Are Grace Ross and Jill Stein Jumping the Political Gun by Running in the Mass. Gubernatorial Race?
The race for Massachusetts governor got much more exicting for area progressives over the last week with the entry of two experienced candidates - Grace Ross and Dr. Jilll Stein. Both have run for the office (and other offices) in the last decade as Green-Rainbow Party candidates. Stein will continue doing so for this election. What's interesting, however, is that Ross has decided to dog incumbent Deval Patrick from within his own party. She's hoping to face off against him in the Democratic Party primary. This is a clever strategic move, despite the fact that it is also the result of internecine strife in the Green-Rainbow Party. Stein and Ross represented different camps within that party. My understanding is that Stein's camp more or less prevailed a while back, and Ross took her custom into the progressive wing of the Democrats following that development. At least for the moment.
Since I've been around the block in Massachusetts progressive circles, I know both candidates and spoke to both of them (Stein at some length, Ross just quickly) before they officially announced. In both cases, I didn't trash the idea of them running. And any criticism I offered certainly wasn't in the vein of the mean-spirited, partisan and hectoring line of questioning Emily Rooney subjected Stein to while interviewing the good doctor on her WGBH-FM talk show yesterday (much of which indistinguishable from the Fox News "so tell us how long you've sucked" style of attack interviewing).
I simply pointedly asked both if they wouldn't rather see left parties and/or formations get progressives into lots of lower level offices and only then run for higher level offices like governor. But I was not doing that to say that I don't support left electoral efforts for having the temerity to say that politics as usual isn't good for democracy or for the fortunes of working families. I do. I just think that candidates like Ross and Stein need to prove that the forces they represent can govern in lower offices before they'll be more easily electable for higher ones. And that they will really need other left partisans to win lots of other offices and build a political block capable of taking power in the Commonwealth, and joining with similar efforts around the country to ultimately take national power.
My main fear is not that Patrick will lose and that a Republican will be elected governor. Pretty much the same pro-business policies are going to result either way - although it will be somewhat worse in some important policy areas if the Republicans win. My main fear is that Ross and Stein wouldn't ever be allowed to govern even if they won - which speaks to the long arduous job that will be necessary to uproot the existing political establishment. Although it's hard to ask people who have already devoted a lot of effort to the higher level political campaigns they've mustered in the last several years to do even more hard work at the grassroots level before going for various higher level electoral brass rings. Nevertheless, I think that's the way it has to be.
When I brought these points up to Ross and Stein, both candidates basically said that they felt their political groupings would benefit much more from a statewide campaign than from lower level campaigns. Because they can definitely get a lot of attention paid to their ideas even if they don't get a zillion votes. And they can win a lot of partisans who will work with them over the long haul in the years to come if they do a credible job as candidates. Both women have shown they can more than hold their own in public debate against traditional and non-traditional competitors. Plus it's fairly clear that both candidates do believe there's a hope that they could actually win. And I don't grudge them that. It is indeed possible that one of them could, depending on the circumstances. But that possibility is a slim one at best.
On the down side, they can also burn out a lot of people that might work in their campaigns who will not return to their circles after the experience. And they can also lose serious points with the general public that might just view them as a sideshow - and dismiss them long after they've built a more polished and experienced multifocal electoral apparatus.
More practically, Mass. progressive movements - which are very much split on the question of electoral efforts to the left of the Democrats - are going to have a hard time sustaining two candidates. As it is, any progressive candidate outside the Democratic mainstream is going to face a gauntlet of union and non-profit leaders who are going to say (in just the kind of back room conversations that I've been directly or indirectly privy to over the years) "stop screwing around people! This is not a game. Don't mess things up for us."
Even as unions and non-profits continue to get screwed up and down by both major parties on a host of key issues.
Now those types of leaders - that generally cleave very very closely to the Democratic Party regardless of whatever militant-sounding rhetoric they may use in public between election years - are going to be apoplectic at the news that there will be not one but two left-wing candidates in this year's gubernatorial race. Worse still, Ross actually has the stones (so to speak) to run as a Democrat against a standing Democratic governor. This and Stein's repeat performance as an effective representative of the hated Greens are going to to result in a frenzied whisper campaign by many of said union and non-profit leaders. It should not be forgotten that many of this stripe of center-left Democrats still believe that Ralph Nader cost Gore the presidential election in 2000 - and Nader ran as a Green Party candidate that year.
The goal of the campaign will be to stop money and support from flowing to the rebel left-wing candidates. And sadly, I think such campaigns will be quite effective. Let me say for the record that I am well aware of what happened at last week's AFL-CIO convention in Plymouth where Ross announced her candidacy while Patrick was kept away by a picket line of police unions angry at his regressive policies on issues ranging from cuts to the Quinn Bill to attempts to make further cuts in violation of standing collective bargaining agreements. I know it will be tempting to read that as a potential opening for Ross to gain significant union support for her run. But I think that is highly unlikely at this time. Mass. AFL-CIO President Bobby Haynes was too quick to admonish the police unions for their action for me to think that there's going to be some kind of sea change in behavior by top union leadership as regards left-wing political candidates this year.
One candidate, focusing all the energy of all disaffected progressives in the state, can probably survive this kind of rough-and-tumble politcal drama. But I'm quite concerned that two candidates won't - especially if they should go after each other at any point. Which I would expect them to be able to avoid since Ross probably won't make to the final election if she stands as a Democrat as planned. But the risk of progressive in-fighting in the open is troubling.
The right-wing, for their part, will likely enjoy the spectacle. They'll have more "loony lefties" to trash. And they know full well what any 5th grader who watches politics knows. Genuine left-wing candidates will definitely pull votes away from Patrick in the upcoming elections. And his popularity rating is nowhere near high enough to be cavalier about that eventuality. That's the main thing that will be driving center-left ire from unions and larger non-profits.
I think many of the worst aspects of the negative scenario I'm painting could be handily avoided by taking the long road of proving left-wing electoral mettle by winning dozens of lower-level offices across the state over the next few years before going for the bigger prizes. I understand that the Green-Rainbow Party has tried that strategy before without much success. And I also understand that both Ross and Stein feel that it's not going to work without running higher level attention-getting campaigns early on in this new political period we seem to be entering.
But I must counter by saying that I don't think the Green-Rainbow Party or any other left formation with electoral ambitions has pursued the longer road I describe long enough, hard enough or, sometimes, seriously enough to give up on it yet. Still, I don't want to make any apocalyptic pronouncements about potential blowback to the strategy of running left-wing gubernatorial candidates in this particular race beyond what I've already said. I'm just concerned that too many negative consequences from this election could set back the cause of majoritarian left back in Massachusetts.
As always, I'm open to more dialogue on the subject. That's one big reason I started Open Media Boston almost 2 years ago now. To encourage more dialogue within the left. I invite Ross, Stein and their partisans to respond at length in the comment area following this editorial. And other (reasonably respectful) views are welcome as well.
Let me close by wishing both candidates well, and hoping that both of them will take my criticisms and concerns in the positive spirit in which they are being offered.
Jason Pramas is Editor/Publisher of Open Media Boston
Comments
Missing from this discussion is the fact that MA state law requires that to be recognized as a political party, a group must have either 1% of the registered voters or a candidate who got 3% of the statewide vote in the most recent election. Unless the group is a political party, the Secretary of the Commonwealth (read: a member of one of the major parties who has no interest in fostering any party other than his own) will classify it as a PAC. PACs are limited by state law to receiving no more than $500 from any donor. Meanwhile, a political party, i.e., one that has ballot status as a result of running a statewide candidate and receiving 3% of the vote, can fundraise as much as $10,000 from a single donor.
Ballot status also earns the party a box on the voter-registration card alongside the major parties. A political party is also eligible to receive copies of the state-wide voter data base from the SoC.
So the GRP runs statewide candidates -- and not for these reasons alone. It runs candidates for governor because that is the only race extensively covered by the media.
Stein says she hopes her campaign will encourage more GRPs to run for the Legislature. It will certainly strengthen her campaign if she's leading a ticket with even 6-7-15 legislative candidates. But MA is one of only 6-7 states with a full-time legislature, so candidates have to sacrifice their careers to run and if they win, to return again in two years to ask to keep their job. It's remarkable that the GRP, with fewer than 8,000 registered voters, has been able to field as many quality candidates for the Legislature as it has, and more state-wide candidates in the past three election cycles than the Republicans, who deserve the third-party label as much as the Greens or the Libertarians.
As for the worry that Grace Ross and Jill Stein are going to cancel each other out, that's a non-issue. They virtually aren't running in the same race. Within the Democratic Party, Ross will need to gather 10,000 signatures and get 15% of the delegate vote of the party convention just to get TO the primary. Unlike 2006, when she had the GRP to help her gather signatures, she's now relying on a lot of dubious progressive Dems. And the delegate threshold is huge. She doesn't have a pocket of geographical support she can count on to deliver a block of delegates, so she will have to get at least 15% of the vote in each and every local convention. That's a tall order for someone who has little financial backing, isn't a millionaire, and is running in the Democratic Primary basically as an independent.
Meanwhile, Jill Stein needs only to gather 10,000 signatures, which she has done before, to get on the November ballot. By then, baring an upset that will make Scott Brown's victory look minor league, Grace Ross will be on the sidelines and Jill will be matched against three corporate-minded think-alikes. Only then can progressives begin to squirm and the Democratic Party wish we had instant runoff voting. But at least Jill Stein will give progressives a choice.
Thanks for this oped and the excellent article about Jill Stein's announcement. I hope Open Media Boston will continue to cover Stein's campaign.
Massachusetts has a lot of potential for a Green Party; after all, it's a progressive state that is dominated by a corrupt and stagnant Democratic Party. The spark the Greens need is a spokesperson who can articulate their message in the media, and I see Jill Stein as a natural choice for that role.
Running for governor is the best way to promote your party's vision for your state. A strong gubernatorial campaign in Illinois in 2006 by civil rights attorney Rich Whitney has catalyzed the Illinois Green Party in a big way. Jill Stein has run for state rep before, but by running for governor, she can get a lot of people thinking that what we need is a lot more people running for state rep and city council on the Green platform. As you noted, the trick is converting the energy of a big run into momentum for winning the small races, and that will be the challenge for Green organizers. One that I'm sure they'll welcome.
As for the Democrats, if they're concerned about vote-splitting, they can pass instant-runoff voting any time they're ready. As we've seen, a lot of the voters who feel taken for granted by the Dems would stay home or vote against them anyway. The question for progressives should be: who do you want those voters to turn to, Republicans or Greens?
I agree with Jason's point about the importance of running Greens for lower-level offices. However, the Greens are trying to do that, as well. Jill Stein ran for state representative herself a few years ago, and other GRP members, like Chuck Turner, hold offices in local government.
The real point is that the GRP is trying to do more than increase the number of progressives in office. It is trying to build a PARTY that will be an independent progressive force. Parties have declined so much in the US that we have to be reminded how they work -- they campaign on a platform, as part of a state. If a Green-Rainbow candidate is running for state rep, campaigners talk to people about the GRP program and ask them to vote for the GRP candidates to make that program happen. When you consider it that way, having a higher visibility state-wide candidate helps, not hurts candidates for lower offices.
Also, to build a party, it really helps to get it on the ballot! The easiest way to do that is to run someone for statewide office who gets at least 3% of the vote. Greens lost ballot status in 2008 because Cynthia McKinney did not get 3%; they need a state-wide candidate this time to get it back.
It's only by building of the Green Rainbow Party as an organization and a movement that Greens can become a strong force for change.
-John Berg
Jason, thanks much for this analysis. I don't know whether Ross or Patrick's people are reading this, but it's clearly a hot-button for the Greens based on responses to date, and lord knows it's refreshing to read something like this following the Rooney interview. In any case, I'm not revealing any secrets when I say that you've neatly captured many of the same discussions that go on, and will go on, within third parties across the county.
I won't address all of the various pros and cons, but I think that by coupling these two campaigns the way you do, your question as to the validity of a campaign like this on the part of Greens takes on a new light based squarely on the (political) difference between these two candidates. I can't speak for Grace Ross's strategy, but let me put the question this way: where does a loss leave her and her supporters and her policies? Will the landscape have changed in any way? Maybe it will--but I'm at a loss as to what form that would take. Now, as to the GRP: at the risk of sounding like a political naif, we are, actually, in this thing to win. It's not symbolic. I don't have time for symbolic. However, on the off-chance that Dr. Stein does not win--the landscape will have changed. It's happening as I write, and it's really something to be a part of.
And, maybe paradoxically, it's also a step on the way to achieving the goals that you, and I suspect most us, would agree is downright essential part of a third-party electoral program: going after lower hanging fruit. Well: an overabundance of enthusiastic, qualified candidates isn't exactly one of the GRP's problems. How to motivate folks to run? Maybe: give them the opportunity to be part of something bigger, provide an example, and show of flash of strength. But like Eli said, below, it's not an either/or situation--the GRP won't be robbing Peter to pay Paul in working on Jill's behalf; we do in fact have the energies needed to support any and all candidates who wish to run under the GRP aegis.
I'm not knocking Grace and her supporters, by the way--like I said, I'm just not sure what the strategic end of her campaign is. I doknow the moral value of her running, though, and I salute for carrying the standard into the lions' den. I'm sure she too feels as though she's in to win. And I'd love to see her beat Patrick, and after her nomination, she and her GRP opponent "going at it." The left should have such problems! Imagine it: Stein and Ross quibbling over specific policies--but taking certain very fundamental assumptions for granted, values shared, presumably, by most of your readers. And progressives would have the chance to determine which candidate was the Better of the Good, rather than the Lesser of the Evils.
*sigh*
(I don't see the Stein or Ross campaigns doing each other any damage. Unless of course Grace were to eventually run as an independent following the convention, which does not seem likely, and, in any case, she seems to have found a home within the Democratic machine).
But assuming that that little fantasy doesn't play out, and that the Governor's chair goes to Patrick or Baker, the Greens will have re-energized their base, added to their rolls, and extended their reach. A gubernatorial effort can do that--it already is--in ways that legislative races won't, not on the scale aand in the direction I mean. That's an undeniable plus. Electoral campaigns pull people together, provide a buzz, cohere. And state campaigns allow EVERYONE in the state to participate at one time and in some ongoing manner-- a huge plus. Of course, part of all that is that campaigns are intense and ephemeral (unlike long term advocacy campaigns), and the danger is that come Nov 3, as you suggest, the energy dissipates and the party returns to dormancy. It's up to activists in the party to ensure that we maintain a degree of momentum. But we gotta get sexy before we can stay sexy.
Yes, the right will probably enjoy the spectacle. And the media will treat it as, you say, a sideshow. Those of us supporting Jill Stein know very well that it's up to us to move the show into the main tent. Same with Ross' folks. I hope we both succeed.
It depresses me a tad to hear that you fear that these contests could have the effect of setting back the left. I truly hope that doesn't happen--but in any case, I don't see it. As for the possibility of governing, I wouldn't expect a Green or indie candidate to have any more--or less--trouble with the General Court than a newly inaugurated Gov from either of the two mainstream parties.
Peopleunite points out that the GRP is very firmly focused on the state of Massachusetts. Yes. And I think that's germane. The main concern of the electorate is not with targeted assassinations--it's with jobs, healthcare, education, transportation, and taxes. Which happen to be, by and large, state issues. Frankly, I think third-parties shoot themselves in the foot when they make too many grandiose pronouncements about, for example, foreign affairs. Whether we like to admit it or not, an official statement from the GRP on the situation in Yemen is not likely to have a jolting impact on US foreign policy. But Dr Stein, a recognized authority, speaking about the same across the state? A hah! (And I'm guessing that some of Grace's thoughts on economics will provoke more than a little interest here and there as well). I say this with all due respect--I know that your party has different priorities and strategies.
Which leads me to this: "...And that they will really need other left partisans to win lots of other offices and build a political block capable of taking power in the Commonwealth, and joining with similar efforts around the country to ultimately take national power."
Amen. I REALLY want whose views leave them largely disefranchised by the mainstream parties and powers-that-be to consider--in addition to all their other activities--to consider joining with the Stein campaign. There's an opportunity here for the kind of unity the left rarely displays, the kind that doesn't warrant selling out your own principles or withdrawing from your own party --i.e, it doesn't mean joining the GRP (though I hope you will...)--in fact, various socialist parties could likely peel away a few GRP members. But a campaign like Stein's transcends party politics; and so, just as we all come together and work together in, for example, our antiwar efforts, I'd love to see every progressive-to-radical movement in the state, from disgruntled Democrats to the BAAM people, throwing their weight behind an electoral campaign whose ultimate goals may not pass their purity tests, but who recognize that on the political level, Jill Stein's platform IS largely representative of their own aspirations.
Thanks again for hosting this discussion. And for all of the very valid arguments you brought up in so balanced a way. As I suggested in introducing this piece on GMG, the fact that alterna media has become as smart and professional as it on these pages suggests to me that alterna political parties can as well. The governor's race is a hell of a cauldron in which to test that theory, ... but we're game.
(how come I can't code for italics in these fields?)
Whether we like to admit it or not, an official statement from the GRP on the situation in Yemen is not likely to have a jolting impact on US foreign policy. But Dr Stein, a recognized authority on health care , speaking about the same across the state?
Jason, I'm with you and anyone else who wants to implement the strategy you advocate. You have my e-mail.
The Green Rainbow Party is a middle class movement rooted in liberal/progressive politics. Their main base of support comes from disgruntled Democrats. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Grace Ross would return to the Democratic Party. For them it is a tactical choice rather than a point of principle founded on a class analysis. Their primary mission is good government. They view corporations as corrupting democracy. Their solution is to either be elected, or pressure the Democratic Party into adopting their policies by challenging them for votes. It is a state-centric top-down vision of social change. They believe that the state is a neutral institution that has been seized by the wrong group of people - and their leadership is the antidote. For the most part, they are oblivious to radical politics or see it as a liability. In fact, I believe their experience with Ralph Nader in 2000 drove them out of national and international politics. The Green Rainbow Party is focused on Massachusetts and local politics.
I would like to see candidates run for Congress on a radical working class platform. Running for Congress is local enough for a modest campaign to develop an activist base, but would still allow a candidate to talk about the important issues facing social movements: the wars in the middle east and central Asia, US intervention in Latin America, the global economic crisis, wealth inequality, workplace democracy, extra-legal detentions and assassinations, immigrant rights, socialized health care, etc. These things are beyond the realm of acceptable debate for the ruling capitalist parties and those in their orbit, but they are nevertheless on the agenda of millions or regular working class people.
The Socialist Party of Massachusetts, affiliated with the SPUSA, is perhaps the most oriented toward this sort of project.
http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/mass/
Even when I critique the Democratic Party I do so constructively. You just made a great number of assumptions without actually providing evidence or making the case why self-identified left Greens, working class activists of the Rainbow Coalition, and critical social democrats in the Green-Rainbow Party have no strategic say or impact in the party. Why are their traditions (not too middle class anyway) of no consequence to this so-called "middle class" hegemony? How exactly are two parties that existed before Nader's run (who never was a Green) solely responsible for his actions and the fallout?
Let me throw the spotlight back on you. If I am mistaken, then please correct me. SPUSA comes out of a social democratic tradition that began with the Socialist Party of America, whose strength in Massachusetts waned after 1912, because of the Democrat's shift in policy toward placating some working class interest. The success of that early SP of A was not based on its rigid class analysis but a pragmatic, open minded, and distinctly American vision of creating and encouraging socialism. The strongest successes were municipal, not national (though congressional and state reps were elected).
One of the things I do like about the SPUSA is that it respects various socialist and anti-capitalist tendencies. There is no one line that must be obeyed. However, at least from the sound of your post, it seems like your strategy is stuck in the past and does not imply a critical awareness of the history of democratic socialism and social democracy. Green parties arose because of the failure and sickness of social democracy in Europe. I suppose SPUSA can make the case that it had no part in the kind of reformist politics of European socialist parties that ended up gutting their radical tendencies. However I do not see how you can keep your principles and win a Congressional race, contests that require a hefty number of volunteers and whose costs can get into the millions. Somewhat top-down in any case, right?
If you mean running for Congress to make a point and spur organizing on the other hand, without the goal of winning, then I can understand that idea.
It can be difficult to persuade people to look at the strictly political side of things as opposed to various forms of social activism that can provide a more immediate sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. Does an activist work on single issue campaigns or does she work on third party electoral work? The advantage of the latter is its connective properties, all issues can be holistically intertwined into a compelling and multifaceted narrative about what is needed to change and better society.
But you cannot get grants for that, or claim piecemeal victories, you have to win. The Democratic Party has the advantage of 50 some odd years of incumbency and control over the state legislature. Its a rather tough nut to crack. The Progressives in Vermont built out from Burlington, and that took 5 years or so.
I think Eli eluded to the structural timeline that exists because of emerging crises like global warming and resource depletion. In the United States those latter two items are still objects of debate unfortunately, so neither provides a sense of urgency widespread enough at this point to create autonomous forms of new political activism. I think the broader left and sane folks need to talk honestly with each other and ask: How long do we have to wait before we start standing on our political principles publicly and in practice?
The Democratic Party, no matter how many progressives it gains is not nimble or creative enough to usher in real and deep reforms of our society. It cannot educate or reform, it carries the dead weight of the status quo and past indiscretions. Without the true grassroots, without everyday people committing to a new kind of politics, a hopeful future is going to be difficult to achieve. I am and will do everything in my power to create a vehicle for progressive change at the grassroots level, one that contests political power locally and challenges people to create a public sphere and sense of citizenship once again.
The question of running for office when you don't have the machine apparatus to win election by brute force is an interesting one, and I guess it's a personal one for me... the whole damn reason I'm an activist at all is because of Ralph Nader's Green Party run in 2000. Lots of people made the argument then that the Greens had no business running for President, end of story.
But Nader's run was inspiring for a number of reasons:
1. His critique of the corporate duopoly and corporate globalization was a breathtaking eye-opener. He exposed the reality of our political system including its many myths and fallacies.
2. His positive vision for civic engagement was orders of magnitude more compelling than the shallow nonsense that got Clinton & Gore elected and anything that Gore was hawking in 2000.
3. He made a powerful case that democracy isn't about what you do on election day, but what you do in between elections, every day.
4. He advanced an exciting, independent, non-corporate alternative political vehicle through which we could practice that daily democracy and civic engagement.
5. The political vehicle he was advancing, the Green Party, had its own compelling vision for our common future, and was tied to a growing international movement that could compete with the neoliberal agenda.
6. The more he was ignored, the more accurate his critique became, and the greater the following he amassed. The greater the following, the more he was actively resisted, which ended up energizing his campaign.
When his votes in Florida tipped the balance of the election out of the spineless Democrats' hands (who seemed all too happy to help, even refusing to fight for the votes they did win, and letting Bush steal the election despite receiving more votes in Florida -- not even counting the tens of thousands of would-be-Democratic-voters who were entirely disenfranchised) I felt the need to look inward... did I just help to "elect" Dubya? If I were in Florida, would I have voted for Nader? Would I have been comfortable with the result? All of that had me thinking pretty hard about this stuff, and I just sort of internalized Nader's rhetoric that democracy is what happens between elections, and that I needed to be part of building electoral alternatives. Interestingly, I think Nader's 2004 and 2008 attempts were uninspired because he wasn't advancing any clear long-term alternatives. In the aftermath of the election, Nader and the Greens didn't respond well to the opportunity of having asserted themselves on the national stage, and there clearly hadn't been enough forethought about HOW to respond. There were incredible growth spurts that didn't end up building a viable alternative, and the national Greens and the Green-Rainbow Party in MA have suffered the consequences of that poor strategery. And perhaps the nation as a whole has also suffered those consequences.
Lessons to be learned, many of which have still not been learned...
But we can't keep sitting on the sidelines until we've polished up the perfect strategy and developed the perfect infrastructure. Politics is like a chess game with the pieces constantly disappearing and reappearing in different spots. There simply is no fail-safe plan, but you guarantee defeat the second you decide to sit the game out because you don't like your chances or you're uncertain of the consequences. By staying out of these high-profile campaigns -- that ritualistic civic process where people, sometimes even the corporate press, automatically pay you some attention -- you silence yourself. We need to take advantage of these unparalleled opportunities to bring people together and collaborate on putting forward a different vision for the Commonwealth, and to be heard doing it.
Especially now, having entered what Jim Kunstler calls The Long Emergency (or what David Korten calls The Great Unraveling), all bets are off. The economic and ecological and social and political unraveling is only going to get worse. Having candidates willing to speak truthfully about the crises we face AND advance compelling, common sense solutions on the big stage is vitally important. We are in reactionary times, and while the right wing is busy organizing people's outrage, the Left seems to have muzzled itself and scattered its energies into an incoherent mess of voiceless non-opposition. That is no basis from which to organize for lower office.
That said, I don't think this is an either-or problem. I think Jill's campaign can fuel a whole bunch of GRP campaigns -- this year for State Rep. seats and next year for municipal office -- with tremendous upside for synergy.
There are said to be about 25 OPEN State Rep. seats this year, an unprecedented number... could it be that our lofty elected leaders are running away from government as the challenges become ever-more daunting? Maybe it's time those of us with solutions in our hearts and at our fingertips start to throw our hats into the ring, if not to run ourselves, then to truly support those who have taken that leap. If not now... when?
The opportunity here is staggering and it will be interesting to see what we make of it.