[candidate-development] GRACE'S ISSUE?--------------------------- DON'T YOU WISH!!!

[Yarden]

Gary,
Personally, I can see no principled objection to releasing all  
delegates who might have gone to Nader, or Brown with uncommitted  
delegates.  In the case of Ball, he did request that any delegate  
pledged to him be released to vote for McKinney.  We have no such  
direct request's from elsewhere. Finally, I refuse to to accept the  
notion that behaving in
accordance with accepted norms of game politics is demonic.  Indeed it  
is nothing if not normal.  If I happen to dislike
these behaviors I am the one who is abnormal -- angelic or demonic is  
altogether beside the point.  You already
know all this.  I do wish I had been better informed about what had  
happened in California between the Reading meeting
and the meeting in Boston last fall, when we were voting new rules and  
requirements.  We do want informed voters,
especially if they are State Committee members, do we not?
But thank you anyway.  I am grateful.
Elie


On May 7, 2008, at 10:54 PM, gary hicks wrote:

> Over these past months there has been a back-and-forth argument  
> about just how are we going to get it right on the question of  
> delegate apportionment.
>
>  It has come to a point where if we don't get it right on a proposed  
> final reccomendation from the co-chair of the CDLC .
>
>  And it is his reccomendation. The apportionment sub-committee is  
> composed of John Andrew and Gary Hicks, who are at polar opposites  
> on the issue; Elie Yarden, who is trying to ask everyone if we just  
> can't all get along ------------ and truly this year's existential  
> hero, Dave England, who in past weeks has gone where angels fear to  
> tread on this issue, i.e signing off on items of dubious legality  
> and polity.
>
>  I happen to agree with enough of Grace's and Michael's and  
> Martina's and Rick's, and both Jims, and a number of others that we  
> have no business placing delegates for Nader, Ball, or Brown for the  
> simple reason that AS OF TONIGHT AT THIS WRITING they are not  
> running as nominees for our party's presidential ticket. Forget the  
> picky details of the past month. This is whaere things stand TONIGHT.
>
>  To repeat, I am in agreement with much of the politics of the  
> Minority Opinion group. But I must also add that I am exhausted with  
> the chariot race that's been taking place involving personalities:  
> the absolute need to be right, the remarks about who is or isn't  
> Green-Rainbow, the off-line emails which even I have shot off  
> [ they'll be in my literary collection, to be opened 100 years after  
> my death ---------- you're all safe.]
>
>  We need to settle this matter and soon, to avoid further wreckage,  
> waste of time, loss of opportunity to do the other things we need to  
> be doing as a party. But I want to make it crystal clear ---------  
> do not assume under any circumstances that Grace is the only persons  
> who hold her views. If you choose to demonize Grace, or anyone in  
> this party on either side of this argument, please know that you're  
> messing with me.
>
>  Gary Hicks
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.   
> Try it now.
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development