[candidate-development] [statecom-discuss] Fwd: Re: PEOPLE'S ISSUES?

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Eli - Just in terms of Jesse Johnson...

Actually, since I found out that Jesse was not ever reached about being on 
the ballot, I have thought the best resolution would be to re-ballot -

Tassinari's office and has the name and address of everyone who voted in our 
primary.   We could get a certified impartial organization to send out a 
regular ballot with the four present candidates (regular meaning including No 
Preference and space to written, like our standard ballots) and re-vote the 
primary.

The problem without that is that Jesse has simply been non-existent for our 
voters.   The right to vote is more than pulling a lever - and his info was not 
available to GRP voters anywhere...

Thanks for listening - Grace
In a message dated 5/10/08 10:34:26 AM, elibeck at gmail.com writes:


> 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 2:18 AM, gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 23:16:56
> > -0700 (PDT)
> > From: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [candidate-development] [statecom-discuss] GRACE'S
> > ISSUE?--------------------------- DON'T YOU WISH!!!
> > To: Eli Beckerman <elibeck at gmail.com>,
> >  candidate development <candidate-development at green-rainbow.org>
> > CC: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org,
> >   members ADCOM <adcom.members at green-rainbow.org>
> >
> >  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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 




**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.
      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)