Pinal County Greens Welcome Brisol Palin to Pinal County, Urge Her to Register to Vote as Member of Arizona Green Party

The Pinal County Greens yesterday released the following statement from its chair, Richard Grayson:

We warmly welcome Bristol Palin to Pinal County and wish her much happiness in her new home in the booming city of Maricopa and much success in her academic and business endeavors. We urge Ms. Palin to register to vote as a member of the Arizona Green Party and join the Pinal County Greens in its important work.

Grayson noted that "Palin" is an anagram for "Pinal" but not a palindrome.

The Pinal County Greens are members of the Arizona Green Party in Pinal County. The group's chair, Richard Grayson, received 3,407 votes in this year's election as the Green Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona's Sixth Congressional District.

Reflections on the Election of 2010 and the Arizona Green Party

Richard Grayson, the candidate for Congress from Apache Junction and a member of Pinal Greens and the Arizona Green Party, posted this on his blog earlier today:

It's now several weeks after the November 2 election. Even the closest races have been or will be decided soon, and we thought we'd give -- for ourselves, if no one else (like our entire campaign) -- some reflections on it.

Today's Arizona election results update shows that we got 3,407 votes in the Sixth Congressional District. (Sincere thanks to all the folks who voted for us.) That's more than the other two on-the-ballot Green candidates for Congress, the ones who were "endorsed" by the Arizona Green Party, not pointedly sued in federal and state court to keep us off the ballot like we were. Of course, we got 1.36% of the vote, and Leonard Clark in the Third District got 1.58% (3,298 votes) and Rebecca DeWitt in the Fourth District got 2.57% (2,365 votes). The Arizona Green Party also endorsed William Crum in the Second Congressional District, but he ran as a write-in (apparently the AZGP's antipathy to write-in candidacies extends only to those candidates they don't like anyway) and there are just 290 write-in votes (just 0.11%, some no doubt for Mickey Mouse or Lady Gaga).

Our 1.36% share of the vote in the Sixth Congressional District is about what the "endorsed" U.S. Senate candidate, Jerry Joslyn got: 1.44% statewide. For someone who ran a "serious" campaign and who appeared on TV debates, that was a pathetic showing. In the state Treasurer's race, Thomas Meadows achieved 2.58% of the vote, beating the pants off Joslyn in a similar four-way race. Compared to Joslyn's 24,603 votes, Thomas Meadows managed to garner 46,115 votes, making him the Arizona Green Party's top vote-getter along with the Arizona Green Party's champ of 2010, 20-year-old Benjamin Pearcy, who got 47,121 votes running for one of two open seats on the Corporation Commission. Go Benjamin! Not bad for a 20-year-old kid who lives on Mill Avenue (near the Starbucks that was his campaign HQ) and who couldn't testify at the federal trial when the Arizona Green Party tried to kick all of us non-endorsed candidates off the ballot because he was in jail at the time.

Indeed, if Pearcy or Meadows -- who's 27 and was described as "a tarot card reader with less than a dollar to his name" in the New York Times article about Republican Steve May recruiting Mill Avenue street people to run write-in candidacies in the Arizona Green Party primary -- had been the Arizona Green Party's gubernatorial candidate and had gotten 3,000-4,000 more votes, the party would have achieved the magic number of 50,000 votes to make its place on the ballot secure for the next four years (as state Green Parties did in New York, Massachusetts and Texas), without having to get petitions again in 2012 or being subject to the law that made the party vulnerable to write-in candidates winning primaries with a literal handful of votes (we won with six votes).

The non-endorsed Arizona Green Party candidate for governor, Larry Gist -- who petitioned his way onto the ballot -- had the worst percentage showing of any party candidate, endorsed or not -- with a truly bad 0.93% of the vote: 16,128 votes (again, remember that Meadows got 30,000 votes more than he did although they both ran in four-way statewide races).

Another supposedly "sham" candidate, Theodore Gomez, got 42,645 votes running for the other seat on the Corporation Commission. If the good results (at least by Arizona Green Party 2010 election standards) for the candidates supposedly recruited by the Republican Party to siphon off votes for Democrats don't gall the bosses of the Arizona Green Party, you can blame it on their trademark stupidity.

Suing the ballot-qualified candidates in federal court and then in state court -- a miserable failure both times -- was the perhaps the height of the Arizona Green Party's stupidity in this election. It will be their major contribution to the 2010 election and only solidified the public image of the Arizona Green Party as a laughingstock in the minds of both conservative and liberal Arizonans.

And it was needless. The Arizona Green Party is very touchy about not "endorsing" Democratic candidates even in races where there is no Green candidate, but they didn't hesitate in letting the Arizona Democratic Party pay for their lawsuits. Nor did they care about employing aggressive and untruthful tactics (the federal complaint contained numerous lies and errors, and in court the Democratic Party's hired lawyers said the Arizona Green Party didn't want to be associated with us because of a swastika on our blog here, completely ignoring the obvious context in which we were protesting the Nazi-like SB 1070).

Indeed, as Leonard Clark, an endorsed candidate for Congress, said in disgust, the lawsuits had the effect of showing the Arizona Green Party disregarding several of its Ten Key Values (Grassroots Democracy, Social Equality, Decentralization), the party's credo that we explicitly swore (and still affirm) our allegiance to many times -- though that wasn't good enough for the poohbahs of the Arizona Green Party to consider us anything more than a "sham" candidate.

We never understood the Arizona Green Party and Democratic Party contending that the "sham" candidates would siphon off votes and allow the Republicans to win some races they otherwise wouldn't. The laughable logical conclusion of this argument seemed to be that they expected the "sham" (non-endorsed) candidates would actually do better than the "real" (endorsed) candidates in garnering votes! If any Green candidate would take votes that would otherwise go to Democrats, why did it matter if she was endorsed by the party or not?

The AZGP bosses don't seem to understand that a political party on the ballot isn't a club; it's a party. It uses the state to hold its primaries. Anyone can join at any time. The Secretary of State or local elections officials have no business asking any Arizonan why she is choosing to register as a member of a political party or if she is a "sincere" or "genuine" member of that party. Thank God in America we don't have to uphold loyalty oaths to political parties.

Secretary of State Ken Bennett was right when he said he had no choice but to uphold the candidacies of people who, like us -- or Benjamin Pearcy, Thomas Meadows or Theodore Gomez -- who upheld the letter of the law and got their paperwork in without anything being wrong with it. If you don't like it, Arizona Green Party bosses, then you're fools for working so hard to get on the ballot. You can't guarantee that the candidates you disfavor will not win your primaries; just ask the Republican party leaders in Delaware, Nevada and Alaska.

The Democratic Party also were hypocrites in the so-called "Siphongate" brouhaha. It's clear that Arizona Democrats were complicit in covertly supporting Libertarian candidacies among conservative voters, just as Democrats in other states got fake "Tea Party" candidates on the ballots to siphon off votes for Republicans.

Meanwhile, challenging the non-endorsed Arizona Green Party candidates was moot, given that there's not one race in the entire state where any Green Party candidate, endorsed or not, made a difference in who won an election. The margin of victory for every Republican who won was greater -- usually much greater -- than the percentage of the vote garnered by any Arizona Green Party candidate.

Indeed, in the race where a third-party mattered most, Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' successful race for re-election in the Eighth Congressional Distict, the 3.93% of the vote for the Libertarian candidate was twice the size of Giffords' 1.46% margin of victory. There was no Green candidate, and if there had no Libertarian candidate, the Republicans probably would have picked up their third Democratic U.S. House seat.

It appears that none of the endorsed Arizona Green Party candidates for the state legislature ran in any district that was not reliably Republican or Democratic. Linda Macias, who we (as a member of the Pinal County Greens) endorsed for State Representative in District 21, got a really impressive 17.15% of the vote, but she ran in a race with two Republicans and no Democrats or other candidates.

We were not impressed, as we said, in our meeting by phone conference with the Arizona Green Party. If we were so abhorrent to them, why did they allow us to vote on endorsing other candidates for Congress and the state legislature? Why did they invite us to join their Yahoo Group for Arizona Green Party candidates?

What surprised us was the low level of educational attainment among the Arizona Green Party leaders. But of course, in Arizona, there's a much lower percentage of college graduates than in most states, so that's kind of understandable. But the stupidity of some of their questions and remarks floored us. Some of them didn't seem to understand that members of Congress serve in Washington, D.C. and not Phoenix or were not subject to the state Clean Elections laws. They seemed ignorant about electoral history and few seemed actually to have taken part in campaigns despite being around for a while. Perhaps it was more naïveté or ignorance than stupidity, but these were the leaders of the Arizona Green Party.

Anyway, we wonder what their contribution to the election of 2010 was. Arizona Green Party bosses seem content with their little fiefdom -- one gets the impression that these are people who are content to be big machers in a little world rather than foot soldiers in the Democratic party.

Of course we would be hypocrites if we didn't understand that. Nobody runs for Congress or the state legislature or anything else without being somewhat of an egotist. It's just that egotists are helped if they're also a little savvy.

And so, since we still adhere to the principles of the Arizona Green Party's Ten Key Values -- like transparency, which is why we posted the memo by Claudia Ellquist that so pissed off the party bosses -- even if they don't, we've decided to remain a registered voter in the Arizona Green Party.

And just to piss them off and give them advance notice of 20 months, we are today announcing that we will be a candidate for the Arizona Green Party nomination for Congress in the 2012 primary. That is, if they can do the work to make sure we're on the ballot again. All we need is one write-in vote to win! And our name's easier to spell than "Murkowski."

* * *

(We're posting the Arizona Green Party logo on top of this post because it concerns the Arizona Green Party. Previously the party bosses complained to Google's Blogger service about us using the logo without permission and so we removed it from our website even though all Pinal County Greens are members of the Arizona Green Party, and we put up the logo of Canada's Green Party, who are a little less inclined toward censorship than the Arizona Green Party, for all their talk about supporting the Ten Key Values. Apparently the Arizona Green Party doesn't believe in the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law and so we await their next legal move, as they apparently have nothing better to do.)

Pinal County Greens Endorse Linda Macias for State Representative in District 21

Apache Junction, Ariz., Oct. 4, 2010 -

The Pinal County Greens, a group of members of the Green Party in Pinal County, today endorsed Linda Macias, Green Party candidate for Arizona State Representative in District 21, which includes most of Chandler and portions of west Mesa, Gilbert and Queen Creek.

"We strongly urge all voters in District 21, whatever their political party, to support the candidacy of Linda Macias, who is by far the best person running in this legislative district," the Pinal Greens statement said. "She is the only candidate who can truly represent the needs of all citizens. Linda Macias will bring integrity, sanity, and a high degree of competence to this position -- something her opponents cannot come close to matching."

Pinal County Greens Endorse Dave Ewoldt, Green Independent Candidate for State Senate in District 28

Apache Junction, Ariz., Sept. 24, 2010 -

Today the Pinal County Greens, a group of Arizona Green Party members in Pinal County, announced its endorsement of State Senate candidate Dave Ewoldt in Distict 24. A former Arizona Green Party member who fought the party's bosses in Pima County, Ewoldt is now running as an independent.

"There is no official Green Party member running for the State Senate in District 28," said the Pinal County Greens in its statement, "and it's only because the party bosses are vindictive that they are not supporting Dave Ewoldt, who embodies the Green Party's Ten Key Values better than most of the so-called 'endorsed' Arizona Green Party legislative candidates."

"Dave Ewoldt is by far the best and only choice for Green Party voters for the State Senate in central Tucson's District 28," the Pinal Greens' statement concluded.

Pinal County Greens Endorse Democrat Terry Goddard for Governor, Oppose the "Anti-Green" Green Party Candidate Larry Gist

Apache Junction, Ariz., September 22, 2010 - The Pinal County Greens, a political organization made up of members of the Arizona Green Party in Pinal County, today announced its endorsement of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard, whom it called "the only progressive candidate for governor and the only alternative for Green Party members who support our ten key values."

At the same time, the Pinal Greens announced that they were opposing the candidacy of Larry Gist, the phony Green Party candidate who got on the primary ballot but who does not endorse the Green Party platform.

"Larry Gist is just another right-wing wacko Arizona politician," the Pinal Greens said. "The only thing truly green about him is the money he used to buy his way onto the ballot by paying people to get his petitions signed."

"We urge all progressive voters to avoid even accidentally supporting the right-wing wacko Larry Gist," the Pinal Greens said. "Don't be fooled by the 'GRN' after his name. He is a Green in name only. Terry Goddard's positions are much closer to those of the Green Party's Ten Key Values, and he's the best choice by far to replace the failed governorship of the incompetent Jan Brewer."

The Pinal Greens also censured the Arizona Green Party for not having a true Green candidate running for Governor. "If the Arizona Green Party bosses had thought things through," the Pinal Greens' statement said, "they would have made sure we had a gubernatorial candidate who supported the party's Ten Key Values before getting enough signatures to get the party on the ballot in 2010."

Noting that if its candidate for governor gets at least 50,000 votes, the Arizona Green Party would get permanent ballot status in future elections, the Pinal Greens said, "we should have at least tried to get someone our members and other progressive voters could have supported. Now the Arizona Green Party is in the ludicrous position of opposing the head of its own ticket."

The Arizona Green Party has gone on record as opposing Gist. So far only the Pinal County Greens have endorsed Democrat Terry Goddard.

Pinal County Greens Endorse Rodney Glassman for U.S. Senate, Oppose the "Siphongate" Green Party Candidate Jerry Joslyn

Apache Junction, Ariz., September 13, 2010 - The Pinal County Greens, a political organization made up of members of the Arizona Green Party in Pinal County, today announced its endorsement of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Rodney Glassman, whom it called "a good man, excellent on Green Party issues, and someone who actually has a chance to unseat John McCain."

At the same time, the Pinal Greens announced that they were opposing the candidacy of Jerry Joslyn, the phony Green Party candidate who was put on the ballot as part of a scheme to siphon liberal votes from the Democrats and re-elect Republican John McCain.

"Jerry Joslyn pretty much announced that he's part of the vote-siphoning scheme," the Pinal Greens said. "At his campaign website he said he wanted to beat Rodney Glassman, not beat John McCain."

"We urge all progressive voters to shun Jerry Joslyn, who advocates the same kind of flat tax put forth by right-wingers like Steve Forbes," the Pinal Greens said. "For progressive unity, we want Rodney Glassman in the U.S. Senate."

Pinal County Greens Endorse Richard Grayson, Green Party Candidate for Congress in Arizona's Sixth Congressional District

For Immediate Release

PINAL COUNTY GREENS ENDORSE RICHARD GRAYSON FOR CONGRESS

Apache Junction, Ariz., September 4, 2010 - The Pinal County Greens today endorsed Richard Grayson, Arizona Green Party candidate for Congress in the Sixth Congressional District, for election in November.

A spokesperson for the Pinal County Greens said, "Richard Grayson has been a registered member of the Arizona Green Party in Pinal County for two years and has shown consistent allegiance to the Party's Ten Key Values. The Pinal County Greens is proud to endorse Richard Grayson for the Congressional seat now held by right-wing lunatic Republican Jeff Flake."

Arizona's Sixth Congressional District includes parts of Pinal County, including Apache Junction, as well as parts of Maricopa County, including areas in Queen Creek, Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa.