DOCSLIB.ORG

Green Party Tempest Weathering the Storm of 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Green Party Tempest Weathering the Storm of 2004 By Greg Gerritt Moshassuck River Press Providence, RI 2005 Copyright 2005 by Greg Gerritt All rights reserved Moshassuck River Press Greg Gerritt 37 6th St Providence RI 02906 401-331-0529 [email protected] Table of Contents Acknowledgements . i Foreword . iii Introduction . v 2002 . 1 Winter 2003 . 5 Spring 2003 . 7 Summer 2003 . 11 Fall 2003 . 13 Winter 2004: Nader Opts Out . 17 Convention Rules . 21 The Primaries . 25 Spring 2004 . 27 Prepping for the Convention . 29 The Presidential Nominating Convention . 31 July in Rhode Island . 39 Claims of a Rigged Convention . 41 Utah and Vermont . 47 A Meeting With Camejo . 49 The Fall Campaign . 51 Election Day and the Aftermath . 53 Forward for the Green Party . 57 Acknowledgements John Rensenbrink, Jane Hunter, Ted Glick, William Anderson, Rick Lass, Michael Feinstein, and Brent McMillan provided information or permission to use materials they generated. John Atkeison designed and laid out the book. Tony Affigne designed the cover and discussed much of what went into this book with me in our walks along the Seekonk River. Gwen Andrade helped come up with the title. Charlie Green, Matt Tilley and Rick Laferriere read drafts and provided useful commentary and editing. I appreciate all who were willing to contribute blurbs for the back cover, Extra special thanks go to Kathleen Rourke. She keeps me on my toes. Thanks also go to all the Greens I have worked with over the last 20 years for helping me learn so much and for being willing to persevere in the face of a planet and culture that seem headed for destruction. You have before you a very personal book. I have written about what I know and empha- sized the things I saw with my own eyes and participated in. The candidates would write very different books. Events in Rhode Island loom larger in this book than would be the case if it was written by a Green from somewhere else. The analysis of the events reported is different than you would get from another reporter. But I think what I have to say will be interesting and edu- cational. Many Greens have helped me to see, but I accept full responsibility for anything that is inaccurate and for an inevitably flawed analysis. greg gerritt April 2005 Page i Foreword Despite the Green Party filling that niche better than he Green Party is an experiment. An anyone else in the last 100 years, there are tensions in experiment in American politics from the per- the Green Party that prevent it from doing an even spective that we must treat the earth properly, T better job, and the 2004 election cycle laid bare the that violence is wrong, democracy must be practiced, stresses within the party. Over the years the Greens governance should be founded on these principles, have struggled with questions about how to approach and that practical policies that promote the general our work, and factions have developed with different welfare can be derived from a clear understanding of ideas about how to fill the Green niche effectively. In these principles. Since human beings started living in Europe they called the argument over the direction of cities these principles have never formed the basis for the party one between the Realos and Fundis. In the civilized (urbanized communities) governance. So we US the argument has been between Greens who think build the bridge as we cross it. Greens are trying to of themselves as within the left and Greens who think build a new kind of politics, create a way of govern- of themselves as members of other traditions. ing, and govern at the same time. As with most Green arguments, the argument over As a real world experiment in politics the Green Party what approach the party should take is unwinnable, can be hard to get an accurate read on. There are mul- and arguing about it is a waste of time and energy. tiple centers of activity and they are invisible to all What really decides things is organizing and gaining but those who participate directly. Much Green activi- support in the community. If no one wants to work ty is purely local. It is one of the reasons the media with you, the best ideas in the world are not going to has such a limited understanding of the Green Party. get implemented. My academic background is in evolutionary biology One last note before the tale begins. Maybe it is and in anthropology. As a naturalist I have looked at because I remember the Maine Green Party when it the Green Party as part of an ecosystem with an eye was just 3 people that I tend to think about the Green towards understanding its ecological niche in the Party as a guerrilla band engaged in long term non American political system. In anthropology the partic- violent revolution. As a guerrilla operation the Green ipant observer is an honored approach to scholarship. Party has to live off the land and be a part of the com- One participates in the life of the community at the munity. This is how local Green politics operates, and same time they are studying, analyzing, and attempt- it is how rebellions from the American revolution to ing to understand and explain it. I have been a partici- the Iraqi resistance survive. pant in every aspect of the Green Party since its founding in the United States twenty years ago. I have In our case being a guerrilla operation means no con- helped founded Green Party locals, served in a variety tributions from corporations. We grow by being good of organizational roles at the local, state, and national neighbors earning the respect and friendship of the level, and run for office. I was the first Green candi- people in our communities. It is an each one teach one date for state legislature in the United States in Maine model rather than the left’s classic mass movement in 1986 and my most recent campaign was for Mayor model. There is a place for ideology, and an important of Providence RI in 2002. Over the years have written place for the Green Values and the programs that sup- about the Green Party extensively but eventually I port them, but practicalities have to overcome ideo- always come back to what is the ecological niche of logical purity and unrealistic expectations to thrive in the Green Party and what strategies and tactics by the community. This is most clearly demonstrated when Greens helps the party fill that niche well. Greens win local elections. Often Greens win because they are well integrated into the progressive fabric of If the Green Party did not exist we would have to their community, they are a part of the community. invent it. There is a place in the American political And when Greens win local elections they have to spectrum for an organization focused on elections out- govern based on community in order to remain in side of the two mega parties, based on a radical government, as an ideological mode of governance approach to peace, ecology, democracy, and justice, does not get their program enacted or get them re- and encompassing a holistic understanding of the way elected. the issues connect to each other. No political party in the last 100 years has managed to fill it as well as the Greens, though the niche itself has changed through the years. Page iii Introduction uring 2003 I started thinking about day or contributed to a bigger and stronger Green how the presidential campaign season was Party today? Would endorsing Nader have helped shaping up as a perfect storm for the Green local candidates more on election day? Where Green D Parties worked closely with Nader did that help their Party. This is what the Green Party faced. The Anybody But Bush (ABB) push in progressive forces local candidates more than working with Cobb would following on the tail of the “spoiler” factor left over have? Did the local parties working with Nader grow from 2000. A war on terrorism that was progressing more than those working with Cobb? In places where as a disaster that made it even more of a tool for Greens worked with Nader do they have new and Republicans to strike fear into the hearts of enduring ties to other centers of activism beyond the Americans. The Democrats were demonstrating that Green Party that will be used to build the party? Any they were their own worst enemy, supporting war in better than those in other Green centers? Iraq and generally trying to be Republican light, but In some ways these questions are unanswer- still insisting that progressives join their campaign as able. Alternative futures were unknowable at the there was no other choice or path for removing Bush. times we had decisions to make, and even in hind- Closer to the heart of the Green Party there were sight it is hard to say how something else would have additional discussions about what to do. Should the played out. For those few things on the list we could Green Party have a candidate? Should Ralph Nader theoretically measure, we probably could not get run? Should he run as a Green? If we decide to have good data. But I am pretty sure we did the right thing a candidate and its not Nader, who should it be? by running the Cobb/LaMarche ticket and have a What should the campaign strategy be? Just what is hard time imagining that another approach in 2004 the best set of tactics for growing the Green Party in would have produced better results for the Green 2004? Just who is our core audience and how do we Party.
Recommended publications
  • June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA

    June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA

    June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA Saturday Morning - 6/5/04 Delegate Orientation Ellen Maisen: Review of consensus-seeking process Reminder of why we seek consensus vs. simply voting: Voting creates factions, while consensus builds community spirit. Facilitators: Magali Offerman, Jim Shannon Notes: Adrienne Prince and Don Eichelberger (alt.) Vibes: Leslie Dinkin, Don Eichelberger Time Keeper: Ed Duliba Confirming of Agenda Ratification of minutes, discussion of electoral reform, and platform plank have all been moved to Sunday. Time-sensitive agenda items were given priority. Consent Calendar Jo Chamberlain, SMC: Media bylaws concerns will also be discussed Sunday a.m. Clarification on “point of process” for Consent Calendar: when concerns are brought up, the item in question becomes dropped from the calendar and can be brought up for discussion and voting later in the plenary as time allows. I. GPUS Post-First-Round Ballot Voting Instructions Proposal - Nanette Pratini, Jonathan Lundell, Jim Stauffer Regarding convention delegate voting procedure: “If a delegate’s assigned candidate withdraws from the race or if subsequent votes are required…delegates will vote using their best judgment…as to what the voters who selected their assigned candidate would choose.” Floor rules in process of being approved by national CC. Will be conducted as a series of rounds, announced state by state. For first round, delegates are tied to the candidates as represented in the primary. If someone wins and does not want to accept the vote, subsequent rounds will vote. If a willing candidate gets a majority, they will be nominated, If “no candidate” (an option) wins, there will be an IRV election for an endorsement instead of a nomination.
  • Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein's 2012 Green Party Campaign

    Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein's 2012 Green Party Campaign

    45 Recognizing the Rhetorics of Feminist Action: Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein’s 2012 Green Party Campaign Virginia Crisco Abstract: Scholars such as Nancy Welch and Susan Jarratt argue that Neoliberalism shapes how everyday citizens are able to take action. Using what Jacquelyn Jones Royster and Gesa Kirsch call “social circulation,” I analyze how Dr. Jill Stein, the presidential candidate for the Green Party in 2012, used “whatever spaces are left” to challenge the dominant two party system, particularly in relation to the pres- idential debates. I argue that Stein demonstrates an activist literacy disposition that positions her to use the spaces, the literate and rhetorical means, and oppor- tunities for storytelling to foster social action in our neoliberal climate. Keywords: neoliberalism, social circulation, activist literacy, third party politics In Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World, Nancy Welch argues that neoliberalism has changed not only the topics available for public discussion in the pursuit of making socio-political change, but the venues for having those discussions, as they have also become increasingly privatized. As an example, Welch refects on her experiences advocating for her husband’s health care to their insurance company. She describes the multiple letters she had gotten from her insurance company saying their appeal for his care had been denied, using the same phrases again and again, as if her carefully re- searched and rhetorical letters were not even being read. This leads Welch to question the amount of power we as teachers and scholars of writing give to language and rhetoric: These are rhetorical strategies that, mostly in the abstract, have given me comfort – comfort in the belief that I really can wield power in language, that I can empower my students, particularly those subor- dinate by gender, race, sexuality, and class, to do the same.
  • Taker GREEN PARTY of CALIFORNIA June 2017 General

    Taker GREEN PARTY of CALIFORNIA June 2017 General

    Mimi Newton, Sacramento GA Note- Taker GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA June 2017 General Assembly Minutes Sacramento, June 17-18, 2017 ATTENDEES: Name County Sacramento Delegate status Present/Absent Brett Dixon Alameda Delegate P Greg Jan Alameda Delegate P James McFadden Alameda Not delegate P Jan Arnold Alameda Delegate P Laura Wells Alameda Delegate P Maxine Daniel Alameda Delegate P Michael Rubin Alameda Delegate P Pam Spevack Alameda Delegate P Paul Rea Alameda Delegate P Phoebe Sorgen Alameda Delegate P Erik Rydberg Butte Delegate P Bert Heuer Contra Costa Not delegate P Brian Deckman Contra Costa Not delegate P Meleiza Figueroa Contra Costa Not delegate P Tim Laidman Contra Costa Delegate P Megan Buckingham Fresno Delegate P David Cobb Humboldt Delegate/Alt P Jim Smith Humboldt Delegate P Kelsey Reedy Humboldt Not delegate P Kyle Dust Humboldt Delegate P Matt Smith-Caggiano Humboldt Delegate/Alt P Cassidy Sheppard Kern Delegate P Penny Sheppard Kern Delegate P Ajay Rai Los Angeles Delegate P Andrea Houtman Los Angeles Not delegate P Angel Orellana Los Angeles Delegate P Angelina Saucedo Los Angeles Delegate P Cesar Gonzalez Los Angeles Not delegate P Christopher Cruz Los Angeles Delegate P Daniel Mata Los Angeles Delegate P Doug Barnett Los Angeles Delegate P Fernando Ramirez Los Angeles Delegate P James Lauderdale Los Angeles Not delegate P Jimmy Rivera Los Angeles Delegate P Kenneth Mejia Los Angeles Delegate P Lisa Salvary Los Angeles Delegate P Liz Solis Los Angeles Delegate P Marla Bernstein Los Angeles Delegate P Martin Conway
  • 2014 Green Party Platform

    2014 Green Party Platform

    Platform 2014 Green Party of the United States Approved by the Green National Committee July 2014 About the Green Party The Green Party of the United States is a federation of state Green Parties. Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens are renewing democracy without the support of corporate donors. Greens provide real solutions for real problems. Whether the issue is universal health care, corporate globalization, alternative energy, election reform or decent, living wages for workers, Greens have the courage and independence necessary to take on the powerful corporate interests. The Federal Elec - tions Commission recognizes the Green Party of the United States as the official Green Party National Com - mittee. We are partners with the European Federation of Green Parties and the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas. The Green Party of the United States was formed in 2001 from of the older Association of State Green Parties (1996-2001). Our initial goal was to help existing state parties grow and to promote the formation of parties in all 51 states and colonies. Helping state parties is still our primary goal. As the Green Party National Com - mittee we will devote our attention to establishing a national Green presence in politics and policy debate while continuing to facilitate party growth and action at the state and local level. Green Party growth has been rapid since our founding and Green candidates are winning elections through - out the United States. State party membership has more than doubled. At the 2000 Presidential Nominating Convention we nominated Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke for our Presidential ticket.
  • 2010 Green Party Platform

    2010 Green Party Platform

    Platform 2010 Green Party of the United States As Adopted by the Green National Committee September 2010 About the Green Party The Green Party of the United States is a federation of state Green Parties. Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens are renewing democracy without the support of corporate donors. Greens provide real solutions for real problems. Whether the issue is universal health care, corporate globalization, alternative energy, election reform or decent, living wages for workers, Greens have the courage and independence necessary to take on the powerful corporate interests. The Federal Elec - tions Commission recognizes the Green Party of the United States as the official Green Party National Com - mittee. We are partners with the European Federation of Green Parties and the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas. The Green Party of the United States was formed in 2001 from of the older Association of State Green Parties (1996-2001). Our initial goal was to help existing state parties grow and to promote the formation of parties in all 51 states and colonies. Helping state parties is still our primary goal. As the Green Party National Com - mittee we will devote our attention to establishing a national Green presence in politics and policy debate while continuing to facilitate party growth and action at the state and local level. Green Party growth has been rapid since our founding and Green candidates are winning elections through - out the United States. State party membership has more than doubled. At the 2000 Presidential Nominating Convention we nominated Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke for our Presidential ticket.
  • The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004

    The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004

    The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004 I. Voter Suppression A. Overly Restrictive Registration Requirements B. Incompetence in Processing Registrations C. Challenges to New Registrants on Insufficient Grounds D. Misinformation About Voting Status/Location/Date E. Voter Intimidation F. Voting Machine Shortages/Malfunctions G. Overly Restrictive Rules & Incorrect Procedure Regarding Provisional Ballots H. Poorly Designed Absentee Ballots Caused Voters to Mark Incorrect Candidate II. Access to Voting Systems Before Election Violates Protocol III. A Third-Rate Burglary in Toledo IV. Suspect Results A. Registration Irregularities B. Exceptionally High Voter Turnout C. More Votes than Voters D. Exceptionally High Rates of Undervotes E. High Rate of Overvotes Due to Ballots Pre-Punched for Bush? F. The Kerry/Connally Discrepancy G. Discrepancy between Exit Polls & Tabulated Votes V. Restricting Citizen Observation & Access to Public Documents A. Warren County Lockdown B. Restricting Citizen Access to Election Records VI. What Went Wrong with the Recounts/Investigation of Vote Irregularities A. Chain of Custody of Voting Machines & Materials Violated B. Failure to Follow Established Procedures for Recounts C. Failure to Allow Recount Observers to Fully Examine Materials D. Secretary of State Blackwell has Failed to Answer Questions VII. Recount Reveals Significant Problems VIII. Methods of Election Fraud A. Stuffing the Ballot Box B. Touchscreen voting machines appear to have been set to “Bush” as Default C. Computers pre-programmed to ‘adjust’ vote count in Bush’s favor? D. Tampering with the Tabulators: Evidence of Hacking in Real-Time? IX. Additional Observations A. Irregular/Impossible Changes in Exit Polls over time on Election Night I.
  • Ten Stories About Election ‘06 What You Won’T Learn from the Polls

    Ten Stories About Election ‘06 What You Won’T Learn from the Polls

    Ten Stories About Election ‘06 What You Won’t Learn From the Polls Released November 6, 2006 Contents: Page 1) What Do Votes Have to Do With It: Democrats majorities may not win seat majorities 2 2) Monopoly Politics: How on Thursday we will predict nearly all House winners… for 2008 3 3) The Untouchables: The growing list of House members on cruise control 5 4) The Gerrymander and Money Myths: The real roots of non-competition and GOP advantage 12 5) The GOP Turnout Machine Myth: If not real in 2004, why would it be now? 17 6) The 50-State Question: Measuring Dean’s gamble in 2006… and in 2016 18 7) Downballot GOP Blues: What a Democratic wave could mean for state legislatures 20 8) Of Spoilers and Minority Rule: Where split votes could swing seats – and already have 21 9) The Democrats’ Paradox: Why a win could shake up House leaders & the presidential race 24 10) Slouching Toward Diversity: Who’s to gain when a few more white men lose? 26 Appendix: 1) Incumbency Bumps: Measuring the bonus for House Members, 1996-2004 29 2) Horserace Talk: The inside track on projecting the 2006 Congressional races 30 3) Open Seat Analysis: How Monopoly Politics measures 2006 open seats 32 FairVote 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610 Takoma Park, MD 20912 www.fairvote.org (301) 270-4616 What Do Votes Have to Do With It? Democrats’ Probable National Majorities May Not Result in Control of Congress On November 7, Americans will elect all 435 Members of the U.S.
  • Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines

    Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines

    CALTECH/MIT VOTING TECHNOLOGY PROJECT A multi-disciplinary, collaborative project of the California Institute of Technology – Pasadena, California 91125 and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 AUDITING TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES Sharon B. Cohen MIT Key words: DRE, voting machine security, electronic voting, electronic voting machines, auditing technology VTP WORKING PAPER #46 May 2005 Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines by Sharon B. Cohen Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineering and Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology May 19, 2005 Copyright 2005 Sharon B. Cohen. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis and to grant others the right to do so. Author_________________________________________________________________ Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science May 19, 2005 Certified by___________________________________________________________ Ted Selker Thesis Supervisor Accepted by____________________________________________________________ Arthur C. Smith Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Theses Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines by Sharon B. Cohen Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering
  • CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY ELECTION MARCH 2, 2004 Results As of 03/24/2004 Certified Election Results

    CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY ELECTION MARCH 2, 2004 Results As of 03/24/2004 Certified Election Results

    CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY ELECTION MARCH 2, 2004 Results as of 03/24/2004 Certified Election Results PRECINCTS COUNTED - TOTAL Completed Precincts: 132 of 132 Reg/Turnout Percentage REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 45,734 BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL 18,027 39.42% BALLOTS CAST - DEMOCRATIC 7,330 16.03% BALLOTS CAST - REPUBLICAN 9,031 19.75% BALLOTS CAST - AMERICAN INDEPENDENT 228 0.50% BALLOTS CAST - GREEN 29 0.06% BALLOTS CAST - LIBERTARIAN 43 0.09% BALLOTS CAST - NATURAL LAW 6 0.01% BALLOTS CAST - PEACE AND FREEDOM 2 0.00% BALLOTS CAST - DEM DECLINE TO STATE 119 0.26% BALLOTS CAST - REP DECLINE TO STATE 95 0.21% BALLOTS CAST - AI DECLINE TO STATE 17 0.04% BALLOTS CAST - NONPARTISAN 1,127 2.46% PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DEMOCRAT AND DECLINE TO STATE Vote For: 1 Completed Precincts: 132 of 132 Candidate Name Vote Count Percentage JOHN F. KERRY 4,280 63.54% JOHN EDWARDS 1,616 23.99% HOWARD DEAN 276 4.10% JOE LIEBERMAN 122 1.81% CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN 120 1.78% AL SHARPTON 102 1.51% WESLEY CLARK 86 1.28% DICK GEPHARDT 62 0.92% DENNIS J. KUCINICH 55 0.82% LYNDON LAROUCHE 17 0.25% PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ONLY Vote For: 1 Completed Precincts: 132 of 132 Candidate Name Vote Count Percentage JOHN F. KERRY 4,219 63.68% JOHN EDWARDS 1,578 23.82% HOWARD DEAN 271 4.09% JOE LIEBERMAN 122 1.84% CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN 118 1.78% AL SHARPTON 101 1.52% WESLEY CLARK 86 1.30% DICK GEPHARDT 62 0.94% DENNIS J. KUCINICH 51 0.77% LYNDON LAROUCHE 17 0.26% PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DECLINE TO STATE VOTERS ONLY Vote For: 1 Completed Precincts: 132 of 132 Candidate Name Vote Count Percentage JOHN F.
  • Federal Elections 2004

    Federal Elections 2004

    2004 ELECTION RESULTS The following four sections present the primary, runoff and general election results for the U.S. Presidential and U.S. Congressional elections held in 2004. The November 2004 general election (and Louisiana’s December 2004 runoff election) resulted in the election of the 109th Congress. The following is the party composition of the 109th Congress, as determined by the results of these elections: U.S. Senate Republicans: 55 Democrats: 44 Independents: 1 U.S. House of Representatives Republicans: 232 Democrats: 202 Independents: 1 Notes on Charts * Runoff election vote totals have been included with the primary election totals. (For the U.S. Senate, runoff elections were held in Georgia and South Carolina. For the U.S. House of Representatives, runoff elections were held in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas.) For Louisiana, runoff election vote totals have been included with the general election totals. The following three situations account for blank spaces in the charts and should be considered when making comparisons or drawing conclusions about the vote totals. * In some states, i.e., Connecticut, Utah and Virginia, political parties may nominate general election candidates by party convention, rather than by primary election. * In some states, there were unopposed candidates whose names did not appear on a ballot and therefore received no votes. * 34 states had regularly scheduled U.S. Senate elections in 2004. 2004 PRESIDENTIAL POPULAR VOTE SUMMARY FOR ALL CANDIDATES LISTED ON AT LEAST ONE STATE BALLOT Candidate (Party Label) Popular Vote Total Percent of Popular Vote George W. Bush (Republican) 62,040,610 50.73% John F.
  • Orchestrating Public Opinion

    Orchestrating Public Opinion

    Paul ChristiansenPaul Orchestrating Public Opinion Paul Christiansen Orchestrating Public Opinion How Music Persuades in Television Political Ads for US Presidential Campaigns, 1952-2016 Orchestrating Public Opinion Orchestrating Public Opinion How Music Persuades in Television Political Ads for US Presidential Campaigns, 1952-2016 Paul Christiansen Amsterdam University Press Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the US and Canada by the University of Chicago Press. isbn 978 94 6298 188 1 e-isbn 978 90 4853 167 7 doi 10.5117/9789462981881 nur 670 © P. Christiansen / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2018 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher. Table of Contents Acknowledgments 7 Introduction 10 1. The Age of Innocence: 1952 31 2. Still Liking Ike: 1956 42 3. The New Frontier: 1960 47 4. Daisies for Peace: 1964 56 5. This Time Vote Like Your Whole World Depended On It: 1968 63 6. Nixon Now! 1972 73 7. A Leader, For a Change: 1976 90 8. The Ayatollah Casts a Vote: 1980 95 9. Morning in America: 1984 101 10.
  • Claudia Severa's Birthday Invitation

    Claudia Severa's Birthday Invitation

    SPRING/SUMMER 2016 VOLUME 18, ISSUE 2 The Journal of the Coalition of Women Scholars in the History of Rhetoric & Composition Editors Jennifer Bay, Purdue University Patricia Sullivan, Purdue University Associate Editor Wendy B. Sharer, East Carolina University Editorial Assistants Cover Design Design and Layout Liz Lane, Purdue University Carrie Grant, Purdue University Production Assistant Erin Brock Carlson, Purdue University Rebekah Sims, Purdue University Trinity Overmyer, Purdue University Jennifer McVeigh, Purdue University Editorial Board Lindal J. Buchanan, Chair, Old Dominion Barbara L’Eplattenier, University of Arkansas, University Little Rock Katherine H. Adams, Loyola University Andrea Lunsford, Stanford University Nancy C. DeJoy, Michigan State University Kelly Ritter, University of Illinois, Jessica Enoch, University of Maryland Urbana-Champaign Lynée Lewis Gaillet, Georgia State University Shirley K. Rose, Arizona State University Cheryl Glenn, Pennsylvania State University Aparajita Sagar, Purdue University Tarez Samra Graban, Florida State University Wendy B. Sharer, East Carolina University Nan Johnson, The Ohio State University Hui Wu, University of Texas at Tyler Peitho seeks to encourage, advance, and publish original feminist research in the history of rhetoric and composition and thereby support scholars and students within our profession. For submission guidelines and requirements, please see peitho.cwshrc.org. Peitho (ISSN 2169-0774) is published twice a year, in the Spring and Fall. Access to back issues of Peitho are part of the Coalition membership package. Coalition membership is $10 for graduate students and $25 for faculty; more information is available at cwshrc.org. Copyright © 2016 by the Coalition of Women Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition Cover Image: Vindolanda Tablets Online II.