[candidate-development] Re: Who has accomplished more - we or Nader?

[GracCRoss at aol.com]

Luckily - I am not obsessed by comparing the length of ...   lists of 
personal accomplishments - since none of us ever accomplishes things alone, it is 
sort of a pointless past-time (if you have time to pass).   Nader did none of 
this alone - that is impossible.   Hats off to the movement he has been th emost 
visible leader of!

I understand he is a personal hero of yours - that does not provide a basis 
on which to make informed startegic decisions - Grace
In a message dated 7/21/07 2:04:39 PM, John.Walsh at umassmed.edu writes:


> 
> Hi Grace,
> You did not answer the other points especially about the Dems and their 
> desire to enfeeble us in 2008.
> As for Nader, if we show we can build infrastructure and raise money (as we 
> failed to do in 2006), he might be honored to join us.
> Actually his failure to do so might say more about us than him. After all 
> who has achieved more?
> jw
> p.s. Of course I am biased.  I owe my life to him since I was told that I 
> would have been killed in a car crash had I not been wearing a seat belt which 
> his efforts brought us among many, many other things. Which of us has 
> accomplished more?  Maybe we should heed some of his advice.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GracCRoss at aol.com [mailto:GracCRoss at aol.com]
> Sent: Sat 7/21/2007 1:56 PM
> To: Walsh, John; GracCRoss at aol.com; mikeheichman at verizon.net
> Cc: zisk at bu.edu; candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: Re: [candidate-development] revised proposal for convention-2008 
> preselect-for discussion
> 
> If Nader doesn't like to run then maybe that is why he does not use it
> strategically.
> 
> Instead of wasting time arguing among ourselves, why don't those with time
> work on Nader and McKinney to change their party affiliation and then we are
> done with this theoretical argument.
> 
> One movement- period.
> 
> I still like that quote:" when noble causes conflict, its because they are
> not asking for enough!"
> 
> Lets ask for what we want, fight for it and get it - instead of living in
> false dichotomies.
> 
> If only one of Nader and McKinney switch, that will tell us who is serious -
> 
> yours, grace
> In a message dated 7/21/07 1:45:05 PM, John.Walsh at umassmed.edu writes:
> 
> 
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  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