[candidate-development] [Platform] Fwd: New Mexico

[Yarden]

John,
I removed one of the lists from the Cc: only because it annoys and 
sometimes
confuses people to receive multiple copies of the same texts.

But the text of your e-mail interests me, and does give rise to many
questions.  If you have any idea of where I might begin research to
get the answers, your e-mail might be more helpful in determining an
intelligent course of action.
1.	What are the sources of information that allow for your conclusions?
(or more accurately for your "understanding.")
2.	In the sentence beginning "That party can then work to .   .   ."
"party" being singular, are you referring to a National Party, having a
national identity?  And have you any idea of its name?
3.	If you speak of a party in Massachusetts, then your vision of
an alliance, makes less sense, then the idea of another merger. Are
you aware by the way that Nader acts and asserts a global vision that is
completely congenial to ecological politics in the U. S?  And are you 
aware
of the extent to which he upholds a politics based on values (including 
the
10 KV)?  Far more so than many Green Party members (both pro- and anti-
nader).  Have you read his writings?
4.	Our party here, is already the product of a merger.  Given the fact
that so large a part of our voter base turns out to be pro-Nader, would
our party not be stronger as a consequence of such another merger.
Just think of all the talent that came in as a result of the merger 
between
the Rainbow Coalition and the Green Party.  It would help rid us of the
leader ideology, causes so many of the people in the leadership of the
GPUS to be Naderites, and also causes people who are cynical about
Grassroots Democracy to be dismissive of people in Massachusetts who
voted for Nader.
5.	None of these fantasies precludes the possibility that all that would
result in merely a slightly bigger playground for third-wheel Duopoly
games of the kind that is encouraged by smallness and self-seeking.
So perhaps some serious thinking is in order?  Who do you believe
might be ready to give up the opportunities for personal self-expression
provided by the failure to learn, act, and advance?  Let me know and
we can start talking off the campaign trail.
Elie Yarden
MRGRA



On Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at 10:15  AM, John Walsh wrote:

> Wherever possible Nader/Gonzalez will seek a ballot line NOT as
> individuals but as a new party - name undecided.  That is my
> understanding.
> That party can then work to put folks on the ballot in the next
> campaign.  I think that the better GP parties (I include MA and CA)
> will in one way or other make an alliance or join with this new
> political entity.  Ralph does not want to use his last hurrah just to
> run a campaign.  It is to be part of a new movement just as was 2000
> but unfortunately the GPUS was hijacked and remains so.  Sad.
> john walsh
>
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:11 AM, BillCunningham wrote:
>
>> Hi Merelice,
>>
>> No, what I mean is this. If Nader (say) ran in November on the line
>> of a party (say GPUS/GRP) and received 3 percent of the MA vote,
>> that would thereby secure the party's 2010 ballot line and official
>> status. But if Nader (say) gets 3 percent as an independent, that
>> doesn't secure anybody's future ballot line or status. Is that
>> right? That's why the phrase "money down the drain" made me think
>> of this question.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Mar 10, 2008 6:52 PM
>>> To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>
>>> Cc: John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu>, Platform Committee
>>> <platform at green-rainbow.org>, candidate development <candidate-
>>> development at green-rainbow.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Platform] Fwd: New Mexico
>>>
>>> (Forward to Need-to-know if of interest.)
>>>
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>
>>> Not sure I understand your question, especially your use of the term
>>> "votes." But here are some points that might be relevant.
>>>
>>> Assuming the GRP offers Nader the convention delegates he earned in
>>> the GRP presidential primary, he could either decide to use them to
>>> seek the Green Party nomination (pretty unlikely from the sounds of
>>> things) or he could release them. The primary was the only time that
>>> public "votes" are involved.
>>>
>>> Whoever wins the nomination at the Green Party's national nominating
>>> convention in July (by winning over enough delegates) will then
>>> become
>>> the Green Party's presidential candidate in the November general
>>> presidential election.
>>>
>>> Should anyone (including Nader) wish to run as an independent
>>> candidate in November, they will need to follow each state's
>>> requirements (generally collecting sigs) for running in that capacity
>>> -- as Nader is now doing in New Mexico. In other words, he has his
>>> work cut out for him. The GRP primary votes have no bearing on an
>>> independent candidacy. Nader apparently thinks he has a stronger
>>> field
>>> operation for getting on state ballots than the Green Party can offer
>>> -- and stronger than he had in 2004 when he did not make it on the
>>> Mass. ballot.
>>>
>>> Merelice
>>>
>>> On 3/10/08, BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Speaking of money down the drain, if Nader as a non-party
>>>> candidate gets enough votes to qualify for state ballot lines,
>>>> who gets to exercise that option?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Cunningham
>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>