaigns and had become too cautious and unimaginative to form a critical campaign against Bush. Nader had assured the Democratic candidate John Kerry that he would resist running if Kerry would take up at least three of his core issues. However, as the 2004 campaign continued, Kerry pursued a pro-war platform that failed to carry any of Nader's issues to the table or people. Nader felt compelled to run.

Private appeals from McAuliffe failed to dissuade Nader from running and a pre-planned attack on the Nader campaign ensued. His petitioners were harrassed by private investigators and intimidating letters were sent to discourage Nader volunteers, claiming that they would be held on felony charges if their signatures were proven false. After turning in the ballot petitions, the DNC, through operatives, besieged the Nader campaign with a suite of 24 lawsuits in 18 states and 5 FEC complaints, initiated within a 12 week period.

While many of the cases and all the FEC complaints were dismissed, the unfounded suits did succeed in bankrupting and exhausting the resources of the campaign and forced Nader and running mate, Peter Camejo off five state ballots. Assisted by the corporate media, the continuing tar and feathering of Nader as “spoiler” has done immense harm to his public reputation , though Nader himself seems to bare the dent in his armour well.

Pennsylvania is home to the most egregious lawsuit, where, aside from getting kicked off the ballot, the court, without legal precedent, charged a heavy personal legal fee of $82,000 for administration costs of counting signatures to Nader and Camejo. No court has ever allowed the legal fees of the plaintiff to be passed along to a candidate before; it set a dangerous precedent for third party candidates who are generally campaigning on little to no dollars. Additionally, the Pennsylvania legislature has increased the number of signatures required for a third party or Independent candidate up from 27,000 to 67,000 while the Democrats and Republicans are still only required to collect 2000. As each signature costs about a dollar to collect by an independent contractor, this puts the third party and independent candidates at a significant disadvantage.

The fundamental unfairness of such extreme differences in ballot access should shock us, yet it gets little media attention. Even in Naomi Wolf’s recent book “10 Steps Towards Fascism”, ballot access does not emerge as a step towards shutting down our democracy because it happens so invisibly, before dissenting voices can enter the electoral system for public consideration.

Petitions to appear on the ballot have been attacked before, but nothing like what happened to Nader in 2004, according to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News. Winger, a political scientist, has been closely observing ballot access issues for over 40 years.

“The Democratic Party tried to keep various minor party and independent presidential candidates off at least a few ballots in 1936, 1948, 1976, 1980...but in 4 cases, the targeted candidate never ran for president again.,” Winger said. “Nader's treatment in 2004 was uniquely bad.”

Nader has spent the better part of the last two years recruiting a pro-bono lawyer staff in preparation for his 2008 run. His bold parry? A surprise countersuit against the DNC, the Kerry/Edwards campaign and Kerry personally, in which Nader claims that leaders within the DNC used malicious and frivolous law suits to obstruct his 2004 campaign.

Hall remembers hearing about the DNC led ballot access lawsuits as they began. He felt shocked that a major party used legal maneuvers to attack an individual candidate. He said that the media failed to cover the details of the story. "It’s been a disappointment to me. I work for Ralph Nader. I obviously have a perspective. But look, the facts are out there, if you can’t report that, then there’s a problem." He continued, "It’s really remarkable that every major newspaper covered the story but almost none of them broached the subject."

The point of the counter suit is not so much about extracting money from the DNC leaders, though Nader would put rewards toward fighting for a reasonable nationalized federal ballot access law for third parties and independent candidates. Nader would also return to Peter Camejo, his 2004 running mate the $20,000 portion of the legal fees levied against the campaign. The point of this lawsuit is to bring this issue of ballot access up at a time when his Presidential run provides some spotlight in the mainstream media and helps shield the 2008 campaign from refreshed attacks and there is still time for the Democrats to implement electoral solutions to the "spoiler" effect, like Instant Runoff Voting, an electoral system that allows the voter to rank their votes and thereby reduce the effects of the winner-take-all, less of two-evils system currently in place.

This case is currently being considered by a judge in the Washington DC District Court. “But there's no telling how long that will take,” said Hall. “The status is, we filed the complaint, the defendants filed motions to dismiss (mainly arguing that we failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted), we have opposed those motions, and now the judge has to rule.”

“It’s too late, and too little,” said McAuliffe’s lawyer, John H. Young, who asked the judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that, as the election was over, the case was moot. He argued that the case had gone beyond the statute of limitations and should be dismissed.

Nader’s lawyer, Hall said the statute of limitations should not apply because the defendants conspired beyond the 2004 election to conceal their role in keeping Nader off the ballot. It was not until after the elections, Hall said, that Nader learned about the loose relationship between the Democratic Party and lawyers working with the Ballot Project Inc., an organization directed by Raikin that was formed to keep Nader off state ballots in 2004.

Young said that in the heated atmosphere of the general election it was ridiculous to think that the efforts to neutralize Nader were concealed; the frivolous lawsuits were merely a tactical means to a practical end.

Winger said, “The fact that Peter Camejo did pay over $20,000 to the people who challenged the Nader-Camejo petition in 2004 keeps the Democrats from saying Nader and people associated with his 2004 campaign haven't suffered any concrete harm. I think it will go to trial.”

On April 5, 2008, Hall filed a federal civil rights claims supported by newly discovered evidence that employees of the state of Pennsylvania participated in the DNC leadership effort to keep Nader-Camejo off the ballot in that state. “If so,” said Hall, “that would be illegal, and it would also considerably support the "state action" element of our civil rights claims.” Hall expects there will be a new round of motions to dismiss based on that complaint.

“Nader has upped his tactics. The DNC will do the same,” speculated Cat Woods, a Nader supporter and former Green Party Co-Chair of the National Candidates and Campaign Committee.

Nader seems to be prepared to meet them in this upcoming election, warning the DNC leaders, "Don't try to get into the briar patch of frivolous lawsuits to try to get us to lay off (running), because you're going to get thorns. It's going to backfire."

Should the Democrats try to obstruct Nader's ballot access this time, more trained eyes are watching. And running mate, Matt Gonzalez, who is a civil rights attorney, will be at hand to fight alongside the aged but tireless knight. Gonzalaz oversaw the implementation of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in San Francisco, which has received favorable response from voters. While not in itself perfect, IRV does take away the manipulative power of a winner-take-all system. Though IRV and other ranked voting systems are in place in municipalities and even other countries, Democratic and Republican legislators currently in power in the U.S. are reluctant to approve measures which might increase competition for themselves.

###

(There are currently 10 pending ballot access lawsuits across the nation, with a few more in the works, according to Winger. Some of these lawsuits represent coalitions between presumed odd bedfellows like Libertarians and Greens, who nonetheless share a value for the Constitution, decentralization, and getting out of Iraq; others are led by individual candidates. )


References:
Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition
McAuliffe is Dem’s Comeback Kid
CNN - Wolf Blitzer interview with Ralph Nader, 11/2/07
Phillyblog.com DNC and Nader
Nader vs. DNC
Civil Lawsuit
ACLU Takes On Montana Ballot Access Bill
Lawyers ask federal judge to approve Nader lawsuit against former DNC chairman
MSNBC - 2004
John Murphy Account
Democracy Now Interview of Nader lawyer, Carl Mayer

New Hampshire Libertarians Vote to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Adding to a growing assembly of third parties and independent candidate voices, the Libertarians of New Hampshire are calling for the impeachment of President George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Third Party Watch has more.

Third Party Watch Gazes at the Green Party

This read from Third Party Watch is fascinating for its comments. Third Party Watch, a mostly, but not wholly Libertarian authored site, has been turning its eye to the Green Party lately. The author of this article will be a delegate to the party's convention in the summer.

Briefly, the story reports Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney's substantial win of Wisconsin delegates, with Ralph Nader, Kent Mesplay, Kat Swift and Jesse Johnson following.

To clarify some of the concerns of the readers and commenters, Ralph Nader is not seeking the Green Party nomination, according to many sources including the man himself. However, he would have sought it had Cynthia McKinney not committed to the run, says fomer Candidates and Campaign co-chair, Cat Woods; as late as January, some were unsure if McKinney would sustain her campaign.

There's little reason to expect that Nader will suddenly appear on the Green Party's Convention doorstep to wrest the nomination. For one, his running mate, Matt Gonzalez has stated point-blank that he has no intention of going. For another, (being frugal and frustrated) many of the Nader delegates who are from California and the East Coast have said that they will not be going to the convention. They find it difficult to justify the $1000 for travel/room and board expenses when they feel that their draft candidate was unrepresented on many state party's ballots. State officers on the other hand, feel that they only wanted to represent people on their ballots who had declared an intention to run which Nader did not do until late February. Some of the Nader delegates have branched off to support Nader's Independent run, while others, like early founding member, Howie Hawkins will support both Nader and McKinney campaigns to the degree possible - stopping at the polling booth.

In the meantime, Nader appears regularly in the press while McKinney has garnered a complimentary mainstream piece in Essence Magazine and a nice interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy NOW. Getting press is not all there is to campaigning, but being a household name is something any national politician must succeed in doing; something the lesser known grassroots candidates (Kent Mesplay, Jesse Johnson and Kat Swift) are learning to do.

Perhaps the parallel Progressive campaigns will bring new voters to the table for both the Green Party and for the newly forming parties sprouting up to support Nader's state-by-state ballot access campaign. However, it is more likely at this point that the campaigns will snag, not tear at the Democratic Party fabric.

Mike Gravel Discusses His Move to the Libertarian Party

Reset America Presents Ballot Access Appeal Video

Reset America, a non-profit organization founded by Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Jingozian, just released this ballot access fundraising video.

Jingozian attended the Green Party Convention in 2007 seeking the Green Party ballot line for his Presidential run. He maintained that his platform supported sustainability and economic solutions. He pointed to his own successful internet business which has not shipped its jobs overseas as proof of his commitment to keeping jobs in America. At that time, he indicated that ballot access would be the focal point of his campaign and that he had the marketing know-how and finances to put up an effective challenge.

Jingozian had come to the '07 Convention prepared with an arsenal of marketing materials for his program, RESET America and a small entourage of enthusiastic campaign workers. This degree of presentation and organization was unique amongst the Presidential hopefuls at that time and a little out of place with many Greens, who view "marketing" with suspicion. Jengozian asserted that his organization RESET America will continue to exist beyond the election and he sees himself as part of a movement that will have considerable impact on the 2012 election.

The erstwhile internet marketing entrepreneur Jingozian, was not the only non-Green who had sought the Green Party ballot line in the summer of 2007. Also presenting themselves at the convention were: Gail Parker (Independent Green), Daniel Imperato (Libertarian), and "Average Joe" Schriner (Independent). Notably, draft candidates Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney were also both in attendance, each earning spotlight time, despite not being party members.

At the time, Co-Political Director Brent McMillan said that these outside candidates demonstrated how valuable the Green Party ticket had become. However, the national and state parties quickly determined that outside of the Green Party members, affiliates or draft candidates, other third parties candidates would not have access to the party's ballot lines.

Despite its members distaste for packaging, the Green Party will have to find ways of branding itself that can translate into votes in the fall. Ironically, a clean, simple message, like Jingozian's RESET America or some other phrase could help the party clarify its position. The national platform will be discussed at this summer's convention in Chicago and perhaps a marketing genius will bust through the consensus maze with a captivating phrase that inspires - in a sentence - people outside the party.