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

Sat May 10 10:31:51 EDT 2008

Gary, to be completely honest, I am a bit dumbfounded by what is motivating
this.
If you can enlighten me, please do. But I maintain the motivations stated
thus far --
that privileged Mr. Nader was given advantage over all of these other
disadvantaged
candidates -- do not explain the events that have taken place to this point.
Points
of fairness like that are being made, when convenient, not based on
principle. If a
principled stand like that were the true motivation, then I don't think Mr.
Johnson's
candidacy would have been a) used for advantage in the argument and b)
subsequently
cast aside in proposals that would have given Mesplay, McKinney, and Swift
all of
Brown's, Ball's, and Nader's delegates.

Once again, please enlighten me, but don't pretend that an honest argument
is being
put forward here. I see this is being contorted into all sorts of
non-issues, and I can't
for the life of me understand why. You have labeled it a Green versus
Rainbow thing
("Greenland security against the fear of a Rainbow Planet"), likewise
without the
"who,what,when,where,why". Grace twisted the decision at State Convention
into
a gender issue. And Mike has named the race and class dimensions. And now
the
same group who has demanded that we need to follow our own decisions is
pretending
that a decision that was FINALLY made by the State Committee was not made.

Dumbfounded,
Eli

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:16 AM, gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Eli:
>
> You make reference to:
>
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> In past weeks, I have seen and heard charges of "partisanship" from John Andrews and others, and now from you.
>
> First let me make it clear: I am a NOTA as concerns presidential candidates, and removed my name from those applying for delegation
> to Chicago because I did not wish to be assigned to any of these folks, all of whom are involved in internecine warfare based on the ego-driven
> nerve to think that this year, their candidacy [ or that of their surrogates] is going to make a difference in the craziness as has unfolded thus far.
>
> Having said this, let me ask from you and others waving the bloody shirt of "partisanship" the questions that any journalist asks
> when writing an article:
>
> WHO?
>
> WHAT?
>
> WHEN?
>
> WHERE?
>
> WHY?
>
> Please fill these in in detail. If you cannot, please desist from making such accusations.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> *Eli Beckerman <elibeck at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> 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
> 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" *
> > Sent by: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> >
> > 05/07/08 11:59 PM
> > Please respond to
> > Discussion List for StateCom members
> >
> > To
> > "statecomgrp discuss" cc
> > candidate development , members
> > ADCOM
> > 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
> > 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://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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>
>