Hit piece on the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts

And I thought I didn’t mince words…

Looks to be that there’s a backlash against the recent electoral successes of the Greens in Massachusetts, with an op/ed in FrontPageMagazine.com attacking them.

The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts didn’t do badly in the state’s November elections. Although its candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, Grace Ross and Wendy Van Horne, won only 2% of the vote, its candidate for secretary of state Jill Stein garnered 18% and its candidate for state treasurer James O’Keefe came in at 16%. Let’s hope the trend doesn’t go any further.

The party was founded back in 1996 as Massachusetts affiliate of the Green Party of the United States. In 1998 Green-Rainbow candidate Stephen Elliot received 12% of the vote for the State Senate, and in 2000 the party achieved official political status when the national Green presidential candidates, Ralph Nader and Winona Duke, got 6% of the Massachusetts vote.

It’s not for me to tell people in Massachusetts how to vote on issues like gay marriage or the environment. But when you look at the Green-Rainbows’ Party Statements on foreign policy issues, you wonder if they forgot about the Ten Key Values when they were writing them.

The piece then goes on to attack the Green-Rainbow positions on Iraq, Darfur, and Palestine as radical. While I personally am not inclined to disagree with the article too strongly (even though I do want us to leave/stay out of all of those places), the pattern is all too familiar to me. Why? Because any time the Libertarian Party gets anything approaching traction somewhere, they toss the same stuff at us too.

If a third party movement is gaining strength, they dig through their platforms until they can find the stuff that will sound wackiest and most bizarre to your average voter. For Libertarians, it’d be… I dunno, legalizing black tar heroin or no taxes or something. For the Constitution Party, the extreme stance on closed borders, or maybe accusations of theocracy. For the Greens… well, you just saw what they did. The details are different but the pattern is the same.

For third parties to get anywhere, we need to learn to not necessarily do away with such positions, but perhaps couch them in language that’s less threatening to the average voter, and give our positions a more realistic priority? Your average voter does not care about abolishing the Federal Reserve, the international conspiracy of corporate/socialist/Masonic/whatever globalization, or how many Founding Fathers went to church. They do care about the deficit, about free/fair trade and what we’re doing on the other side of the globe, and whether the words the Founding Fathers wrote are being upheld or not by the current administration.

Let’s give ‘em what they want so hit pieces like this will be a thing of the past.

29 Responses to “Hit piece on the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Party duopoly is the strongest hold on American Politics.

  2. RCAIP Says:

    Here! Here!

    Nice words of wisdom Stu. The accusations of Theocracy though, will be meaningless, as the accused are exiting the Party.

    And by the way….

    I might be joining Austin Cassidy’s writing staff in a few weeks:D

  3. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    I don’t think too many can accuse us Libs of wanting to draw down our military overseas, simple because we have not been loud about it, but it would be nice to explain to the American public how much we have spent to keep those troops deployed overseas and how much it cost each year.

  4. Eric Prindle Says:

    I don’t see why the Green-Rainbow Party should moderate its positions just because it got targeted by a hit piece in FrontPage, a publication most likely read by very few Massachusetts voters, including hardly anyone who would have considered voting Green-Rainbow in the first place.

    The press is not the public. Bad press is not a signal that the public is turning against you.

    What this is really all about is a genuine fear on the part of Republicans that the Green-Rainbow Party is on the verge of replacing them in Massachusetts. Now that there are hardly any Republican elected officials in the state, people are going to want an alternative. Liberals are afraid of this too; that’s why they engineered a Working Families “Party” for Massachusetts.

  5. George Phillies Says:

    Sometimes the strongest praise you can receive is the hatred of your enemies, and the vitriol from a far-right newsletter against the Green-Rainbow Party suggests that they are occupying the positions that they want to occupy.

    The Working Families party is an effort to import New York style third qarties into Massachusetts, parties that are effective only with party fusion.

  6. undercover_anarchist Says:

    They should have written how the Green Party is supposedly “non-violent,” but if you don’t pay your taxes to fund their massive government beuracracy, they will use the government’s guns to put you in jail.

    Or better yet, how the Green Party does not trust one thing that the government does or has ever done, and yet wants it to do much, much more.

    I haven’t read the platform plank on Darfur, but I bet it is the opposite of their position on Iraq. If Bush completely ignored Iran, they would probably say that Iran needed to be dealt with. If the US refused to trade with the repressive communist regime in China, the Greens would be pro-China. Ad infinitum. The Green Party is an infantile protest party composed by greying ex-revolutionaries and would-be weathermen from the sixties. Like right-wing conservatives, they want to impose their view of the nation and world on others. The Green Party is just not reality-based.

    There’s my hit piece. Can I do the Constitution Party next? I can do them all.

  7. Jackcjackson Says:

    Please do.

  8. Darweesh Says:

    Sincere promise, a promise made by Lebanon to help the Palestinian people due to the massive destruction to the city of Gaza by the Israeli monsters, Lebanon made his country for freedom of Palestinians and help them in these difficult circumstances, was the war on 13th of July 2006 between the Israelis and the Lebanese staged and led to the destruction of southern Lebanon and the launching of thousands of missiles, which shelled northern Israel for the first time since the emergence of the State of Israel.
    And now we are asking you to send this message through out our products to your friends supporting and defending the case of Palestine and Lebanon.

    Free Palestine T-shirts, Free Lebanon T-shirts

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    First off, where do YOU get off picking at other political parties? Your an ANARCHIST!

    Furthermore, your dissertation on the Green-Rainbows is extremely incorrect. They are pro-U.N., and thus not non-interventionists in any sense. And while they may be attempting to move into a spot left vacant DUE to the Republican death in Mass. they are not “replacing the Republicans” because they are not Right, or Center-Right, or even Moderate. They are extreme left. In this case the democrats would be replacing the republicans, and the Green-rainbows replacing the Democrats.

    Furthermore, the Greens have made significant changes in the politics of the U.S., partly because of the significant percentages they are picking up. So how are they not based on reality?

    Any party, regardless of how rediculous you find their views, as long as they have made an impact on current politics, or past politics in our political system, are based in reality.

    For example,
    I am a CP/Libertarian (Yes. Its possible to have allegiances to both. There are MANY similiarities). I am officially registered as CP, but am seeking to advance to Paleolibertarian cause also. I also have a foreign policy which is based on Reagan Anti-Communism. So im EXTREMELY anti-communist.
    However, I believe the Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs, and the Working Families parties both are obviously appealing to a certain amount of people since they are obviously garnering votes, and have significantly impacted politics of the U.S. in the past, and currently.

  10. Eric Prindle Says:

    I did not mean that the Green-Rainbows are attracting your typical right-wing Republican voter. But they will draw some voters who want to vote against the establishment party (the type of folks who often end up being the base of the Republican Party in Democratic machine cities), and they will draw left-leaning voters who would be afraid to vote Green if there were a serious Republican challenge to the Democrats.

    And several folks have commented on the Green-Rainbows’ position on Darfur without reading it. They are clearly calling for a non-interventionist position, including by the UN. I don’t know that I agree 100 percent with that position (and please note also that it was released quite a while ago), but I absolutely agree with resisting the corporate media’s insistence on interpreting all conflicts in the developing world (including resource wars and other overtly economic struggles) as “ethnic,” “racial,” and “religious” in nature.

  11. undercover_anarchist Says:

    So in other words, Trent Hill is a theocrat who likes to smoke weed and patronize underage prostitutes.

    Foreign policy based on “Reagan Anti-Communism?” Oh, so in other words, you’re for illegal arms deals, backing Saddam Hussein, funding Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadin, etc.?

    Being “anti-communism” is about as relavent as being anti-zoroastrian.

    The GP’s platform is not reality-based, although I will admit, it may be more realistic than those of the CP and LP. “Let’s return to using shiny slave tokens for money!”

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    I pray to god you arent making fun of “returning to the Gold Standard” because thats what hundreds of economists have called for in order reduce inflation.

    Secondly, your first sentence makes no sense.
    “So in other words, Trent Hill is a theocrat who likes to smoke weed and patronize underage prostitutes.”

    A THEOCRAT who likes to smoke weed? Are you frickin kidding me?
    A.)Im not a theocrat, im staunchly against Religious Governance.
    B.)I dont smoke weed. Nor have I ever.
    C.)Patronize underrage prostitutes? What are you talking about? You are clearly a conflict-driven person.

    Lastly, just because i am an anti-communist, does not mean that I support everything Reagan did in order to fight communism. Nor do I have to explain myself to you, I am not running for office. Nor would I want the vote of an anarchist duopoly-ist anyways. And i am, by and large, a non-interventionist.

  13. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Show me a SERIOUS economist who believes in using shiny coins as money.

    Gold is a false idol that was ascribed religious value thousands of years ago (before the world began, according to you). It has no value beyond the universal delusion that it has value. In this way, it is no different from a fiat currency.

    The US dollar has real value. Gold does not. The US dollar has real value because if I don’t pay my debts with US dollars, the US government will use its guns to make me. This is the unpleasant underpinning of the greatest economy in the history of civilization.

    25% of all the gold ever mined in the history of the world is stored in central bank vaults. If they ever unleashed it on the market, the value of gold would plummet.

    Gold is deflationary and makes a credit economy impossible.

    Blah, blah, blah. You’re an idiot idol-worshipper so there’s no point in going intto further detail. You’re too stupid to understand the complexities of the financial system, so you turn to something stupid and easy - shiny coins. Just like you can’t appreciate the complexities of science so you turn to an imaginary god.

    Please kill yourself.

  14. paulie cannoli Says:

    Show me a SERIOUS economist who believes in using shiny coins as money.


  15. paulie cannoli Says:

    To be fair, the actual point was that you should be able to use whatever you want for money, with the government having no part in your decision.

    However, historically, gold has usually been what the market selects as the concensus choice.

  16. paulie cannoli Says:

    This is the unpleasant underpinning of the greatest economy in the history of civilization.

    And a large part of why it isn’t much greater than it is, as well as why it will probably soon collapse.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    “Show me a serious economist”

    Um. Pick a founding father. They believed in it.

  18. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The foudning fathers weren’t economists you fucking tool. And I’m asking for a MODERN economist. Great thinkers used to believe in gods atop Mount Olympus too. In fact, a few great thinkers may have even believed in the existence of your imaginary god. That’s ancient history - I’m talking about MODERN ECONOMISTS.

    I’m still waiting for the name of a serious economist who believes in the false idol of gold. Some king in Mesopotamia decided that gold was pretty, and we have been wasting countless amounts of energy, lives, and REAL resources in its pursuit ever since.

    Gold’s only value today is based on the government’s hording of gold. If the government released its stockpile, the value of gold would plummet. And yet moronic goldbugs believe that gold is the currency in case the government collapses. You guys are all a bunch of knuckle-dragging numbskulls and idolators. Burn in hell.

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    You are incredibly ignorant. You don’t even have an arguement.

  20. Stuart Richards Says:

    Please kill yourself.

    You guys are all a bunch of knuckle-dragging numbskulls and idolators. Burn in hell.

    Does somebody need a hug?

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    LMAO, thats Stuart. Furthermore, if Libertarianism has taught us anything it is this.

    The founding fathers KNEW what they were doing. MODERN Politicians, economists, and activists are FAR behind the times, and there TIIIINY little brains can not compare to the likes of Jefferson, Madison, and Washington.
    And yes, alot of the founding fathers were economists.

  22. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The very idea of being an “economist” was not yet formulated at the time of the founding.

    The founders “knew what they were doing” when they denied women and non-whites the right to vote? When they enshrined slavery in your blessed Constitution? Yeah, they did know what they were doing.

    Alexander Hamiltion advocated a central bank. The country struggled for decades without one. HE KNEW. But the idea of a government being powerful to issue fiat currency was completely foreign at the time. Certainly not the upstart US. And people still believed in attaching leeches to their bodies to get rid of ill humors - and they still believed that gold had real value. People were stupid.

    As for not having an argument - my argument is the massive wealth that our nation enjoys. You have Osama bin Laden’s economic policies. You want the US to be an assraping backward third-world nation chasing blood diamonds, all in the name of your thinly vieled anti-semiticism. And it’s really all because you don’t understand what an economy even is.

    Merry Xmas.

  23. Trent Hill Says:

    WTF!? Are you seriously backing Alexander Hamilton AND claiming to be a LIBERTARIAN!?

    Secondly, the Founding Father’s DID know what they were doing when the denied women and non-whites the right to vote. They lived in a different time. As far as economy, diplomacy, war, and politics were concerned, they were demi-gods.

    The massive economy of the US is a result of Capitalism, not central banking.

    And, why would i WANT the USA to be an assraping backward third-world nation chasing “blood diamonds” (Nice Theatrical rip. Tell Dicaprio i said hey).

    As for thinly vieled semeticism, don’t make assumptions. You just unilaterally placed yourself in the “Incorrect asshole” category. There’s a star of David on my Graduation ring, im in pro-Israeli groups on Facebook. So,good guess. Banana.

  24. RCAIP Says:


    UA is just sexually frustrated for some perverted reason we don’t want to know about.

  25. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Still waiting for the name of one economist.

    Hamilton was right on the issue of central banking. He was also right when it came to “equal” representation in the senate. Bad people can be right and good people can be wrong. Just as the Founders were morally wrong to endorse slavery and gender-apartheid. You say they were right. I say you are a racist mysoginist.

    There are plenty of self-hating Jews. I’m not saying you’re self-hating, I’m just stating a fact that there are plenty of self-hating Jews. You are influenced by the anti-banker hysteria that is anti-semitic in root. I am saying that.

    The government has one real worthwhile task and that is creating rules by which economic transactions are to take place. You can have it your way, but my way has worked well for the past century.

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    Wow. Again,im going to ignore anything you say, because it lacks political value.

  27. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Way to dismiss what I say.

  28. paulie cannoli Says:


    I did give you the name of an economist.

    Murray Rothbard.

    And a link to a book.

    You can scroll up, click on it, read it, and even cut-and-paste a response to the author if you feel like it.

    Maybe it will change your mind - maybe not. Maybe, if you feel like responding to the arguments, you can change my mind or someone else’s.

    If you haven’t read it yet, you should. Why rule out the possibility you could be wrong about something? Given how many times you’ve switched political parties, to take just one example, I would be surprised if you were so inflexible as to discount the possibility that you are in error.

    Incidentally, Murray was Jewish and not at all self-hating, so that old dog won’t hunt.

    Yes, there is in fact an anti-Jewish element to some anti-big-banker sentiments.

    You may or may not already know why, but I’ll explain it in case you don’t, and/or for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading.

    This is because, back in the middle ages, the European Catholic Theocracy decreed profit in banking to be usury, a sin, and Christians were not allowed to charge interest; and, furthermore, it forbade Jews to own land, which was the chief socially recognized measure of wealth at the time.

    So naturally Jews became bankers since a)they were not allowed to make a living the normal way (farming), and b) Christians were not allowed to make money by banking.

    So naturally this created a need and opportunity that was filled.

    With having this big head start (created by catholics) in the banking industry as it grew it developed, it is no wonder many Jews are prominent in the field of banking.

    But the issue is not banking per se, it is the artificial coercive monopoly in central banking and monopoly fiat currency. Monopoly money, if you will.

    You see, the thing is, this can never, ever, ever be good or do good, anywhere on any issue at any time, no matter what whig you put on that particular pig.

    Hamilton was wrong about this.

    And as for your way working “well” - as opposed to our way, which has not been tried under the same circumstances?

    And in fact what do you mean by working well? The wealth that exists is the byproduct of the former relatively free economy, when growth was faster. Now that there is more regulation, there is less economic growth, if you consider economic growth a good thing.

    Since the state is nothing but a leech and parasite on the economy, it does not anything positive of value. However, it is also not a total state yet, so some economic activity survives - to whatever extent the state stays out of the way. In America, as opposed to many other countries, we have the good accumulated fortune of reaping the benefits of a state that left the economy alone far more so than in many other countries for many years. Therefore, we are wealthier than most other countries.

    However, we have always had an element of regime interference in the economy - which again is never, ever, not in a million years good - and it is growing.

    This will eventually lead to economic collapse. That may take place either before or after the successful completion of a totalitarian world regime.

    Either way, there’s only two ways to go: either we will convince a sufficient number of people to head this catastrophe off at the pass by getting rid of monopoly money (and other aspects of regime government) - or, more likely, it will continue to its logical conclusion, collapse of its own dead weight, and we will have a free market in money and the next evolutionary step (anarchy), but the transition won’t be as peaceful or orderly as it could be if we were to succeed in convincing a sufficient number of people to take action and implement the wise and inevitable path of decentralization, regime collapse, and anarchy/panarchy.

  29. zoloft Says:


    metalanguage describing ceremonially kissed fraudulent Victorianize:tramadol online [url=http://www.pharmacyw.com/]tramadol online[/url] http://www.pharmacyw.com/