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

[Eli Beckerman]

I apologize, Gary, for not casting a wider net in my condemnation of this
abusive, relentless, exercise in absurdity. And let me clearly state that
the absurdity
does not lie with the signers of the minority opinion, but
rather the continued pursuit, by a small handful of people, through whatever
means possible, for additional delegates for a particular candidate, under
the guise of fairness, in clear disregard for decisions made, in clear
disregard for the time and energy of party volunteers, in clear disregard
for the lost opportunity to inspire people to want to be a part of the state
party or the national convention.

In fact, I find the posturing for this particular candidate to have the
exact opposite effect of encouraging support for her that I wonder how much
the concern for the success of her campaign is driving this, versus some
other hidden or subconscious or counterposed motivation. It's also a very
uninspiring condition for party volunteers to engage within.

The decision at the 4/12 State Com meeting was pretty clear, and whatever
your feelings are tonight, I wonder how you see it is CDLC's or AdCom's
prerogative to subvert it (especially considering all of the loud posturing
about not following the State Convention's decision, which, by the way, is
another misrepresentation widely propagated).

Exhausted too,
Eli

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> 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.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>
>