[candidate-development] The Last Gasp of the Dems. Conyers Calls Cops to Arrest Cindy Sheehan.

[John Walsh]

The Democrats stand ever more exposed - even the most "liberal" of  
them like Conyers or those "progressives" in "our" Congressional  
Delegation.
The Dems must find a way to stop us in 2008.
Gitlin's piece in the LA Times is more evidence for that (http:// 
www.counterpunch.com/walsh07232007.html).

Let us make sure that we do as best we can not to give them a new  
lease on life by running campaigns that are not the very best.  We  
owe it to the people who are suffering at the hands of empire around  
the world and here.

Run, Ralph, Run!
Draft Chuck Turner for Congress in the 8th CD in '08!
jw


http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff07242007.html
July 24, 2007

Conyers Calls Cops to Arrest Cindy Sheehan and Other Impeachment  
Demonstrators

Overcoming John Conyers

By DAVE LINDORFF

Rep. John Conyers, venerable member of Congress, finally chair of the  
House Judiciary Committee, is a man ......






On Jul 23, 2007, at 11:34 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:

> 7-23
>
> Hi Everyone:
>
> I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion so  
> far. I just finished having another phone conversation with Elie,  
> the author of the proposal which was approved by the January 21  
> State Comm. meeting.
>
> A. I want to respond to those who want to bring this item before  
> the next State Comm. meeting. I am not opposed, but I refuse to be  
> the primary sponsor. The last time I checked the website-I’m so far  
> the only one who has made any proposals (6) for the upcoming  
> meeting. So, if anyone else wants to make a proposal for the  
> upcoming meeting, please do so.
>
> B. Back on January 21, Elie accepted my amendment as friendly to  
> review the decision at the annual convention. By review, I saw that  
> there was an important difference in the party about an important  
> issue and that there was an excellent possibility that, as the  
> campaign season moved forward, there would be members of the party,  
> including me, that would be in disagreement with at least parts of  
> the ratified proposal. I also believed then and do so today that  
> the place to resolve important differences about important issues  
> is at our annual convention, the highest decision-making body of  
> the party.
>
> C. The decision made on January 21:
>
> 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.
>
> Mike Heichman wanted to insert language to automatically have this  
> decision reviewed by the State Convention. Elie agreed that this is  
> a friendly amendment.
>
> The proposal was adopted with no remaining concerns in the  
> expedited round! 4:04PM.
>
> D. My current thinking about the adopted proposal:
>
> 1. No change in #1
> 2. No change in #2: I want to clarify. We will not place on our  
> ballot line the name of any candidate who is not pursuing the Green  
> Party’s nomination for president in 2008 and will not place on our  
> line the name of any candidate who will not consent to have their  
> name on the GRP line for the March 4, 2008 presidential primary.
> 3. I want to change #3 by removing the prohibition of support for  
> independent candidates. The new language would read, “We will not,  
> as a party, endorse or give support to candidates of other parties.”
>
> E. I interpret the above as a proposed change to the existing  
> policy, consistent with the wording and intention of the Elie  
> Yarden proposal accepted by the January 21 State Comm. meeting. In  
> no way do I see this as a new proposal. I have sent to the  
> Convention Planning Committee a request of a review of this  
> decision. I understand and respect that other members of the party  
> may still have a different interpretation of what I am doing.
>
> F. Earlier today Elie sent an e-mail which described what he saw as  
> the differences that have currently been expressed. He also  
> expressed the belief that these differences need to be discussed.  
> There is also a very important concern that we not get bogged down  
> at the convention in a long (and nasty-my concern) debate. It is my  
> hope that we have a productive discussion before the convention (e- 
> mail, etc.) and hopefully the time we spend on this topic at the  
> convention will be comparatively brief and civil.
>
> G. This is my position:
>
> 1. I would prefer that the presidential ticket be members of the  
> Green Party.
> 2. I would prefer that the presidential ticket be members of the  
> Green Party who would have the resources to run a “serious”  
> campaign for the nomination, and have the capacity along with the  
> party to run a “serious” national campaign all the way to Election  
> Day in November.
> 3. As of today, I see no current Green Party member who has the  
> resources to run even a “modest” campaign for the nomination and  
> the potential of running even a “modest” campaign after their  
> nomination. This could change and I hope that it will.
> 4. I am appreciative of all those members of our party who are  
> seriously interested in running for the Green Party nomination- 
> regardless of the perception of the amount of resources and  
> potential that they may have to run a national campaign. Without  
> question, all of them will deserve a place on our state’s party  
> line if they decide to continue to pursue their candidacy and will  
> give their consent to be on our ballot. They deserve our  
> consideration.
> 5. As of now there are two people who are comparatively speaking  
> well known and the perception is that they have more resources and  
> more potential to run a serious campaign for president. They are  
> Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. I believe that both of them are  
> “Independents” and both of them are considering running for president.
> 6. I hope that they will decide to run for president. I hope that  
> they will decide to run for the Green Party’s nomination. I hope  
> that they will publicly change their party affiliation and become  
> members of the Green Party.
> 7. If one or both decide to run for the Green Party nomination and  
> if they decide to consent to have their name placed on our state’s  
> ballot, there are members of our state party, including myself, who  
> will want to have their names on our primary ballot, even if they  
> remain unwilling to publicly become Green Party members.
> 8. It is my understanding that there is a member of our party who  
> believes that there is no such thing as an “Independent” running in  
> a party’s primary. A “Real Independent” would gather the necessary  
> 10,000 signatures to appear only on the November ballot. Therefore,  
> if Nader and/or McKinney, decides to run for the Green Party’s  
> nomination and if they agreed to have their names placed on our  
> PRIMARY/PARTY ballot, then they are by definition, Greens. (This is  
> my understanding of this person’s belief. I will not name him/her,  
> but will ask him/her to better explain his/her position.) While  
> this interpretation makes a lot of sense to me, I believe that this  
> is an interpretation that is open to discussion.)
> 9. Regardless of whether or not they would be considered as  
> “Independents”, I believe that it would be wrong and damaging to  
> our party to deny them a place on our ballot.
> 10. As one of the leaders of my party, I believe that it is my  
> responsibility to represent more than my own preferences. On March  
> 4, 2008, I want every member of our party, who believes in the  
> building of a progressive 3rd/alternative party and movement, to be  
> able to vote in our primary and have their preferred choice on our  
> ballot.
>
> H. I believe that there are other members of the party who strongly  
> disagree with my position. My understanding is that they believe  
> that the current statement would deny anyone a place on our primary/ 
> party ballot line who would not be willing to publicly be a member  
> of the Green Party. They want to maintain the current policy and  
> believe that it best represents the values and future direction of  
> our party. I hope that this is an accurate and brief summary of  
> their position. I ask my fellow members of the GRP to correct any  
> misunderstanding.
>
> I. I agree with Elie. There is currently a disagreement. So, let’s  
> continue to have a good discussion.
>
> Love,
>
> Mike Heichman
> mikeheichman at verizon.net
> 617-265-8143
>
>

John V. Walsh, MD
Professor of Physiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
508-856-3360 (Office)
508-868-1653 (Cell)
john.walsh at umassmed.edu