Montana Green Party To Field Candidates

The Montana Green Party plans to field candidates for the 2008 elections, after not having a place on a Montana ballot since 2004.

Returning candidates to the ballot in Montana was the main decision that emerged from the party’s state meeting Saturday in Bozeman. The meeting was the Montana group’s first since receiving accreditation from the National Green Party several weeks ago.

The party became active in Montana in 2000. Robert Kelleher ran for governor on the Green ticket in 2004.

Placing a candidate on the 2008 ballot will require collecting the signatures of at least 5,000 people registered to vote in Montana.

You can read the whole article here...

22 Responses to “Montana Green Party To Field Candidates”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    There goes the neighborhood.

  2. Anthony Distler Says:

    Green Party in Montana is like the Constitution Party in Vermont.

    I’d like to see them organize, but yeah, not happening.

  3. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Actually, Montana was one of Nader’s better states in 2004… and 2000. The Green nominee also outpolled the LP candidate for governor in 2004.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    ya, the fNader got 2.6% there right?

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Montana has two Democratic senators too.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    Ya, Montana used to be HARDCORE right…but recently California has been “bleeding” into the state. This has caused many to start wearing shirt, or using bumperstickers which say “Stop Californication!”

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yeah, but those Dem senators are more CP-like than anything. Anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-American, etc.

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    lol,after all these discussions you still have no basic knowledge about the CP, or even a basic knowledge of how to discuss the issues. You are, quite literally, as crazy as the AHP-people. You see things in absolutionist terms.

    The CP is not antitrade. It is anti-”free” trade. That is different. We believe in a high protectionist tarriff, that doesn’t mean we don’t want trade. On the contrary, it means we encourage trade. The more trade, the more revenue from those tarriffs.
    The CP is not antiimmigration. Rather, it is anti-ILLEGAL immigration. If you think all immigration is good, work to make immigration unchecked. However, until then—there are rules. And when someone breaks the law, in order to take advantage of the humanitarian ideals of our society…they do not deserve citizenship.
    We are antichoice on the issue of abortion. There is no choice to kill people. This violates the revered “Zero Aggression Principle” of libertarians.
    Antigay? Not I said the CPer. Anti-gay marriage? Yes. Anti-special rights (for anyone including me.) Hell yes.
    AntiAmerican? Ya right. At the ending of every session of the Boise National Committee Meeting, “God Bless America” would be sung. These people have given up time, fortunes, and other obligations in order to service their country in the way they deem most appropriate. You glorify money, and only money. They glorify their country.

  9. globalist_elitist Says:

    Okay, you’ve convinced me! Where do I sign up?

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    I knew i’d get through to you one day! You ready to accept Jesus Christ too?

    Hah, GE, for all your BS..I must admit this: You make me chuckle occasionally.

  11. matt Says:

    There’s enough Jesus to go around, GE. I’d be glad to share some of my extra with you.

    I hope that the Green Party will flank the donkey party in some of the californicated/college areas. Conceivably, the legislature in MT could have 4 parties. Then they might have even more amazing public fights and the tree of liberty would be nouirished with fresh (political) blood.

  12. Trent Hill Says:


    I never thought i’d say this but:

    I hope a Green gets elected into the MT Legislature. I did it. Ohk,keep going.

    The sooner people realize that Greens/CPers/LPers/Reformers aren’t going to DESTROY THE PLANET OH EM GEE! the sooner they will be elected. Besides, I’v always wanted to see the dynamics of a four party legislature.

  13. globalist_elitist Says:

    One or two Greens/CPers won’t destroy the planet. Elect a full slate of them and our economy would be destroyed. The same goes for the LP, when it comes to the radicals who really belong in the CP.

  14. globalist_elitist Says:

    By the way, I hope Warren Buffett picks me to be his replacement at Berkshire Hathaway… And there’s a better chance of that than of a Green getting elected to any significant office in MT.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Our economy would not be “destroyed” in any case. Greens would simply be voted down and out. So would the CPers if the country didn’t like it. Same for the LP.

    The fact is, there are a million arguements why the LP or CP wouldn’t destroy the economy. Why it would make it better. For example, lets look at Montana…where only ONE state legislator took a spending bill from 300 million, down to 300 DOLLARS.

  16. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hey, that’s all good. I’m more concenred about what they would try to do to monetary policy than to fiscal policy. Then again, there are the issues of immigration and trade, which I can guarantee the CP/GP plan, if enacted, would cause a depression the likes of which would make the 1930s look like a day at the beach.

    The party I would like to see make more headway and potentially grow into a national force is the Minnesota Independence Party. This is the party that IS what the LP claims to be - fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. This is a party that, if it was able to get into the right position, could attract the attention of the business community. Right now, business is deciding whether they hate the right-wing social agenda of the GOP enough to endorse Hillary, and many of them are saying yes. That’s how bad the GOP has gotten.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    The GP plan is open borders…how is that comparable at all to the CP plan of stopping illegal immigration?

    As for the Independence Party….all you have to do is move to Minnesota.

  18. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    April 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
    Hey, that’s all good. I’m more concenred about what they would try to do to monetary policy than to fiscal policy.”

    I’d phase out the Federal Reserve under a plan like G. Edward Griffin suggests towards the end of his book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve” (available at ). The controllers of the Fed should be put on trial for treason and dealt with accordingly.

  19. matt Says:

    Third Partyers could do a lot worse than the Independent Green Party of Virginia. They are self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who think public transportation is a REALLY big deal.

    One of these guys got 23% in a 2-way race for a US congressional seat.

  20. Trent Hill Says:

    Wow. Not bad at all.

    And yes, I can agree that we could do worse than CERTAIN Greens.

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes, but the GP is, by and large, controlled by professed Marxists.

  22. imandaLar Says:

    wow !!
    its very reasonable point of view.
    Good post.
    realy gj

    thx :-)

Leave a Reply