The upcoming Green Party AGM isn’t just about the leadership race, it’s also about resolutions that will change how the Party works. The local CMM riding has put together a few resolutions.

On Monday night, one of the Ottawa ridings held a debate between the three Green Party leadership contenders: David Chernushenko, Elizabeth May, and Jim Fannon. Being a high-minded citizen journalist, and a long time supporter of the Green Party, I invited four little-g Greens out to the debate to see what they thought of the contenders.

What they had to say was interesting: there are two great candidates for leader. Each one would make a strong leader, but each appeals to a dramatically different crowd. They said that this election isn’t about choosing the best person for the job, it’s about choosing the direction for the party.

The informal focus group consisted of Alex, John, Cath, and Julie. They are like me: in their late twenties and early thirties, informed, and concerned with the state of our country. They are socially progressive. They want to see a Canada that can provide for our children and grandchildren as well as it provided for us. But they aren’t Green Party members, and they wouldn’t call themselves environmentalists. They are the centre that every party is fighting for.

How each candidate came across

All four agreed that David and Elizabeth both looked good, and that Jim Fannon’s unilingualism ruled him out as a serious national contender. Similarly, they reached agreement on how David and Elizabeth came across.

David got top marks for his knowledge, practicality, and pragmatism. Both John and Alex praised his “thoughtful” answers to a number of questions, while Julie described him as “trustworthy”. Where he fell down, however, was in his passion. He took a while to warm up to some of the questions, and, in others, he came across as somewhat stiff. While his answers were intelligent and interesting, he didn’t make them “punchy” enough, occasionally drawing them out.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth scored with her passion, knowledge, and ability to speak in soundbites. Her speaking ability stood out, especially her ability to make comments memorable. Interestingly, the group agreed that Elizabeth also had a passion problem. She came across as someone who felt so strongly about things that she wouldn’t be able to compromise. At the same time, all four agreed that some of her strongly held views seemed unattainable and unrealistic.

Jim Fannon, on the other hand, split the opinion of the focus group. They agreed that he was entertaining, fun, and approachable. He seemed less knowledgeable than David and Elizabeth, and had a habit for mentioning his business. He’s the kind of person that could make the party look good, but seemed likely to shoot his mouth off. Someone (Cath? Alex?) compared him to Carolyn Parrish. His strength was his populism. When didn’t have things to say, he fell back to telling the crowd to buy a membership in the party. Alex seemed the most taken with him, saying that he seemed sincere.

Which leader to choose?

All four of the consensus group agreed that both David and Elizabeth would make a strong leader, but that their leadership would make the party appeal to two very different crowds.

They said that Elizabeth’s inspirational speaking will draw in the activists, the environmentalists, and those who want to believe that the world can change. In Julie’s words: Elizabeth would make the Green Party look more like the NDP. Elizabeth would fail to draw in the more pragmatic and less idealistic folks from the other parties. Perhaps most importantly, she would reinforce the impression that the Green Party is just a bunch of tree-hugging hippies.

According to the group, David would present a very different face. His pragmatic approach would appeal to a broader audience. His apparent willingness to compromise and listen would make him a stronger ambassador to non-Greens. Whereas Elizabeth would draw votes away from the NDP, everyone agreed that David’s reasonable nature could draw votes away from all of the other parties. In Cath’s words: David seems like he could appeal to more than just “leftists”.

Jim Fannon’s unilingualism hurt him a lot, and so did his lack of knowledge. He was quick to pick up on good ideas from the other candidates, and when he was knowledgeable, he sounded good. But both Julie and John were a little creeped out by his constant sales pitch. Cath called him entertaining, but said that he babbled, and told the crowd “a little too much information”.

Who they chose

The focus group was unanimous. David was their choice. They said he came across as trustworthy, pragmatic, and intelligent. They said that he was the kind of person that Canadians would accept, and the kind of person Canadians would listen to.

This is a continuation of the post about Monday night’s leadership debate in Ottawa.

There were a lot of questions asked. During our discussion after the debate, a few memorable moments came up.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Green Party must advocate a much smaller population?

The asker of this question started by saying that currently leader of the Party, Jim Harris, took power in a coup d’état. He asked the candidates if they agreed that the Green Party should actively pursue a reducing the human population of the globe.

After the debate, Cath said his question made her think of The Lottery. Aside from the unspoken implication of the question, both Cath and Alex were impressed with how quick Fannon and David were to defend the current leader of the Party, reminding the questioner that Harris has been elected democratically in the exact same process that the Party was currently engaged in. The important point here wasn’t their loyalty to Jim Harris, but their loyalty to the process that elected him.

John (and others) were impressed with Elizabeth’s answer that a majority of the world’s population consumes very few resources, and that education and empowerment for women was the route to follow.

Question 2: I’m young and interested in joining a political party that represents my views. Why should I join the Green Party?

Although Julie and Cath didn’t like Jim Fannon’s chatty manner, everyone liked his response to this question: he said that the Green Party is the only party that allows members to democratically improve Party policy. Like David, he suggested that the Green Party was much more grass roots, and that being a member of the Party gave him control over the Party’s direction.

Question n: What is the Green Party doing to combat racism?

I have to step out of my author role to write about this one: I was very impressed with David’s response, so I’ll just mention it from my perspective. -e

This question became interesting because of the flavour of response.

David’s response won, in my mind. David started by saying “Look around the room, all you see are white faces.” And went on to talk about how the members of the Party have to start reaching out, “beyond our comfort zones” and dealing with people we don’t usually talk to. When he listed groups we have to start talking to, he didn’t limit himself to the usual ethnic and religious groups, he also mentioned the Chamber of Commerce and the Kiwanis Club.

In my view, this is an extremely important point for the Green Party. We seem to attract people who have spent far too much time in school and university, and have managed to wriggle up into the top half of the middle class.¹

David’s response was particularly interesting because he didn’t just limit himself to the usual ethnic/religious groups. I don’t think he was asking us to weep for the hard life of the investment banker, but that he was saying that we have to step out of our preconceptions, and consider how other people think, no matter what we think of them.

Elizabeth talked at length about the importance of “anti-oppression training” for members of the Party, and was echoed by Jim.

Question m: I believe that religion and state should be firmly separated. Do you agree?

Julie thought that Elizabeth’s answer to this question was very good. Elizabeth stated that she felt we had gone too far removing God from state functions, and that there were some occasions where an appeal to God was necessary. She cited a September 11th commemoration she had attended that had felt empty because there was no mention of a god (be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim).

I broke out in hives when Elizabeth answered this question. Or perhaps it was a plague of locusts. It’s hard to tell sometimes. Either way, I agree wholeheartedly with the questioner. Religion can be too divisive and exclusionary to be tossed around by the state. Praying to deities of one religion, to remember people who did not follow that faith is, in my mind, a quiet insult to the dead.

My discomfort at Elizabeth’s response was enough to crowd the responses of the other candidates out of my head.

The final question: How does non-violence figure into Canada’s role in Afghanistan?

This question seemed to solidify the group’s view of David and Elizabeth.

David said that we cannot let the ongoing devestation and human rights abuse in Afghanistan continue. He spoke of how he argued in a Shadow Cabinet meeting that the plight of women in Afghanistan alone was reason enough to keep Canadian troops there. During his response, he said “men can be feminists too” (earning a round of applause from the audience, and a gagging noise from Alex), and said that conditions were simply too bad to be ignored.

Elizabeth answered the question by appealing to non-violence and demilitarization. She spoke of the importance of peace keeping, how the US funded al Qaeda to oust the Soviets, and finished by saying that Canada’s role in Afghanistan should be limited to collecting weapons from the local war-lords. She didn’t explain how the war-lords would be convinced to part with their weapons.

The focus group described David’s response as thoughtful and realistic. Elizabeth’s response was less favourably met, being described as everything from idealistic to unrealistic (with a brief pit stop in unfocused).

Cath pointed out that Elizabeth’s use of the word “demilitarization” would instantly alienate everyone involved in the Canadian military and the defense industry. Given that Ottawa contains many tens of thousands of military voters, she thought another term may improve her chances at getting elected.

1. This isn’t a criticism of those people, I’m one of them. (back)

The two password protected posts that I’ve dumped onto this blog will be accessible soon. I’ve put together a small focus group to review the Ottawa-Centre leadership debate, and I’m just waiting for them to read over the posts and ensure that I’m not misrepresenting their thoughts.

Thanks for the interest! It’s great to know that so many people are interested in the Green Party leadership race!

Ugh. Green Party candidates have to be clear about their campaign expenses. The Public Eye has a story on the financial side of Elizabeth May‘s campaign tour. Apparently nobody (Canadian) is paying for it: the Sierra Club isn’t covering the cost of her tour, nor is her campaign. According to the Public Eye, the only people with the wallets open seem to be US based William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

I can understand that Ms. May has more to her life than running for Green Party leader. That’s fair. But campaign expenses are campaign expenses. During the last federal election, the Globe and Mail ran a couple of stories alleging that outgoing leader Jim Harris ran a shady leadership campaign. I don’t know if that lost us votes, but it didn’t help with our credibility.

I got to see all three candidates for leader of the Green Party at the Ottawa-Centre debate tonight. I brought a posse of four friends who are sympathetic to the Green Party, but who aren’t members, and haven’t followed the race thus far. Most importantly, they haven’t been following this blog. Tomorrow, I’m going to dump a fairly large post of their reactions, and their thoughts.

Tonight, I’ll just post a quickie on my initial impression: I have to say that I was both impressed and disappointed.

I was impressed because all three of the candidates were strong. Each had faults, and each had fairly obvious strengths; but, on balance, none of them turned me off. Each of them came across as intelligent and able.

I was disappointed because none of them leapt to the fore. They all came across well, and had their moments, but I wouldn’t call any one of them the “winner” of the debate. If I were a punditAs a high paid Internet pundit, I would call the night a draw. Both Chernushenko and May did well: they each “won” some of the questions, but they both came across equally well on most. Chernushenko impressed me with his thoughtful and practical answers, while May impressed me with her passion and sound-bites.

If the evening had a loser, it had to be Jim Fannon, if only for a technicality.¹ He was probably the most entertaining of the three speakers, and he was certainly the most lively. But the poor guy can’t speak french. Two of the audience posed questions in french, and Jim was left scrambling to compose his thoughts, when the other candidates explained the nature of the question.

Of the three, I think that the best candidate for leader would be Jimabeth Chernushenko: an amalgam of all of them. The amalgam would consist of David’s pragmatism and trustworthiness, Elizabeth’s passion and down-home ease, and Jim’s humour and accessibility.

---

Tune in tomorrow for interviews with Julie, John, Cath, and Alex. Each of them has voted Green in the past, and is intrigued by the Party. They come from different backgrounds, and expect different things from their politicians. None of them have been following the leadership race. In a coup of citizen journalism, I’ll be asking them what they thought of the debate and each leader. I’ll be scooping the CBC, CTV, and every other news outlet I can think of.

1. I realize that not speaking french is a helluva lot more than a technicality, but I can’t think of a more charitable way of putting it (back)

A kind soul at dmo.ca ripped the audio from the itty bitty videos I posted the other night. Here, for your bandwidth improved listening pleasure, is David speaking at the national campaign launch:

Recording 1: 1.9MB, 2:59 I’m here to ask you for a mandate, to lead the Green Party of Canada on an epic adventure, straight up Parliament Hill, and into the House of Commons, where we belong… We are a political party. Our raison d’etre is to get votes, to win votes, to win seats. And, when we win earn the confidence of enough Canadians, to govern. Nothing less.

Recording 2: 1.9MB, 2:59 Our party is not a lawn. It is diverse. For it to thrive, it must become as rich, and subtly complex as the forest floor. We must always respect those who already support us, and we must stay true to the fundamental values deeply rooted in the belief in the wisdom of nature that unite us… We must demonstrate to [all Canadians] that our vision and ideas our ideas make sense to them… We must add depth and comprehensive detail to the platform, so that Canadians can see that the Green Party could get this country to a future that is healthier in every way.

Recording 3: 1.5 MB, 2:14 We must be seen to be a party for all Canadians… Uniting people through fear, or anger, or simplistic promises is never unity at all. It can never last… Ideas can unify, as nothing else can… I know this Party. I’ve worked within it, and I’ve helped to make it work. I know its strengths. And I know where and how it must be stronger…

Recording 4: 5.1 MB. 58 seconds. Answer to the question “How do you talk to non-environmentalists about non-environmental issues?” This one is pretty badly cut off.

Okay, I realize this DC madness has to stop. For the next eight hours, there will be a moratorium of posts about David Chernushenko on this blog. But let me be the first in this portion of the blogosphere to link to David’s blog.

Here at PiePalace, we like to stay at the forefront of technology. That’s why tonight’s blog entry will be a series of videos, taken at David Chernushenko’s national campaign launch. (We also like to speak of ourself in the third person)

It was a good event: there were plenty of people, and David gave a strong speech. The core of it was a quick biography, followed by an explanation of what David feels the party must do to attract more voters (speak in a way comprehensible to Canadians, show that our values are the same as those held by most Canadians, and improve our policy). I liked it.

The two non-Greens that I dragged along were impressed with what David had to say, and were thought it was good that David realizes that the Party has to improve its credibility with mainstream voters. They approved of his oratory skills.

I recorded videos of David’s speeches on my cranky old digital camera. They video is low quality, but the audio is very easy to understand. I can only post highlights, because my student salary doesn’t permit me to buy large memory cards. The videos that I took are a random smattering, but they cover the tenor of the event.

Video 1: 17MB, 2:59 I’m here to ask you for a mandate, to lead the Green Party of Canada on an epic adventure, straight up Parliament Hill, and into the House of Commons, where we belong… We are a political party. Our raison d’etre is to get votes, to win votes, to win seats. And, when we win earn the confidence of enough Canadians, to govern. Nothing less.

Video 2: 17MB, 2:59 Our party is not a lawn. It is diverse. For it to thrive, it must become as rich, and subtly complex as the forest floor. We must always respect those who already support us, and we must stay true to the fundamental values deeply rooted in the belief in the wisdom of nature that unite us… We must demonstrate to [all Canadians] that our vision and ideas our ideas make sense to them… We must add depth and comprehensive detail to the platform, so that Canadians can see that the Green Party could get this country to a future that is healthier in every way.

Video 3: 13 MB, 2:14 We must be seen to be a party for all Canadians… Uniting people through fear, or anger, or simplistic promises is never unity at all. It can never last… Ideas can unify, as nothing else can… I know this Party. I’ve worked within it, and I’ve helped to make it work. I know its strengths. And I know where and how it must be stronger…

Video 4: 5.1 MB. 58 seconds. Answer to the question “How do you talk to non-environmentalists about non-environmental issues?” This one is pretty badly cut off.

I’d be much oblidged if someone could strip the video stream off, and just supply me with the audio to repost.

PiePalace got a visit from David Chernushenko today. Apparently, our whinging has been heard, and a new David Chernushenko website will be going online sometime today. I look forward to seeing the blog.

It’s pretty cool that one of the candidates deigned to drop by.