Comments on: The Open Progressive Party of Minnesota fields its first candidate

By: Linde KNIGHTON

Linde KNIGHTON — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:13:30 +0000

Please add the US Progressive Party to your links.
http://usprogressiveparty.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

By: Don Lake, Prove Me Wrong ...........

Don Lake, Prove Me Wrong ........... — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:35:25 +0000

“It is those who do no work that stand by and criticize those who are doing the work.”

Non sequitor, a complete nonsense statement! Thanks for giving the Democans and the Republicrats a laugh at the expense of the Loyal Opposition!

By: Don Lake, Prove Me Wrong ...........

Don Lake, Prove Me Wrong ........... — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:31:25 +0000

Yes, Linde Knighton, the US Progressive Party is still embryonic. To speculate beyond that is irresponsible! Thank you for your level headed in sight!

By: Third Party Revolution

Third Party Revolution — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:04:40 +0000

So how did Cavlan do?

By: Linde KNIGHTON

Linde KNIGHTON — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:39:20 +0000

The current move to a US Prgressive Party is one of growing the party state by state and making it possible for interested people in each state to know where they can connect with us. It is not large enough for a presidential bid.

By: Michael Cavlan

Michael Cavlan — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:28:42 +0000

Gene

More of a comical reference to those who stand around and complain about how those who are doing the actual work, are doing the work.

Nothing deeper was intended. Now if you want to talk about government intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens, well that is another discussion.

By: Gene Berkman

Gene Berkman — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:43:06 +0000

Michael Cavlan – your anecdote about three City workers standing around while one does the work – does that mean you will push for less government if elected to the City Council?

Or are you just concerned with “featherbedding”?

By: Michael Cavlan

Michael Cavlan — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:37:57 +0000

Third Party and LibGirl

Thank you for the kind words.

As for Mr Sean Scallon.

Invariably, it is those who do no work that stand by and criticize those who are doing the work.

Kind of like three City workers, standing there looking at the guy actually digging the hole. Complaining about how the guy holds his shovel, etc etc.

If you catch my drift.

By: libertariangirl

libertariangirl — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:05:39 +0000

good luck to him

By: Third Party Revolution

Third Party Revolution — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:46:17 +0000

We here at Third Party Revolution endorse Michael Cavlin in his campaign for Minneapolis City Council, along with many other third party and independent candidates seeking public offices nation-wide, ranging from local to federal levels.

By: Sean Scallon

Sean Scallon — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:35:33 +0000

As opposed to say the, “Closed Progressive Party”.

Explain to me the differences between the Greens and the “Open Progressive Party”, I mean the LEGITIMATE differences between the two parties, and then maybe I’ll believe this is not an ego trip.

Because usually in most cases with non-major party politics that’s exactly what is is.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:00:26 +0000

This relates to a previous thread which is playing out. I’d like to pursue it here. I asked Susan H. whether she thinks Prof. Phillies is a radical and/or anarchist. I believe he is both. Yet he has several divergences with the consensus radical libertarian positions. I believe this is because Prof. Phillies is comparable to Teddy Roosevelt regarding political beliefs/positions. When a present day radical libertarian -1912 progressive republican-gets as far as possible to the left, the positions converge with the leftist anarchist/progressive positions. Therefore I have concluded Prof. Phillies is a present day example of this phenomenon. Evidently there are very few such examples from the right. However there does seem to be several from the left. i.e. leftist anarchists that seem open to radical libertarian ideas & positions. I seem to be one & I have recognized others which I will not name here.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:39:58 +0000

This has me concerned. The Progressive Party failed in 1912 & since in the presidential election. But it did succeed in lower ballots in several states including Minnesota. Mostly NE, N. Midwest & West coast states. The coalition of progressive parties proposed does not have national coverage but MIGHT by 2012. Much like Boston Tea Party. The Progressive party fails to get a majority or a winning plurality BECAUSE IT IS SPLIT between left and right. Precisely as we see happening. The PP split into GP & LP. Now Gp splits into PPcoalition, Lp splits into Boston Tea Party. Meanwhile they get on multiple ballots & think they are succeeding. When actually they are further splitting the inclusive progressive party vote. The winning strategy is VOTE COORDINATION between the GP & LP, not more leftist/progressive state parties and radical libertarian parties. The only way this could work out is if the PPcoalition and BTP were to get on most or all ballots & nominate the same ticket in 2012. This seems highly unlikely BUT POSSIBLE. I do not recommend this scenario. I recommen vote coordination by the GP & LP which already have nationwide ballot access & slates of candidates. The Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy does NOT require the cooperation of the 2 parties although that is obviously preferable. An Independent fusion ticket could get enough ballot access to win & conduct the vote coordination itself with the help of its campaign staff.

By: marnie

marnie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:41:21 +0000

Interesting news. Thanks for the post.