Will Todd Chretien's Campaign Against Dianne Feinstein Catch Fire?

ONE http://www.indybay.org/uploads/1todd051215sm.mov

TWO http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2todd051215sm.mov

THREE http://www.indybay.org/uploads/3todd051215sm.mov

Chretien puts Feinstein on notice that he wants debates.

Source:

Whenever I hear Chretien, I just think he's a well intentioned guy who says stuff that any bozo right wing talk show host would hit out of the park. Two examples:

1. I read an email awhile back from his organization, the ISO, supporting the Iraqi insurgents pretty much uncritically behind fallacious anti-imperialist rhetoric. The email pretty much denied the sectarian nature of the insurgency downplaying as much as possible the sickening tactics of the "resistance". I've noticed that they aren't pushing this line much these days.

2. While the state murder of Tookie was a criminal act, that makes Tookie a (sad) victim not a hero. Chretian and Co. around comparing a former crips gangster to MLK and Malcom X makes the anti-death penalty movement look like dingbats.

That's why you're so familiar with the "bozo right wing talk show host" milieu

That's why you loath the Iraqi resistance

That's why you're hostile to the anti-death penalty crowd

And finally, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE A ZIONIST

TW-- I'll type real slow for you....... G e t s o m e h e l p in formulating a coherent argument and then put it up here. I'll then beat the shit out of it for fun.

As for "beating the shit out of it for fun," I'll quote your secret lust object George W. Bush: "bring it on!"

Still can't put up anything substansive. I dare you. I'm waiting to put my foot up your ass but still no argument from your side. I can't wait forever

"I just think he's a well intentioned guy"

you big fat liar -- you didn't mean that for a second

TW called you on it and now TW has to put something up?

what a joke! you got called out hard on your BS and now you're playing the playground tough

too rich

Well if you don't believe that I think Chretien is a well intentioned guy-- I don't really care.

And where are you going? My challenge stands

While Todd Chretien is a dedicated and thoughtful activist and a candidate who deserves some consideration, he is not the only anti-war candidate in the race. The Peace and Freedom Party's Marsha Feinland is also a strong anti-war candidate with some statewide name recognition as a candidate against Barbara Boxer.

It seems a shame that P&F and GP can't back each other's candidates or pick and choose races where one party might field a candidate and the other doesn't. And with all due respect to Chretien and the Green Party, their slate so far is mostly male, mostly white. Why not back Feinland and help elect another woman? Why didn't Chretien run against Pelosi instead?

And while Camejo is OK, Janice Jordan of the P&F Party is also a strong candidate for Gov with a track record as an activist for women's rights, prisoner's rights and for freedom for Leonard Peltier. She's based in San Diego so not as known in Bay Area as Camejo but worth supporting.

In the interest of true democracy, and multi-party democracy, the P&F and GP should cooperate to push for inclusion of all ballot-qualified candidates in debates (something Camejo failed to do as a candidate in 2003, when he should have advocated that the P&F candidate be in the debates, rather than making alliances with the sell-out Artiana Huffington [who showed her true colors by dropping the progressive mask and backing the corrupt Gray Davis..]....)

It's also worth remembering that many in the labor movement are pissed that Feinstein voted for CAFTA. But its unlikely labor will back Feinland or Chretien over Feinstein, who has an otherwise pro-labor voting record.

Will Chretien's campaign catch on as an anti-war protest vote? Possibly, and especially if there is no credible Republican candidate against Feinstein. Then there'll be no BS about the 'spoiler' issue.

If only Feinstein would drop out and we could have a debate between the best candidates - Feinland and Chretien - over the real issues facing Cali and the US. (Not to mention an interesting discussion of differing views of socialism and its relevance in the 21st Century)

It would be nice if Cindy Sheehan ran for president too. I don't like any hatred of any people, anywhere, anytime. Maybe I am unrealistic, maybe I am not totally honest, maybe I am stubborn and just want to see a better world.

I am still happy to be a Green.

Todd's the right person, and I think he can win. Good luck!

How does it feel to be irrelevant, loony left?

AP and the San Francisco Chronicle picked up the story.

More News links:

GREEN PARTY:

http://www.gp.org/press/states/ca_2005_12_15.shtml

JOSH RICHMAN, San Mateo Times and the Daily Review:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3315052
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_3315118

AP, KRON 4 (San Francisco)
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=4251971&nav=5D7l

KESQ Channel 3, Palm Springs:

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4251892&nav=9qrx

AP, Mercury News (San Jose):

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13416596.htm

AP, North County Times:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/16/news/state/17_15_5612_15_05.txt

AP, Contra Costa Times:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/13416596.htm

AP, Monterey Herald:

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/13416596.htm

Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1215-19.htm

Just small thumbnail photos-- hopefully gives a picture of the excitement that was palpable at the rally yesterday. Unfortunately, most came out very blurry. By making them smaller, maybe my amateur photography skills will be less noticeable.

A few more thumbnails:

Finally we get a third choice besides the Republiklan crook of the month, and the Likud Party's Dianne Feinstein.

Plugging my nose and voting. It's nice to once in awhile not go to the polls in opposition, but for something. I like the comment about Diane--"Likud"...LOL!

looks like the green party is getting a case of the trots.

why is it that every time independent radicals raise energy and power the socialists have to descend on it like reptiles seeking a warm rock?

Okay, though you phrasing was obscure I figured out that you were trying to say something about Trotskyites in relationship to the candidate for U.S. Senator Green Party's Todd Chretien. What is the relationship you're implying? Chretien is a former Nader organizer. How in any way is that related to the ISO that you are (perhaps reasonably) upset about. Please explain. I don't get what you're trying to say.

Oh, that IS a shame that P&F is also running a worthy candidate. As a Green I'm happy that Chretien is running and I think he looks quite good, but it would be nice, I agree if we had combined our energy. Maybe by running against one another Todd Chretien and Marsh Feinland can sharpen each other's message and position and end up helping one another.

Hmmm... Marc you've given me something to think about. I was feeling quite gung ho about TC until you pointed out that he's a actually a Socialist rather than a Green. I'm okay with voting for a good candidate that is a Socialist running as a Socialist, but like you I do have some concerns about someone who is running in a different party without changing their political orientation. Hmmm... you've got me thinking...

Why I'm Running For U.S. Senate

15 December 2005
Campaign launch statement by Todd Chretien

My name is Todd Chretien and this morning I am announcing my intention to seek the Green Party nomination to run against Dianne Feinstein for United States Senate in November 2006.

I’d like to begin by thanking you all for being here, especially Gayle McGlaughlin, Nativo Lopez, Dr. Jess Ghannam, Aimee Allison and Matt Gonzalez. I’d also like to thank Peter Camejo for his great support and wish him well on a speedy recovery from his surgery. I’d like to thank my parents, Mike and Eileen, for making the long journey to be here today. My wife, Jessie Muldoon, could not be here because she is busy teaching at Roosevelt Middle School in Oakland. My three-year-old daughter Isabela is here, but is taking a walk around the block at the moment with a friend because whenever I give a speech, she likes to climb up in my arms and yell, “Stop talking Daddy!”

So, thank you all for being here. Let me speak bluntly. President Bush invaded Iraq in order to control its vast oil reserves. He sold that invasion with a pack of lies.

100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of this illegal war and too many young American soldiers have paid with their blood. When I helped write Proposition I, the College Not Combat initiative, back in March, there were 1500 dead American soldiers. Today there are 2200 dead. By the time of the November 2006 elections there will no doubt be more than 3000 dead. Enough is enough. It is time to bring all of our troops home from Iraq now.

There are elections today in Iraq. The elections will solve nothing because the United States military will continue to occupy Iraq and American politicians and military commanders, not elected Iraqis, will make all the fundamental decisions. As long as tens of thousands of American troops remain, the Iraqi resistance will grow and the war will continue.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein voted to send our young soldiers to kill and die for oil in Iraq. Even as 60% of the American people want to bring our troops home, Sen. Feinstein insists they must stay there.

Millions of Californians knew that President Bush was lying about the reasons for invading Iraq, yet Sen. Feinstein, who is one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, with privileged access to all foreign intelligence, claims she was “deceived” by President Bush. Now she is “shocked… shocked!” that an administration of crooks, thieves and bullies lied to the American people. Yet in the run up to the war she decided to believe President Bush over the United Nations arms inspectors. She decided to believe President Bush over the International Atomic Energy Agency. She decided to believe President Bush over the outcry of millions of anti-war Californians.

She is not part of the movement against the war, she makes President Bush’s war possible. The Republican Party is so happy with Sen. Feinstein’s support of President Bush that they do not intend to run a serious candidate against her in November 2006. But if the pro-war Republican Party will not challenge Sen. Feinstein, then the anti-war Green Party will, and I will appeal to all people to turn this Senate election into a referendum on the war. If you want to stop the deaths of more young American soldiers, stop the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis and transfer the $250 billion a year we are spending to occupy Iraq into a fund to rebuild New Orleans, refurbish our school system, and provide health insurance for every American, then you have no reason to vote for Sen. Feinstein and every reason to vote for me.

We will begin this campaign by gathering pledges for A Million Votes for Peace in November 2006, which will demonstrate to Sen. Feinstein and the world that we, the California anti-war movement, mean business. Then I will ask Sen. Feinstein to join me in fostering democratic enthusiasm for this campaign by participating in televised debates with me. The people of California deserve to hear a genuine exchange of ideas about the most important issues affecting their daily lives. Anything less is cheating them.

And it is not only Iraq where Sen. Feinstein and I fundamentally disagree.

I support drivers licenses for immigrant workers, she opposes them.
I support gay marriages, she opposes them.
She supports using the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, I oppose it.
She supports Israel’s repression of the Palestinian people, I oppose it.
Sen. Feinstein voted for President Bush’s civil liberties-shredding USA Patriot Act.
Sen. Feinstein voted for President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law.
Sen. Feinstein voted for President Bush’s Free Trade Area of the Americas, a.k.a NAFTA II.

She has made a habit of voting FOR President Bush. I will make a habit of voting AGAINST him.

As a multi-millionaire, she has no idea what it is like for ordinary Californians trying to survive in the face of declining wages, choking traffic jams, sky-rocketing CSU, UC and Community College tuition, astronomical housing prices and the truly criminal crisis tearing our health care system apart.

The working people of California are having a harder and harder time just getting by. If Sen. Feinstein ever was part of the solution, she has long since become part of the problem.

I now want to take a moment to talk about an issue which I believe Californians should keep in mind when voting for their Senator. Over the past two months, hundreds of thousands of people in our state took part in a great civil rights battle to win clemency for Stan Tookie Williams. Despite this, Gov. Schwarzenegger proved himself a coward and a racist and killed Tookie. This state sponsored murder constitutes a great moral failure on the part of our government. As tens of thousands of Black and Latino and under-privileged children watched, Gov. Schwarzenegger executed their mentor, a man who they looked up to for his message of peace on the streets and non-violence.

While millions of her fellow Californians passionately organized and debated Tookie’s case, Sen. Feinstein remained silent. She couldn’t even be bothered to issue a press release about one of the most important civil rights cases of our times. All those who fought to save Tookie should remember in November that Sen. Feinstein was complicit in his murder.

Today, people are standing up to end this madness in Iraq. Students are confronting military recruiters on their campuses. Military family members like Cindy Sheehan and Fernando Suarez del Solar are saying bring our sons and daughters home now. Soldiers like Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes and Katherine Jashinksi are refusing to go and fight in Iraq. On September 24, hundreds of thousands of people marched against the war and will do so again this coming March 18 to mark the third anniversary of the invasion.

The question I want to pose is this: which side is Sen. Feinstein on? I submit that she is on the wrong side. I promise that I will stand on the side of everyone fighting for justice, peace and dignity.

I appeal to you to join this campaign. We need your volunteer time, your ideas, your talent, and yes, your money. Please go to http://www.Todd4Senate.org to find out how to get involved or make an online donation. If everyone who wants to bring our troops home now from Iraq goes to the polls this November, then, together, we can make history. Thank you.

So many women who disagree vehemently with Feinstiens' position on the war will nontheless vote for her on the basis on the current war against reproductive rights...hate to be single vote, but whats happening is scary...why doesnt Todd have anything to say about Prop 73, Alito or reproductive rights in general?

In defense of all candidates of all political persuasions, it is very difficult to state a position on all the issues at events that are limited in both time and scope. What need's to be considered, I think, when considering support for Feinstein for her stance on choice would be her and her political party's historical record - for example, whether she has an uneven record of support for this and similar issues. Has she and could she sell out for lack of a principled commitment based on ideology rather than political opportunism? I don't think Feinstein can deliver. Feinland can!

But I don't remember seeing any statement in their points relating to this...Feinstein will do what other Dem's have done- she'll call abortion an evil but claim she's pro-choice anyway...and then vote for Alito!

Since Feinstein will not support any Democratic Party senator who chooses to filibuster Alito's vote, she is basically saying that she doesn't at all mind being lukewarm about voting against him. That is far too inconsistant, bordering on being passive-agressive.

She can't coast on her pro-choice base after this bit of political pandering to consultants. She must think her voters are idiots who will forgive her for not stopping Alito cold. We need to stop patting such corrupt politicians on the back by voting for someone who ignores the loud voice of their constituents.

Friday, the phones at all her offices were flooded with constituent calls. We'll see tomorrow what she does. It is important for the voters who counted on her to represent we, the people instead of lobbyists and the lukewarm DLC. Base your vote on her actions this week, not on her campaign advertising later this year.

Apparantly, their are enough Democraps selling out to the right wing-nut consientuency that they'll overcome a filibuster. Dianne only cavbed after massive call-ins.