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

Thu May 8 10:26:39 EDT 2008

Jim, you stood aside on changes that were being considered, which happened
to address
the dilemma that you mention. Why can't we rally around getting Nader,
Brown, and Ball
to formally release their delegates, which is one of our two options? That
would be a unified
effort. No one disagrees that it's unfortunate that we are in this position.
But the proposal
that passed, which honors the vote of February 5, does not leave room for a
reinterpretation
of the word  "candidates", or a reinterpretation of "release". Nader, Brown,
and Ball got votes on
February 5 that have won them delegates, regardless of their subsequent
decisions not
to seek the nomination. Our shortsighted delegate selection plan did not
address this possibility,
and we modified it on 4/12 to account for this.

Perhaps you would agree with my assessment of absurdity if you were involved
at every stage
of this re-hashed argument, and had seen it dominate our agenda for the past
5 months, the way
many of us have.

I know you can see the damage this is doing to our ability to move forward
together, and I wonder
why this is such an important cause -- counterproductive to the apparent
wish to support the
McKinney campaign -- that it warrants the fragmentation and distraction of
the entire state party
for such an extended period of time.

Eli

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu>
wrote:

>
> Dear Eli,
> I think you're overstepping your bounds in declaring "absurd" those of us
> who disagree with your interpretation of when a candidate has "released" any
> delegates, and therefore what the implications should be for our allocation
> of delegates. At the State Committee meeting, I stood aside concerning the
> changes in the delegate selection plan that were being discussed because it
> seemed that the changes we _could_ agree on needed to go through and I saw
> no way in the remaining minutes for us to come to agreement on the rest. At
> the same time, I don't understand how the "majority" can continue to insist
> that Nader and Ball and Brown can possibly be considered candidates who
> should be assigned delegates to receive the Green Party nomination for
> President this year given that they've dropped out, announced they are
> running independently, and/ or have left the party.
>
> I've been speaking with folks in the Nader campaign about this to try to
> clarify things and they, too, insist that Nader is "not seeking the Green
> Party nomination" and that his press releases make that very clear. They
> also wish that those who support Nader would stop fussing around within the
> Green Party and would just come over and start working with them to get him
> on the ballot as an independent candidate. I couldn't agree more. But
> assigning Nader delegates to attend our convention will just distract them
> from that work. As the fight over whether or not to assign them is
> distracting us.
> Best, Jim
>
>
>  *"Eli Beckerman" <elibeck at gmail.com>*
> Sent by: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>
> 05/07/08 11:59 PM
>  Please respond to
> Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>
>   To
> "statecomgrp discuss" <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>  cc
> candidate development <candidate-development at green-rainbow.org>, members
> ADCOM <adcom.members at green-rainbow.org>
>  Subject
> Re: [statecom-discuss] GRACE'S ISSUE?---------------------------
>  DON'T YOU WISH!!!
>
>
>
>
> 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>