[candidate-development] Fwd: [Platform] Nader/Gonzalez - no other choice I am afraid

[Yarden]

Sorry, hit the wrong button.

John,
Thank you.
-- for the information.
Get help! that partisanship can destroy the ability to 'get it,' is an
extremely important fact. Other people can always be of help.  The 
liberal ideology of
individual and society, one of the progressive ideals that is our 
shared American
understanding of the meaning of freedom fails to stand up to the 
pragmatic test.
That the proximate increase of human ability to apprehend truth is an 
activity
that occurs through our linguistic aptitudes, is thus a shared activity 
with regard to
something that always remains other than our ability at a given moment 
of the
evolution of our species.  An evolution which of necessity 
differentiates between
individuals and speakers of different languages.  You do speak english 
and can at
least do as much as any speaker of this language.
You could get some help from Nader, Zisk, Rensenbrink, Hicks, or 
Cunningham,
all of whom are politically literate.  Or you could start on your own 
self-education
program.  Mimicking what one already knows, does not produce new or 
useful
responses to ecological survival under altered conditions.  Lesson #1 
in ecological
politics
Elie Yarden
MRGRA


Begin forwarded message:

>
> I have read everything you have written - but I still do not get it.
> Sorry.
> john
>
> John V. Walsh, MD
> Professor of Physiology
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yarden [mailto:yen.yarden at verizon.net]
> Sent: Tue 3/11/2008 5:17 PM
> To: Walsh, John
> Cc: Merelice; candidate development; BillCunningham
> Subject: Re: [Platform] Nader/Gonzalez - no other choice I am afraid
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>