The full story is at FireDogLake.

(excerpt from) Ballot Access News
Ron Paul-Alan Grayson Bill to Audit the Federal Reserve Makes Headway
November 19th, 2009

…Ron Paul…has been the leading champion in Congress for ballot access reform for the last ten years. On November 19, the contents of Ron Paul?s HR 1207 were amended into the Financial Regulatory Reform bill of the House Committee on Financial Services. HR 1207 provides that the GAO should audit the Federal Reserve. Paul?s co-author for this bill, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Florida), is vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Paul has been working for an audit of the Federal Reserve for approximately twenty years…

As previously reported here, a (possibly former) Young Democrat named Sean Burke is running in the Green Party primary for Cook County Board President in Illinois.  There has been some concern that he is some kind of saboteur from the Democratic Party - concern that is not unwarranted, given the filing of a neo-Nazi in some Green primaries in Illinois this year and previous efforts by Democrats to undermine Greens (for the example, the bill that passed the legislature in Illinois this year making harder for Greens to nominate a candidate).

Now some are questioning the justification for Green concerns, like in this post at True/Slant:

The whole thing sounds downright paranoid. If you scroll down the NBC link, Sean Burke made  the first comment on the story, and the only reaction to his post was by another commenter making fun of Burke?s website and telling him ?you?re full of crap?. This Burke is 24 years old, and I buy his switch,  his disenchantment with the Young Democrats. The  Green Party platform is an interesting mix of Republican and Democratic ideas, and I myself can understand the appeal.

The comment that the blogger is talking about reads:

Hi I am Sean Burke. I did design the website for the young dems and have worked with them for several years along with other Democratic politicians. However, the leadership at the young dems changed and they did not want me to continue doing their website.

I decided I had some ideas for Cook County government that would have been a good contribution to the debate. I thought a green party candidacy was my best bet at having my ideas heard. In all fairness I did get in touch with the Green party much later than I should have but I was caught up in getting my petitions signed and working on my platform on my site amoreperfectcounty.com.

I did not think I had a chance to win this election but I did want to let voters hear some of my thoughts on how county government could be run. My main point was that to restore faith in local government we need to put in place a web based system similar to social networking sites like facebook where all county employess and contractors have their responsibilities posted online and on which voters can leave feedback. Additionally 5% of the county budget should be turned over to the voters so that they can attack the problems that they think plague their neighborhoods, so that they can plan the solutions to these problems and so that they can decide who will be given any contracts or responsibilities in the implementation of any solutions. Visit amoreperfectcounty.com for a more detailed explanation.

I apologize for not being as organized as I should be for a campaign like this but I am just one person and I just wanted to get out there and tell people we need a system of voter driven change not change handed down from on high from party leaders.

Thanks,
Sean Burke

It seems entirely possible that Sean Burke is either a legitimate Green or a tool of the Democrats.  For what it’s worth, the following exchange took place in the comments at True/Slant:

If you also read the NBC story carefully, you?ll also find that the Mr. Burke made no contact with the Greens whatsoever before considering a run. Even after filing, he did not return phone calls to the Greens. So there was no good faith effort.

As a active Green member in Cook County, I would have been okay with him AND Tresser on the ballot if the membership in Cook County was able to vet him and see if he holds Green values (see: that story about a neo-nazi trying to run as a Green in the 10th District). Our bylaws state that there is a internal recognition process by which the Green members in that local district give the okay and say ?hey this person is a Green and he/she is legit.? So that way, you can have multiple RECOGNIZED Green candidates in a given district. We Greens believe in internal democracy unlike the Democrat machine and the Republicans.

As a member of my party, I want to know if my standard bearer: Is he/she serious about running? What does he/she think of our Ten Key Values? Is this person interested in building a third viable party or is he or she just using our ballot line for their own person agenda.

You see, as a grassroots Green member living in Cook County, I didn?t get that chance to ask Sean Burke questions or anything to see if he holds Green values. On the other hand, Tom Tresser came to the party, was transparent and any Green member was able to ask questions about his candidacy before recognizing him as a Green candidate.

And the reply from the blogger:

While I don?t know what is going on in Mr. Burke?s head:

I didn?t find the ?not answering the phone? bit suspicious as I don?t know any one that age who answers an unknown number for fear of talking to a debt collector or a student loan officer. I am betting texting or e-mails would have yielded more results?

From what little I?ve seen of Burke, and his statements on the matter, I think it?s safe to assume he didn?t really know what he was doing, which was why I found the resulting hoopla hilarious.

Our very own Dave Schwab added in what amounts to a wise, reasonable conclusion (forgive me for a bit of bias here):

Hi. I?m a contributor at Green Party Watch. I can understand how the Greens? reaction to Burke could seem paranoid, if you don?t know some of the details. Apparently, he hadn?t been in touch with anyone from the Greens before he filed as a candidate ? and didn?t return their calls when they tried to get in touch with him. That?s suspicious, because getting on the ballot takes a lot of petitioning and the first thing most candidates do is call up the party for help. The fact that Burke had no contact with the Greens before his name appeared as a candidate, his link to the Democratic Party, and the Democrats? history of messing with the Green Party (I can elaborate, if you have a few hours) are enough to raise a red flag or two. Maybe it?s much ado about nothing, but we?ve been burned too many times not to be cautious.
I encourage you to check out the Green Party ? hopefully you?ll find that it?s a good fit for you.

In the November issue of Fast Company magazine, Carlos Watson considers the prospects of a third party based on a fiscal conservative / social liberal alliance:

Sarah Palin is rumored to be mulling the idea of starting a third party, pulling together social and fiscal conservatives alienated from the GOP. The Blue Dog Democrats, turned off by President Barack Obama’s spending, could reach across the aisle to moderate Republicans and try to attract independents. But the best third-party contender already exists. The Libertarians, like so many independents and disaffected Democrats and Republicans, are fiscal conservatives and social liberals — and no one has yet built a lasting coalition out of this growing force.

Read the whole thing here.

Nevada Appeal

Opposition to the initiative designed to constitutionally declare even an embryo legally ?a person? came from an unexpected source Tuesday ? a group of Nevada’s long-standing pro-life organizations.

The group consisting of Janine Hansen, president of Nevada Eagle Forum, Nevada Life President Don Nelson, Nevada Families’ Lynn Chapman and Independent American Party Chairman John Wagner charged that the proposed amendment would further compromise the rights of the unborn rather than protect them.

?This amendment will harm the pro-life movement by giving pro-abortion courts more power to decide all matters relating to abortion such as parental notification, informed consent and taxpayer funding of abortion,? they charged in a statement issued Tuesday. “These matters should be decided by the elected representatives of the people ? state legislatures and Congress, not the unelected courts.”

The proposed constitutional amendment was filed by Richard Ziser, former U.S. Senate candidate and the organizer of the Nevada campaign to declare marriage as between only a man and a woman.

He said it would protect every human being from conception until death.

The coalition of pro-life groups said they disagree because the proposed petition is ?so vague and general that it may not even apply to abortion at all.?

Hat tip to Ballot Access News for the story.

(excerpt from) The York Daily Record
Write-ins beat candidates on ballot in some towns
In Franklintown, the mayor ran a write-in campaign and won with just one vote.
By Teresa Ann Boeckel

In a few races around York County, write-in winners edged out candidates on the ballot during the Nov. 3 election.

In Franklintown, Mayor James Adams won with 52 write-ins, beating Republican Dennis Palmer by one vote…In Yoe, tax collector Connie Crull won as a write-in, garnering 112 votes to Joan Schall’s 20…

…Voters cast more than 11,000 write-ins during the Nov. 3 election.

Here are some serious and not-so-serious write-ins for several races:

Court of Common Pleas Judge: Andrea Marceca Strong, Michael Flannelly, Bruce Blocher, John Ogden, Susan Emmons, None of the above and John Wayne.

District attorney: Stan Rebert, Edward Paskey, Anybody but Tom, Bill Graff, Charlie Robertson, Santa Claus and Christy Fawcett.

Dover Area School District: Holy Ghost, God, and The Messiah.

Central York School District: Michelle Obama, No more tax increases and Cut taxes

Hallam borough council: Buck, my cat; Ella, my cat; Ginger, my cat.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has run for President of the US on the Green Party line, and most recently as an independent. The following open letter was posted at votenader.org, and also sent as an e-mail announcement:

Advice on Afghanistan
November 18, 2009

Dear President Obama,

You are nearing the day of decision as to whether you order the dispatch of more soldiers to Afghanistan.

Some of your advisors have urged up to 50,000 more soldiers, including several thousand called trainers of the Afghan army.

Other advisors have urged more caution, notably the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and former general, Karl W. Eikenberry, who opposes more soldiers so long as the Afghan government remains grossly dysfunctional.

Beside your own military and civilian advisors, you are receiving disparate counsel from an anemic Congress and your allies abroad.

But are you soliciting advise from stateside civic groups of experience and repute that represent many Americans? Or from genuine experts on that country such as Ashraf Ghani?a former American professor and later respected member of the Karzai government before his departure to other positions in that country?

George W. Bush, in the duplicitous run-up to the invasion of Iraq, insulated himself, closed his mind and refused to meet with civic associations in his own land. Like an autocrat bent on plunging a country into war and occupation, knowingly on false pretenses, he deliberately deprived himself of the information that might have restrained his disastrous, messianic militarism. Disastrous, not to him and Dick Cheney, but to our country, soldiers, and economy, and to the devastated Iraqi people and their ravaged nation.

In the months before the March 20, 2003, undeclared criminal war of aggression that violated our Constitution, statutes, and treaties, a dozen organizations each formally requested a meeting with him.

These organizations represented tens of millions of Americans. They came from the clergy, labor, environmentalists, businesses, students, peace groups, womens? groups, city councils, consumer, veteran, teachers groups, and international security experts. Many also came with first hand experience in Iraq and the Middle East.

They wanted to meet with their president. He never even answered their letters. The letters are available at nader.org.

Who would have thought last year that on assuming the presidency, that you would consider plunging deeper in to this quagmire without an exit strategy? The deeper you plunge, the greater your rejection of the history of occupations fueling insurgencies in that region. The more you insulate yourself from contrary judgments to those you have been receiving from your inner councils. Our country, its people and innocent Afghan people will pay the price.

A recent resignation by Matthew P. Hoh, a former marine combat captain in Iraq and highly regarded foreign service officer in Afghanistan, provides an independent analysis of the grievances afflicting the 42 million Pashtuns. In his words:

The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified. In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people. The Afghan government?s failings, particularly when weighed against the sacrifice of American lives and collars, appear legion and metastatic.

Mr. Hoh proceeds to list these persistent failings and adds his articulate doubts about the strategic purposes of your Administration?s military presence in Afghanistan. He ask, ?Why and to what end?? His letter of conscience and protest concludes by noting the limitless effects on our foreign and military policy, and on our country and its economy.

Your staff estimates each U.S. soldier is costing $1 million a year, in addition to the horrific toll on these soldiers and the Afghan people. You owe the American people an un-Bush-like explanation. Why are you not receiving these groups of American from varied backgrounds and experience at the White House on this pending Afghan decision?

They may wonder, by contrast, why you have so many White House meetings with major corporate CEOs from Wall Street, from the health insurance companies and the drug companies. Is not the White House the peoples? House? Along with many other citizens in our country, I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

The Nader.org website also notes the following:

Letter to President Bush from Christian Religious Leaders Against the War in Iraq
Letter to President Bush from Environmental Organizations Against the War in Iraq
Letter to President Bush from University of Chicago Political Science Professors Against the War in Iraq
Letter to President Bush from Business Executives Against the War in Iraq
Letter to President Bush from Local Civil Officials Against the War in Iraq

from Ballot Access News
South Carolina Files Brief in Opposition to Green Party Arguments in Ballot Access Case

On November 16, attorneys for the state of South Carolina filed this brief in the lawsuit South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina State Election Commission, pending in the 4th circuit.

The Green Party nominated Eugene Platt for state legislature on May 3, 2008, at a convention. The next month, Platt was defeated for the Democratic Party nomination for the same seat. South Carolina permits fusion, so Platt had been hoping to be the nominee of both parties in November. Because he lost the Democratic nomination in June, the Green Party nomination was considered void by the state, and Platt was omitted from the November ballot entirely. The state?s brief mostly ignores Platt?s strongest precedent, called California Democratic Party v Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court 2000 decision that said it is unconstitutional for a state to force a party to let outsiders help determine its nominee. Platt argues that since the Democratic Party was permitted to cancel out his Green Party nomination, the South Carolina system (as applied to instances when a minor party nominates first, before a major party nominating event) violates the principles set forth in California Democratic Party v Jones.

The state argues that Platt knew he was jeopardizing his Green Party nomination by running in the Democratic primary, and if he wanted to guarantee his Green Party nomination he should have avoided seeking the Democratic nomination. One wonders, what is the purpose of South Carolina?s fusion law, if not to encourage (rather than discourage) candidates from trying to use it.

The state?s brief also has a factual error on page 23. It says the U.S. Taxpayers Party nominated Pat Buchanan for president in 1996. This is not true. The U.S. Taxpayers Party only held one presidential convention in 1996, in San Diego, in August 1996, and it nominated Howard Phillips for President.

Posted at onthewilderside. This story is a press release sent out on 11/17/2009 by the Green Party of Connecticut.

Green Party of Connecticut officials announced today that they would welcome Ralph Nader into the 2010 race for U. S. Senate and think he would have a good chance to win against current Senator Dodd.

?Since the media reports began in local and national web sites last week, we have seen hundreds of responses urging him to run.? said Green Party spokesperson Tim McKee. He added ?With Dodd losing in many polls to the Republicans who have announced, we think Nader could be a clear choice to many who have lost faith in Dodd and his scandals with the banking and financial industries. To win, Nader would have to raise $3-5 million, which he has done easily in past campaigns and build an army of hundreds of volunteers for the race.?

State Co Chair Steve Fournier said ?We have worked well with Nader and he knows the local Greens very well. We are very excited and can supply him with many workers if he chooses to run.?

Mike DeRosa, also a State Co Chair said ?Nader is America?s Public Citizen Number 1! We just want to know when to start gathering the signatures for the petitions.?

_______________________________

Consumer activist Ralph Nader has run for President of the US on the Green Party line, and more recently as an independent.

H/T to d.eris on this one.  The Burlington Free Press reports that there might be yet another progressive third party in Vermont.  Read the full story here.

Brush said he didn’t expect the party to run candidates, at least not many in the next election. Rather the party would look over candidates from Vermont’s other parties for those who support positions important to the Working Families Party and offer endorsements and support.

Vermont is one of 10 states that allows candidates to run with more than one party affiliation noted on the ballot and those are the states that the Working Families Party have targeted. The party was founded in New York in 1998 and then spread to Connecticut.

Vermont has three major political parties — Democrats, Republicans and Progressives. A political party is considered “major” in Vermont if one of its statewide candidates received more than 5 percent of the vote in the most recent election. Vermont also has had three minor parties in recent years — Liberty Union, Libertarian and Constitutional.

All political parties must reorganize during the fall of odd-numbered years. Those reorganizational meetings are in process now for at least five of the six parties on record, said David Crossman in the election division at the Office of the Secretary of State. The minimum hurdle for a party to be recognized by the Office of the Secretary of State would be to hold 10 town caucuses with five officers elected for each town committee and a statewide gathering where state officers are elected.

d.eris writes on Poli-Tea:

Arguably, one of the most important strategic questions for independent and third party activists is how to motivate non-voters in future elections. Voter turn-out was quite low, for instance, in the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, where 39% and roughly 45% (according to my calculations) of registered voters cast a ballot, respectively. Thus, though Bob McDonnell received 60% of the vote in Virginia, he only garnered the explicit support of 24% of registered Virginia voters. Similarly, in New Jersey, Chris Christie received 49% of the vote, but only garnered the explicit support of less than a quarter of New Jersey’s registered voters. Partisans of the Democratic-Republican Party and supporters of the two-party state frequently maintain that low voter turn-out is a sign either of voter apathy or satisfaction. Yet, it might also express a rejection of the two-party political order as such.

Consider the following speculative scenario, which is somewhat fantastic. A majority of voters desire the election of third party and independent alternatives to the representatives of the political status-quo, as is consistently indicated in public opinion polls. However, they and many others are convinced that third party and independent alternatives are not viable candidates for office and do not stand a chance of winning because the two-party system is based on the election of Democrats and Republicans. On election day, a majority of serial non-voters appear at the polls, and cast blank ballots. “Blank” wins in a landslide.

Read the full thing here.  And please discuss this very important topic in the comments.