[candidate-development] revised proposal for convention-2008 preselect-for discussion

Walsh, John John.Walsh at umassmed.edu
Sat Jul 21 13:44:25 EDT 2007 

2008 will be an unusual year.  If we put in place a real infrastructure and do some real fundraising (which unfortunately we did not do in 2006)then we may make a real showing.

If as Grace suggests consistently, we should work with our Democratic "friends," whose stance on the environment, on sexism, on pork barrel politics, on war, on the MIC and on Palestine is diametrically opposed to ours (e.g., Jimmy McGovern and mostin the state legislature,) then why should we not work with Nader and other independents who do agree with us on our principles?

Sometimes I think that a large part of the campaign (not on Grace's part but on the part of others)is because he is Arab American who speaks fluent Arabic and knows the score in Palestine all too well.

I remind folks that the hour is late and that we must be flexible.  There are few candidates on the horizon who have the name recognition that Nader and a few others do.  And we might be wise to use Ralph one last time to get a VP candidate a level of national recognition.
I do not know how many went to the Nader talk on Saturday evening at the national meeting.  I did and it was electrifying.  As he humbly walked off the stage, the crowd erupted in cries of "Run, Ralph, Run." Self-aggrandizement?  Not on Nader's part.  That of course is the Dem knock on him.  He does not even like to run or want to. 

BUT I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT RALPH IS OUR ONLY CHOICE.  I SIMPLY DO NOT WANT A CANDIDATE WHO WILL NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

And finally, let us not play into the Dems'hands by punting by choosing a poor candidate in 2008.
jw
p.s. If someone has been bullying female members of the GRP, then I would hope that someone would have a talk with them, perhaps one of the co-chairs.  Grace has raised a serious matter here and not one to be taken lightly.  If she knows of such cases, I am sure that she has talked to the person(s) in question.  If more is needed, then perhaps the co-chairs could speak to the person(s).  I am sure that in our ranks there are very few who would do this and that they are probably unaware of their behavior.
pps. If Mike feels bullied, we should also take that in a very serious way.  He is a devoted and principled guy, and we should also heed him.
ppps.  Perhaps we need a discussion of ways of bullying and intimidating.  Some are very subtle.  


-----Original Message-----
From: GracCRoss at aol.com [mailto:GracCRoss at aol.com]
Sent: Sat 7/21/2007 9:21 AM
To: mikeheichman at verizon.net; GracCRoss at aol.com
Cc: zisk at bu.edu; Walsh, John; candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
Subject: Re: [candidate-development] revised proposal for convention-2008 preselect-for discussion
 
First, I have no porblem with your being angry, Mike, we have worked closely 
together and care deeply about each other and our joint work - I too have been 
angry.   I know of no relationship where two people who care deeply don't 
sometimes get angry.   I would suspect such a relationship of being unhealthy.

I am sorry that strong disagreement feels like an attack to you.   An attack 
to me is when someone goes after me personally, impuning bad motives and 
disresprecting me personally - disagreeing with my analysis is somehting I consider 
different than that.

I am personally scared for our party in different ways than you are.   I look 
at who is active, whether we are doing the outreach necessary to bring in new 
people, whether there are things about our process that actively discourage 
people from being involved and whether we are visible about doing work that had 
integrity and engages people.   The loss of the low-income leaders - 
especially women who have actively reported bullying sexism as the reason why is very 
significant to me.

I don't expect one leader or one election to "make the difference".   I 
believe we must build an organization that builds the leadership of many - where 
the team/the organization is more important than one or a few personalities.

As for your proposal - the amendment you refer to says to take it to the 
Convention and have it affirmed.   Not that we start the decision all over again.  
 While I am not thrilled about the former, the latter is NOT the process that 
was agreed to.   So if you really want this brought up and debated, at least 
lets follow the decision that was made.

And I pray that this does not become the focal point of our convention - like 
it usually does because we have these folks who would rather argue a point - 
than learn some skills that could help us be more effective, or work on 
organizing actual movement building (which is about action, not words, words, 
words...   )-

yours, Grace
In a message dated 7/21/07 12:16:25 AM, mikeheichman at verizon.net writes:


> Hi Grace, Betts, John and everyone else:
> 
> A couple of hours ago, I started to write a response. The response was
> very angry. Fortunately, I had to stop writing the letter because I was
> late picking my daughter up. So, this is my second draft and I like this
> one a lot better.
> 
> Recently I have been upset with the operation of the State Comm meetings
> and proposed major changes in the decision-making process. I have
> listened to the arguments in support of my idea and also have listened
> to those who have strongly disagreed. Grace made many important points
> including that the State Comm needs to be trained in the use of
> consensus, and Betts made a very strong argument about being true to the
> spirit of consensus.
> 
> At the January 21 meeting of the State Comm. I believed that the
> consensus process worked very well when it came to taking up Elie's
> proposal. (See below for the record.) You can't see it from this record.
> However, I want to point out that I had talked with Elie on numerous
> occasions before January 21  about my concerns with his proposal.
> 
> According to the minutes of the January 21 meeting, "Mike Heichman
> wanted to insert language to automatically have this decision reviewed
> by the State Convention. Elie agreed that this is a friendly amendment."
> I believe the consensus process worked well in this area on that day.
> Now, almost 6 months later, I bring up the record of the decision,
> remind everyone that this decision needs to be reviewed and explain why
> I want it reviewed. And Grace attacks my decision! I believe that this
> attack is a violation of the spirit of our consensus process.
> 
> In our recent discussion (see below), different party members express an
> opinion on what's important to them  and to the party. Betts believes that
> "global warming and the related ecological and energy problems" are
> important. It is noted that John strongly believes that the war is
> important. Grace brings up a whole list of important things, including
> workshops on nonviolence and bullying. I want to support everyone's
> ideas. I fully agree with everything that the 3 of you have raised as
> being important to you and to our party.
> 
> However, my ideas of what I believe is important is judged to be not
> worthy of consideration at the convention. In fact raising my issue
> would be damaging to the success of the convention and the future
> success of the party. (Note: In the last couple of days, Grace has
> raised this sentiment a number of times.)
> 
> I believe that it is very legitimate for Grace to disagree with the
> merits of my position. My guess is that I have raised an issue which
> other members of the GRP will have strong opinions, and there will
> probably be many who won't care one way or another. It is my hope that
> with the spirit of consensus that this issue will be discussed and
> debated by the party both now and at the convention. On August 29, I
> hope that this process will lead to a wise decision by the highest
> decision-making body of the party.
> 
> Some of us in the party are very sensitive about bullying. I sure
> remember being bullied when I was a child, both physically and
> psychologically. stuff. Grace has been absolutely right in pushing the
> party to address the issue and practice of bullying. This is certainly
> an example of the connection between the personal and the political.
> 
> In the spirit of addressing this issue, I want to name the behavior that
> I am experiencing. The last couple of days I have felt bullied.
> 
> I know that this is not Grace's intention. I know that this is not
> anyone's problem. I am not being self-righteous about this either-I know
> that I have been bullied and I know that I have been the bully.
> 
> I have decided to send this message to everyone because all of you have
> been part of the discussion so far. Also, I believe that this discussion
> can be informative for our group. My intention is not to embarrass anyone.
> 
> Love,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> GracCRoss at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Betts- my proposal for the convention was for a few topics for
> > workshops - including nonviolence & a session on stopping bullying,
> > one on the subprime lending issue and our organizing (Rainbow Caucus),
> > the massachusetts bluerpint & global warming, some thing about the
> > corporate landgrab stuff that Jill is heading up - I used the example
> > of hte war stuff here as an example of something that John keeps
> > pushing that would also be more useful than fighting to change the
> > party's position on who goes on our ballot line - love, yours, Grace
> > In a message dated 7/20/07 8:20:58 PM, zisk at bu.edu writes:
> >
> >
> >> May I remind folks that working to bld a mvt to end the war is
> >> important but I am not sure it is the most important issue given
> >> global warming and the related ecological and energy problems. Betts
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: candidate-development-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> >> [mailto:candidate-development-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
> >> GracCRoss at aol.com
> >> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:10 PM
> >> To: john.walsh at umassmed.edu; mikeheichman at verizon.net
> >> Cc: candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> >> Subject: Re: [candidate-development] revised proposal for
> >> convention-2008 preselect-for discussion
> >>
> >>
> >> We can argue about what makes a candidate "credible" - I am actually
> >> interested in building a party that can be a real force for change
> >> which takes time
> >> and there is no 'fast' fix.   By the Dems and Repubs standards - they
> >> don't have
> >> to worry since none of these candidates are "credible" by their
> >> standards. 
> >> Neither was I - so if that is your criteria, we should just give up -
> >> period.
> >>
> >> In terms of choosing someone who will build our movement, a basic
> >> criteria
> >> should be actually wanting to be part of our movement.   Joining
> >> seems like kind
> >> of a baseline.   Also using their run for more than self-aggrandizement
> >> (which is very heady when you run - I understand that - but not
> >> healthy for
> >> building a movement).
> >>
> >> I really think we shoul dmake our state convention about building a
> >> movement
> >> - and spending the entire time on this internal argument should turn away
> >> anyone who is serious about building long term - So mostly, I'd like
> >> this not to
> >> be the subject of our convention at all-
> >>
> >> so we can get onto real work.   Like John has pointed out, working to
> >> build a
> >> movement to end the war is what is most important - if so maybe we
> >> could have
> >> a workshop on what we can do locally and at the state level instead of
> >> arguing over what the establishment considers "credible".
> >>
> >> -Grace
> >> In a message dated 7/20/07 6:33:44 PM, john.walsh at umassmed.edu writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Bravo, Mike.
> >> > The Dems want  nothing more than for us to lack a credible level of
> >> > organization and a credible candidate in 2008.
> >> > jw
> >> > On Jul 20, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > 7-20
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Members of State Comm and CDLC:
> >> > >
> >> > > At the January 21, 2007 meeting of the State Comm, a proposal by
> >> > > Elie Yarden about the GRP and the 2008 presidential election was
> >> > > discussed, amended and passed. (See below starting with my 7-17
> >> > > letter to the Convention Planning Comm.)
> >> > >
> >> > > One of the friendly amendments was for this proposal to be
> >> > > automatically brought before the annual convention, which will take
> >> > > place on August 25.
> >> > >
> >> > > While I did not attend the Green annual meeting which just took
> >> > > place in PA, I have heard that the upcoming presidential election
> >> > > was one of the major items that was discussed.
> >> > >
> >> > > My understanding (limited) from what I have learned before and
> >> > > since this national meeting is that there are currently no Green
> >> > > members that have significant name recognition and/or resources to
> >> > > run a "serious" campaign. Hopefully, I am wrong about this or
> >> > > hopefully this will change.
> >> > >
> >> > > At the same time, there are two well-known potential candidates who
> >> > > are not members of the Green Party (Hopefully, this will change.)
> >> > > who may be interested in pursuing the presidential nomination of
> >> > > the Green Party. They are Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney.
> >> > >
> >> > > I want to be clear that I would prefer that the Green Party
> >> > > nominate a fellow-Green who has the resources to run a significant
> >> > > campaign. At the same time, I believe that it would be wrong and
> >> > > could be potentially disastrous for our state party to deny Nader,
> >> > > McKinney or some other potential progressive candidate our ballot
> >> > > line solely because they would be unwilling to join the Greens, as
> >> > > long as they are independents (not members of any other party
> >> > > except for the Greens) and they were actively pursuing the Green
> >> > > Party's nomination and agreed, in writing, to be on the GRP ballot
> >> > > line for the March 4, 2008 Presidential Primary.
> >> > >
> >> > > I understand the sentiment that our party should be supporting
> >> > > Greens and that there is something major missing for someone like
> >> > > Nader or McKinney to choose to actively pursue OUR nomination
> >> > > without joining OUR party. At the same time, I want our party to
> >> > > support other members of the GRP who would support these two
> >> > > candidates even if they were to remain as independents.
> >> > > Additionally, I believe that denying them a place on our ballot
> >> > > could become disastrous.
> >> > >
> >> > > I propose one change to the approved text below-#3 would now read,
> >> > > "We will not, as a party, endorse or give support to candidates of
> >> > > other parties."
> >> > >
> >> > > I invite your reactions.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike Heichman
> >> > > mikeheichman at verizon.net
> >> > > 617-265-8143
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > July 17, 2007
> >> > >
> >> > > Convention Planning Comm.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please place this on the agenda for the annual meeting.
> >> > >
> >> > > As you can see from the information below, the State Comm. approved
> >> > > this proposal at our January 21, 2007 meeting and also decided to
> >> > > review this decision at our annual meeting.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike Heichman
> >> > > 617-265-8143
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Green Party National Candidacies for President of the U.S. in 2008
> >> > > Election
> >> > > Saturday January 06, @09:59PM, by Elie Yarden, Jamie McLaughlin,
> >> > > Gary Hicks, Owen Broadhurst
> >> > > Subject : Green Party National Candidacies for President of the
> >> > > U.S. in 2008 Election
> >> > > from the CDLC dept.
> >> > > Summary :
> >> > > Conversation on the presidential elections has begun in a number of
> >> > > state parties. A few Green Party members have already announced
> >> > > their candidacies, and while these are not yet 'official' their web-
> >> > > sites are up.
> >> > > Discussion of various other matters in the National Committee (NC)
> >> > > is infected and confused by irrelevant intentions, whether fully or
> >> > > poorly formed, concerning participation in state primaries and
> >> > > caucuses, qualifications, desirability of having a Green candidate
> >> > > at all.
> >> > > It can only help our cause and improve the political activity of
> >> > > the party, if our concerns are discussed openly and fully.
> >> > > Text :
> >> > > 1. We, the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts declare that, in
> >> > > the upcoming Presidential election, 2008, we will place in
> >> > > nomination candidates for the Presidency on the Massachusetts Green-
> >> > > Rainbow primary ballot.
> >> > > 2. We will consider as candidates only those who wish to have their
> >> > > names placed on the ballot, and will select delegates to the Green
> >> > > Party Nominating Convention by the same, or improved, apportionment
> >> > > methods that were used in the election of 2004.
> >> > > 3. We will not, as a party, endorse or give support to independent
> >> > > candidates or candidates of other parties.
> >> > >
> >> > > References: Members of the Green-Rainbow Party who wish to inform
> >> > > themselves more fully of the concerns that have led to the draft
> >> > > proposal being submitted for discussion at this time may find
> >> > > useful: "Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate"
> >> > > edited by Howie Hawkins. Haymarket Books, Chicago 2006. Also
> >> > > informative are the NC listserve e-mails on this subject as well as
> >> > > the discussions concerning the report of the Committee on
> >> > > Apportionment of Delegates (DAC) to the National Committee.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > From the Minute of the 1-21 State Comm. meeting:
> >> > >
> >> > > C - 2008 National Elections
> >> > >
> >> > > Presented by Elie Yarden
> >> > >
> >> > > This proposal takes a position on whether or not the GRP will be
> >> > > involved with the 2006 presidential elections.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike Heichman wanted to insert language to automatically have this
> >> > > decision reviewed by the State Convention. Elie agreed that this is
> >> > > a friendly amendment.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike H said that item three is too premature. Response from Elie
> >> > > Yarden- the intention of the proposal is that if
> >> > > the GPUS is going to engage in nat'l elections, it is not prepared
> >> > > to do so if we don't have our own GRP people to participate.
> >> > >
> >> > > Merelice said that we can ask candidates if they want to run in our
> >> > > primary. We are held to the results of our primary since we're
> >> > > "official" now.
> >> > >
> >> > > David Rolde was concerned that if the GRP nominated a 3rd party or
> >> > > independent then we may not be able to put a Green on our ballot
> >> > > line. Number 3 was changed to specifically address our primary
> >> ballot.
> >> > >
> >> > > Dan Kontoff, are we endorsing a candidate now? Response: No, we are
> >> > > endorsing a principle.
> >> > >
> >> > > The proposal was adopted with no remaining concerns in the
> >> > > expedited round! 4:04PM.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > candidate-development mailing list
> >> > > candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> >> > > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > John V. Walsh, MD
> >> > Professor of Physiology
> >> > University of Massachusetts Medical School
> >> > 55 Lake Avenue, N.
> >> > Worcester, MA, 01655-0127
> >> > Phone (work): 508-856-3360
> >> > Phone (cell): 508-868-1653
> >> > email: john.walsh at umassmed.edu
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > candidate-development mailing list
> >> > candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> >> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> **************************************
> >> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> >> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> candidate-development mailing list
> >> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************************************
> > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> 
> 
> 
> 




**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

More information about the candidate-development mailing list