[candidate-development] [Platform] Nader/Gonzalez - no other choice I am afraid
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Tue Mar 11 17:17:45 EDT 2008
John,
I respond assuming that I as well as others, less familiar with your
posts to the NC discuss lists, are intended in the 'et al' of the "Hi
Bill et al". And with due consideration for the comically academic
snub of failing to respond to my questions and articulated concerns, I
submit the following for consideration of all those addressed,
including myself -- open to critical thinking.
Again, in the hope that the whole your communication is integrally
accesible to all recipients, I try to develop the continuity of my
response by interspersing my comments.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Walsh, John wrote:
> Hi Bill et al,
> This is not a choice that was made lightly - believe me. But after
> the blocking of the compromise apportionment resolution, #324, by a
> 34% minority - and after the abject failure of the national party to
> put any infrastructure in place for ballot access or fundraisng, I
> reluctantly conclude that the GPUS - unlike the GP of CA or GRP here
> in MA is a corpse.
The rhetoric of the above is transparent, and thus, however
self-serving, is acceptable. But when used as a lead into:
> It cannot mount a serious campaign at the national level - unless
> Nader/Gonzalez becomes a sufficient threat to the Dems that they pour
> money into the GPUS.
becomes questionable -- not the proem, but the forecast.
1. the "Dems" -- to anyone familiar with you discourse -- is a shotgun
blast intended for whatever
it hits. Thus, someone reading your works might question. Do you mean
someone who:
a) Sincerely, and uncynically hopes for something from the Democratic
Party, like Nader who takes the trouble to pragmatically reassure
himself of the necessity to mount an opposition before declaring;
taking the trouble to publicly support Edwards as a Democratic Party
candidate,
watches what is happening in the Democratic Party, despite his
ideological stances and critical research that convinces him that the
chief impediment to the realization of our 10KV is the duopoly --
winner take all(usually in the form of benefits conferred by corporate
managements --
politics. Some anti-Dems in the GPUS oppose Nader for this reason.
b) Are you referring to Democratic Party agents in the GPUS and State
parties (there are some present in very few of the State green parties
-- known and tolerated by the membership, but perform their tasks
mainly by the noise that they generate, and the information that they
provide to progressive Democrats -- especially those PDA people who
regard us as the chief enemy to their delusional effort to reform a
major party. They are moved by a very sincere belief that Green
politics can be made the program of the Democratic Party, are happy to
use the GRP as a scapegoat for their failure to do so, will retaliate
for any success we have and will take full advantage of our openness to
interfere with our growth. I know of no such agents in the GRP in
Massachusetts. It would be a waste of their time, and they find it
difficult enough to restrain their followers and adherents from voting
for our candidates.
c) Are you referring to what you sometimes call DemoGreens; people
inside the Green parties, the GPUS, the GRP, who know that if you are
going to play the electoral game, and be elected to public office, you
have to demonstrate in practice, a willingness and ability to work with
people -- in MA, this usually will be Democratic Party people, or other
'unenlightened' elected officials -- who do not have our knowledge,
have very different knowledge of how things are supposed to be done. I
suppose the greatest risk to our 'integrity' is the fact that there are
in Massachusetts people who have a far better knowledge and
understanding of ecological issues and of the political requirements
than people who have taken the trouble to register GRP, or seek
election to the State Committee. But that problem is not addressed in
the rhetoric of mud slinging, hoping some of it sticks.
> So what to do?
We need greater clarity on that. Agreed. Have you suggestions? But I
have asked that before.
> Well there could have been an alliance with the resources Nader and
> the GPUS could have brought to the table - but that was ruled out by
> the DemoGreens and others in key positions at the national level.
Could have beens. If you know those people, " . . . the DemoGreens
and others in key positions at the national level." you also know the
'Naderites' and 'anti-Naderites' among them.
People in " . . . key positions at the national level." assisted
the GRP in place Nader's name on our ballot in Massachusetts.
(Incidentally, for those people whose ontologies are muddled, one
is not permitted to put persons on primary, or other ballots, only
names.) O.K. We have now one important way of defining the class
"DemoGreens" by listing all the elements of class. But you fail to list
those elements. or else the only defining property of the class,
"DemoGreen" remains "scapegoat for the fact that Nader is not the GPUS
unanimously declared candidate of the GPUS."
> Not to mention the apparently racist action taken by the same group
> against former Black Panther, Elaine Brown.
Knowing almost nothing of what has been going on in the Georgia Green
Party, it is all easy to anyone who has not had the direct experience
of what has been going on for some time to 'use' the genuine experience
of all parties directly involved, to characterize the incidents as " .
. .an apparently racist action . . . committed by the same
(undefined group).
> You have seen the undemocratic actions of a small clique since the
> state convention who defy the co-chairs and use their possession of
> party resources to decide things.
I noticed nothing 'undemocratic' in the action of any small group in
the GRP (inferable for your reference to a state convention. If
anything, I have noticed people acting in the best traditions of not
only U. S. party politics, but also in the best traditions of what
Lenin referred to as 'infanitle Leftism' in the best traditions of the
American left.
> Same thing happens one hundred fold at the national level. The idea of
> one Green- one vote has been trashed to eliminate the influence of CA
> and NY and others.
The ideological stupidity (Majoritarianism) of the OGOV, the damage to
the pragmatics of party building, the hostility to consensus building,
grass roots politics, and empty of any understanding of our
foundations, of ecological politics. It is difficult understand how
Majoritarian politics is different from Duopoly politics as practiced
By Democrats.
> Nine months ago I did not believe how bad it was and I even defended
> the GPUS in a CounterPunch article. Boy, was I wrong! Talk about egg
> on one's face.
Here we get personal, confessional, etc. I have no response other than
recognition and compassion.
>
> So what to do? Stand by and chant "Om" while another million Iraqis
> are slaughtered at the hands of the government to which I pay taxes
> and against which I can help run candidates? Not for me. I have only
> one ethical course I am afraid. So I will stick with the GRP but I
> will work for Nader/Gonzalez.
> And I hope the GPUS candidate (which might NOT be Cynthia in the end
> since she may be entering law school in September and I do not know
> how she can do that and run a campaign) will be as civil to Ralph as
> he has been to Cynthia and the GPUS. We can run synergistic campaigns
> here. Elections are not a zero sum game.
Yes. This is possible but not with thinking afflicted by the ideology
of zero-sum games.
> It is time to move on at the national level.
>
> John V. Walsh
>
I do wish it were possible to conduct serious online discussions and
will persist in the attempt by referring to the words of the
interlocutors. Personalizing, I permit myself to repeat. "I am too old
to be cynical." It is one privilege that I lack, that my ontology does
not permit me.
Elie Yarden,
MRGRA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BillCunningham [mailto:etwee at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tue 3/11/2008 11:50 AM
> To: Walsh, John
> Cc: Merelice; Platform Committee; candidate development
> Subject: Re: [Platform] Fwd: New Mexico
>
> So that means Gonzalez quits the GPUS and an effort is underway to
> split people away nationwide.
>
> To my thinking, neither Nader or the current GPUS has any plan to
> build the kind of movement party that will be needed in the
> years-prhaps even months-ahead. The only thing more chimerical in the
> U.S. than a purely electoral opposition party, is internecine fighting
> over which one has the correct line.
>
> Can you say IMPLOSION?
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu>
>> Sent: Mar 11, 2008 11:15 AM
>> To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>
>> Cc: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>, Platform Committee
>> <platform at green-rainbow.org>, candidate development
>> <candidate-development at green-rainbow.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Platform] Fwd: New Mexico
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Bill Cunningham
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
>
More information about the candidate-development
mailing list