Slashdot Mirror
Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb
Today you have the opportunity to ask questions of the
Green Party's candidate for President of the United States,
David Cobb. Standard interview rules apply: we'll select a dozen or so of the best questions and Mr. Cobb will give us his answers next week.
Obviously with the current unpopularity of Bush and Kerry the final vote is down to either you or Ralph Nader. What decisive advantages do you feel you have over Nader that make you more likely to win the presidency? ;-)
Thank you for taking our questions.
The first of the ten key values of the Green Party is "Grssroots Democracy". Over the past few years, the American Green Party has made significant steps forward, but (as best I can tell) is still growing at a local level. While I understand the appeal of national coverage, is running a presidential campaign really in the spirit or the best interests of the party? Wouldn't those funds be more effective in campaigning for more local offices, or launching a statewide candidate in an area where the Greens have a solid foothold? Isn't that how grassroots is supposed to work--from the bottom up and not from the top down?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Is it easy being Green?
In a two-party system like the U.S. has, what is your strategy to draw voters and most importantly have them take you seriously?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
The Green Party is best known for its progressive policies on the environment, however its other policies are often shrouded by this, most people not knowing where the Green Party stands on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
What do you think might be the best approach to educate the masses about the rest of Green Party polices?
If I was a Repubican or Democrat, what would you say to me to make me switch to the Green Party?
Mr Cobb, As a registered member of the Green Party for the past several elections, I am concerned about the verbage in party information I've received concerning the November 2004 election. It seems I am being encouraged (strongly) to vote for the Democratic ticket. Is the Green Party no longer holding to it's grass-roots past and is it abandoning the philosophy of presenting a viable third-party point of view and candidate? Thank you.
I believe he's already on record as saying if you're in a swing state, vote Kerry. Because, even though he's not much better on some issues, Bush is a disaster. Heard this on NPR following Nader's failed bid to get on as the Green candidate
One thing I've wondered about third party candidates is their motivation; do you really think you can win races? Do you think that if you run long enough, eventually you can break through the two party system? Or is it just a "protest candidacy" because you don't agree with the Democratic Party's platform? Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party (for lack of a better way to put it, but you know what I mean; if they had policies more in line with the Green Party). Or do you really and truly believe in your party, and want get them elected and into the political system?
Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
How does the Green Party's view on affirmative action (from what I could gather from your website) coincide with key value #2 (social justice and equal opportunity)? It seems that someone who is pushing for monetary reparations for past injustices as well as affirmative action programs cannot say they also confront things that "deny fair treatment" (also from key value #2).
What is your opinion of Ralf Nader's actions after not gaining the Green Party Nomination for president? Do you think the Reform Party and the Green Party share any ideological common ground? If the first major Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot, is at all representative of the Reform Party platform, I would think there would be a clash of believes between the two parties. Is Nader selling out for another bid at the presidency?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Since the Green party (as other minor parties) has no chance of winning the Presidency, how does the party evaluate and justify spending resources on this contest instead of on Congressional and state-level contests?
Is it a PR thing? If you look at the Greens in Germany (granted, very different system) you see that they rose slowly over time from the smallest contests to eventually having Cabinet positions.
What is the American Green Party's overall strategy to increase their representation, and how does an unwinnable Presidential election fit into it?
This Like That - fun with words!
I recently watched your very good and very friendly debate between Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. One issue you brought up was universal health care that taxpayer would pay for. If you are elected president, what do you think is a fair tax percentage for the average American, 10%, 20%, 30%? If you say it depends on how much you make, then for the sake of this question, say I make $75,000 a year. What percentage would a Green party president expect an average American making $75,000 a year pay to support all these social plans?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Thank you for your time. Recently in San Francisco, Matt Gonzalez, a popular local Green Party politico, has been pushing for the ability for noncitizens to vote in some of the local elections. While there are other places that offer this long before SF, it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not. Rather than expanding the franchise this way, why not work to streamline the process for getting citizenship and encourage people to seek it?
Can you expound and explain a bit on your stance on this?
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Hello, Given that the current system of voting tends to reinforce the positions of the two major parties (e.g. you must vote for a candidate or for their closest challenger), have you given any though to supporting election reform as a method of making inroads for your party? It would seem that if all the 'second class' political parties supported election reform you would be able to make larger strides than trying to play the republicrat's game.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
As President, you would at best be able to veto bills and direct some agency policies (within the confines of legislation).
Why are you seeking the presidency, particularly? Why is it the best strategy for achieving your goals?
No, technically he was elected.
The Florida Supreme Court tried to apply alternate vote-counting rules not allowed under Florida law to ballots in specific counties. This was overturned on a 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court. The FSC also tried to extend the date of certification when the certification date also was clearly stated under Florida law. This is the vote that was overturned on a 5-4 decision. The USSC basically said that the election results as then-currently counted under Florida law had to stay put, because the FSC was trying to rewrite election law on its own, which is not its role in the system.
And to correct your other point, the limit is ten years in office, which usually translates to two elected terms as president with some overlap in case the VP is moved up a notch. So no, even if you were right, he wouldn't be able to run twice more.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
On the Green Party website, it states that you support "reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation."
Where would this money come from, if this plan was enacted and how would the recipients be determined? If the money would come from tax dollars, what do you say to people, such as myself, whose ancestors had no part in slavery or major racial discrimination and don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these reparations?
Obviously we here at slashdot are a bit on the techie side. I know that I have personally watched my rights being taken away from me over the past few years. Mainly my right to fair use. Under current law it is illegal to watch CSS encoded DVDs under Linux or any other Open Source operating system. What are you and your party's feelings on loosening certain restrictions to make the act of fair use a right again.
Also, on the concept of intellectual property and copyright laws. What are your party's and your feelings on the current trend of extending the length of copyright terms? Do you have any plans to reverse the current trend or perhaps to set the lengths back to their original terms?
Thanks.
---Nick Fury
What is your stance on the use of medical-marijana? What do you think can be done to change the way in which the war on drugs in America is being fought, either legalizing/decriminalizing and taxing or otherwise?
Furthermore, How will you deal with our budget deficit and reform the GOP's relentless tax cuts and the Democratic Party's exorbanent spending?
What is your stance on the DMCA and surrounding issues (upcoming acts like the INDUCE act)? Should legislation like this be curbed, watered down, or tightened?
AccountKiller
My Bad got sidetracked there and cut the first question out....
Mr Cobb,
What is your view of our national debt versus
current entitlement programs? How would you
balance the federal budget and would you support
paying off the national debt?
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Why doesn't the Green Party support nuclear power?
Mr. Cobb,
What do you believe is necessary for your party or any other to become a viable third party in American elections? Even though George Washington warned against having a partisan political system in his farewell speech, America seems to have developed a two-party system that forces third-parties out of the political process.
Also, what do you think of the Democratic and Republican parties shift away from what's good for America toward what is good for their respective parties and the businesses / people that support them while leaving the majority of Americans out?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
What do you see as the greatest problem with US News media? What do you think is the best way of restoring more objective news outlets? How would you change current media regulations and how would you encourage independant non-profit news outlets?
Thanks!
What is this desire to aim directly for the Whitehouse? Why not pool resources and fight the local battles? By aiming for the presidency (and ignoring the local politics), you are setting yourselves up for a fall. We all know that in a 2-party system, rigged the way it is, your chances of winning the Whitehouse are somewhere between 0.00 and 0.000. Then why waste the resources on this race?
How many members of Congress do you have? How many locally elected officials does the Green Party have? How many judicial appointees do you have? See the pattern here?
Maybe this isn't a question as much as a rant, but if you feel like, please answer why you are wasting the time and effort on a run for the Whitehouse, when the same resources, applied at local levels, would yield immensely more benefit.
Thanks for your time, Mr. Cobb. How do you reconcile your more socialist-leaning positions with the letter of the U.S. Constitution? Meaning, how are they a valid function of the Federal government, as opposed to, say, state and local jurisdictions? Also, I understand that "social programs" are a large part of what comprises the GP platform, but how do you plan to actually create these new programs, remain fiscally responsible, and at the same time quell the [very] valid arguments against large increases in taxation? Please define what compells your candidacy to further a notion of "greater good" while perhaps others do not share your definition thereof.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
I think it is now becoming conventional wisdom among the American Left that America politics as a whole has moved rightwards (more conservative) in the last 30 years. Among the most cogent analyses of the move to the right are those that trace the flow of money (over $2B) from the ultra rich and the large multinational corporations to conservative rightwing foundations and thinktanks (see for example the essays at www.tcfranks.com, and google "tentacles of rage").
The more visible component of this propaganda machine are the talk radio shows and the cable tv news shows. But they sprang from, and still largely depend on, fodder from the think tanks and foundations.
Many on the American Left now accept that unless this inexorable flood of rightwnig propaganda is somehow countered or neutralized, electoral politicking (e.g., fighting to elect Kerry, or voting 3rd party) is somewhat moot, because this decades-old flood of propaganda has also moved the Democratic party to the right much the same as the GOP. Also, the undemocratic structure of the electoral political machine in America (single member, winner take all districts, etc) would seem to disempower 3rd parties except for a spoiler role.
Given the situation outlined above, what good does it do to engage in 3rd party electoral politics?
And more to the point, what can American leftists do to move America to the left, given the power that 3 decades of rightwing propaganda has had on the American political mind?
Would it be more productive trying to land a talk radio gig somewhere?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I'll ask the same questions I posed to the Libertarian candidate:
Would you approve of, and what would you think would be the results of, the following election reforms:
1. Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Lastly a question: is the democratic system as instituted in the United States hopelessly mired in a two-party stranglehold, leaving corporate interest in defacto charge of the discussion? Is legal election reform necessary, or even possible?
MORTAR COMBAT!
Perhaps he feels, like many of us, that Bush is the worst president in a very long time, and has to go. Kerry, for all of his flaws, can't help but do a better job.
For that matter, how do you respond to donations from Republicans :)
What exactly does that mean? Registration? Licensing? Confiscation?
When The Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik was interviewed on Slashdot, there was a comment made about how disruptive it would be to implement his (and his party's) ideas. His response, in essense, was that since the only way he would get elected was if hell had frozen over, that it made sense to create a platform for that situation. While that makes for a nice way for people to give the finger to "the man", it hardly provides a real alternative to the current system.
My question is: are you guys ready or able to play on the same stage as the Democrats and Republicans, can you get the attention of the media, and can you sell your message to the average american? Convince me that voting for you would be of more use than voting for the lesser of two evils.
You mention support for public financing of elections, how would you stop private financing of the candidates but still allow freedom of speach? For example would Fahrenheit 9/11 classify as private financing or comercials that are critical of candidates?
Actually, the myth that a 3rd party vote is wasted needs to be dispelled. Reaching a certain percentage of voters for an office means that that party will be automatically carried to the ballot on the next election. From the top of my head, the percentage required varies from office to office (and possibly state to state), but 5% of the vote for the presidency gets your party relisted and access to receive public funding for the next election (see here).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
But if a 3d party causes a major party to repeatedly lose, sometimes the 3d party can get its views incorporated into the major party's platform. (cf. Bull Moose Party and Republicans, William Jennings Bryant and Democrats)
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Thank you for taking our questions, Mr. Cobb.
Your party's issue statement on nuclear power calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new, safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?
Thank you.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
Mr. Cobb:
I am what is usually described in the United States as a 'liberal' or 'progressive'. As such, I share most, if not almost all of your party's ideals and goals.
Nevertheless, neither I nor anyone I know who shares my political views plan to vote for you in November. While your positions on the issues may match my own more closely than any other candidate, I believe I have a better chance of seeing at least some of my positions enacted as public policy if I vote for John Kerry.
With all due respect, Mr. Cobb, you are not going to win the election this year. To a certainty, the winner will be either John Kerry or George Bush. If George Bush is the winner, then he will continue to govern according to his extreme right-wing beliefs. Most, if not all progressive causes that you and I support will suffer significant setbacks. As President Bush will most likely be able to nominate one or more Supreme Court judges during a second term, those setbacks would long outlive his administration.
If, on the other hand, John Kerry is elected, he will govern according to the political preferences of the Democratic party. While Kerry and the Democrats are, in general, quite a bit more conservative than I am, the simple fact is that the progressive causes I support would fare far better under Kerry than they would under Bush. I am sure that a President Kerry would do things that I strongly disagree with, but I am also sure that his goals and mine are not fundamentally incompatible. In short, I am certain that I can live with Kerry, just as I am certain that I cannot live with George Bush.
According to the polls, this election is going to be extremely close. If John Kerry is to win, he needs every vote he can get. I do not have the luxury of knowing that whoever ultimately wins the election will be at least somethat acceptable to me. Bush must be defeated or the ideals I stand for will be in serious jeopardy.
Thus, my question to you is: How is voting for you, as opposed to Kerry, make it more likely that the ideals I support will be reflected in public policy? Is there a *pragmatic* reason why I and other progressives should vote for you?
More specifically, how do you feel about the electoral college system, which is the underlying cause of only having two parties?
Would you favor a voting system that makes it easy for a new party to spring up?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
On a similar train of thought, do you feel that Nader's campaign in 2000 will be more helpful or detrimental to the Green party going forward? Clearly there's been a backlash against Nader, but how much of that has carried over to the greens. Is the backlash offset by the higher visibility that the green party might now possess because of it?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Bullshit.
When the votes start getting tallied up, and 3rd parties or independants are getting 30, 40, 50+ percent of the vote, that sends a LOUD AND CLEAR message.
The message, is this: "You are president by purely a game of numbers, the majority of the citizens are sick of your policies and want change."
3rd party votes count, they've always counted. They scared the 2 major parties so much that they've twisted and warped the system to include 3rd parties as much as possible. Why? They're scared of them.
There've been plenty of 3rd party/independant congressmen, senators and governors. But when presidential elections come around, all of a sudden people tell you 3rd party votes are wasted?
Bah. The lesser of two evils still sucks. If you vote for Kerry, you send the message that you approve of Kerry and his positions, regardless of the fact that you merely voted because you don't like Bush.
Whore your vote out if you want, I vote for who I want to see run the country, not for who I don't.
I'm tired of "which of these two is less of an asshole" elections.
Kerry won't change anything Bush has done, and you're a fool to think he will. Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Do you support the following part of the Green Party's platform?
"Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income, regardless of source, over ten times the minimum wage. With this Ten Times Rule in effect under today's extremely unequal distribution of income in the U.S., a 100% tax on income above ten times the minimum wage would allow us to cut the income taxes of everyone in the bottom 99%, by over half for the top brackets, by over three-quarters in the middle brackets, and totally for the lower brackets--and still generate about 40% more tax revenues than under the current income tax structure."
He supports instant runoff voting. I prefer approval voting myself, since it's a bit simpler, but almost anything would be better than plurality voting.
-jim
While I'm sure this at least partially stems from neither of you having entrenched political positions to protect, it also mirrors my recent experience. I lean towards the Green platform, and I have many friends who are Libertarians. Our political discussions, while spirited, show some fundamental agreement on the kinds of urgent systemic change required in this country.
My question to you is, do you see an opportunity to build consensus among those of us who see through the corporate oligarchy masquerading as democracy and focus on our areas of agreement rather than our differences? Specifically, would you support the Green party and the Libertarian party running joint drives in support of campaign finance reform, control of corporatism, ballot access and voting system reform?
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
I very humbly think that the Iraq issue should be the starting point for the green party to finally become a strong, third US party. Your party was clearly opposed to the US/British invasion on Irak, while the Democrats were somehow shy in their criticism before the military actions started, and explicitly supported the so-called war afterwards. Shouldn't you be making it more clear that the two big parties are essentially the same, and that you represent a fundamentally different, actually progressive perspective ? Are you doing it ? What are your thoughts in this regard ?
- Nuclear energy.
- High-temperature garbage incineration.
- Genetically modified foods.
All of these technologies have drawbacks, but they also have many advantages over the alternatives. Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases, incineration destroys toxic chemicals and does not require land fill, and GM foods can greatly reduce the amounts of pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, or water needed to grow food.What is the Green Parties' stance on these, and do you see them changing their stance in the near future?
What is your opinion of the proposal in Colorado to award electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote? It would seem this could potentially be a great benefit to your party, firstly by making the state uninteresting to the Democrats and Republicans (it would only have one or two electoral votes in play instead of nine), and also by allowing third parties to win an electoral vote with only 11% of a state rather than needing a plurality across a state (or district). How signifigant would such a change be for your party? Of other changes to the voting system that have been proposed, such as approval voting, Borda counts, etc. which would you favor to improve the viability of third parties?
People who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country. No this party will win this election so only vote for them if you don't give a shit about how the country is run or who is running it.
"Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes."
I think the last election proved once and for all just exactly how misguided and wrong this sentiment is. There is a profound difference between Bush and Kerry, if you can't see it then you are blind.
evil is as evil does
Mr. Cobb. Given that you're on record saying you won't even vote for yourself if your state is close, how can anyone possibly take you seriously as a candidate for President? Given that it seems you won the nomination over Nader by taking this position, how can your party be seen as anything but an astroturf campaign for the Democrats?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Whore your vote out if you want, I vote for who I want to see run the country, not for who I don't.
You are very misguided.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest" - can't remember who said it
The power of democracy is not in voting people in, its in voting people out. Given enough time even the most honest man will be corrupted by power or screwup in some other way. Then its time to vote in the people that have learnt from the previous governments mistake.
It doesn't really matter exactly who gets in power and when, all that matters is that we keep changing our government regularly, pushing politicians to work for their people whatever party they ascribe to.
Democracy is as much of a negative process as a positive one.
People who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country.
/. questions recently, John Kerry still favors deficit spending, a US military presence in Iraq (and 100+ other nations around the world), corporate subsidies, high taxes, the patriot act, the dmca, and all of the other things I dislike Bush for.
I'll vote Third Party (Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party), because I do give a shit about who will run this country. As Mr. Badnarik said when he answered
The difference between these two influence peddling career politicians is not significant enough for many of us to distinguish between them. If you can't see that, then you are the blind one.
I'll agree that Kerry is the lesser of two evils, mostly due to the fact that a Republican Congress will oppose many of his ideas, but as Mr. Badnarik pointed out: if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.
It's commonly accepted that power corrupts politicians. The Greens are always speaking out against politicians who sell favors to their corporate buddies or other special interests. But the Green party also espouses a system where the government strictly regulates most industry.
How do you propose to have such strong government controlled regulation, without falling victim to the corruption inherent in a bureaucratic system?
Oil is near or at the Hubbert peak for global production. Greens apparently are opposed to both fossil fuels and fission-based nuclear power. Hydrogen, while perhaps a viable storage mechanism, is not naturally available chemically unbound in measurable quantities, much less enough to constitute a fuel source. Modern American civilization is highly dependent on economical electricity and low-cost long range transportation of manufactured materials. And the Nixon era demonstrated the nasty effects of supply shocks on the economy, especially for something as fundamental as the cost of energy.
Annual energy use in the United States is on the rough order of 100 quad. How would you propose that the United States continue to meet demand? Or, in three specific parts: What long-term technologies do you think we should pursue? What percentage reduction by conservation in the US annual energy use do you feel we should realistically try to achieve? And, most important, what technologies to you propose for use in the short term to sustain the supply needed (despite conservation) until whatever long-term technologies you plan for are successfully deployed?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Similarly, these are also invalid arguments: some americans murder, therefore americans are murderers. Or, some american soldiers torture prisoners, therefore all americans are torturers of prisoners. Some Republicans are reactionary flat-earthers, therefore all Republicans are reactionary flat-earthers. Some Republicans are not like Democrats, therefore no Republicans are like Democrats, or Republicans are not like Democrats. These of course are not valid arguements.
I think what is meant is that for the most part, is that most party members of either party do similar things political things, and hold similar political stances.
As for there being a difference between Kerry and Bush, I agree. But if Bush happened to be a conservative Democrat, and Kerry a liberal republican, how much would this change?
Logic, macros, and more
I think the key is- they hold local offices. In small elections, where people can get heard, they have a chance of winning. I might vote for one there. In a national election, they have none.
What they need to do is build up. Get some mayors and aldermen. Work from there for state legislature. Then with that fame run a governor and some representatives, maybe a senator. Shooting at the presidency right now is a waste of time, money, and effort.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?