[candidate-development] event! 5/17

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Merelice,

1. In terms of what you are saying about Ms. Swift, thank you for 
including her in the messages being sent out. I will leave it up to her 
to respond or not to respond.

2. What was and wasn't done in decisions made in placing candidates on 
the ballot in early December is part of the picture. But the picture did 
not suddenly stop in early/middle December-the story continues and 
continues to this day.

3. I have said it repeatedly that I believe that the co-chairs acted 
with good faith in their decision to include Mr. Nader on the ballot in 
December. I believe that they believed that Mr. Nader and others would 
fully comply with all of the requirements because they believed that Mr. 
Nader intended to be a candidate pursuing the Green Party's nomination. 
However, over time it became clear that Mr. Nader might not do what we 
though he would do and one day, after the February 5 election, Mr. Nader 
did something else that the co-chairs did not believe (or hope) that he 
would do. The co-chairs have been supported by other leaders in the 
party in making decisions that have favored Mr. Nader's non-candidacy. I 
feel very comfortable in using your words-many leaders in our party have 
granted Mr. Nader "preferential" treatment, that to be fair to Mr. 
Nader, it seems that he never sought.

4. When one of those leaders earlier encouraged other leaders of our 
party to "take action against Ms. Swift", I felt very hurt and very 
angry. I did not at that time know that Ms. Swift was included in our 
conversation. Nothing has happened in the meantime has led me to regret 
one word of my message and my apology to Ms. Swift.

5. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of the right of the 4 remaining 
candidates and their supporters to campaign in our state. All of them 
deserve the  respect and encouragement of all of the leaders of our 
state party.

Mike Heichman

Merelice wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>First, in deference to requests not to be bombarded by argumentative
>emails, I have deleted the StateCom Discuss list from this response. I
>have also deleted AdCom since this is not at present AdCom business.
>
>Some simple facts:
>
>Kat Swift accepted the analysis of a certain point of view about how
>candidates were placed on the Mass. primary ballot and did not seek
>out whether there was another point of view.
>
>She did not extend to the Mass. Co-Chairs the courtesy of being in
>touch with us to discuss her concerns. Instead, she simply went ahead
>and filed a formal complaint against us and against the Secretary of
>the Commonwealth (as did Jesse Johnson).
>
>When we tried to follow up with her directly, she did not respond and
>was not available.
>
>While someone can disagree with the actions of certain party
>"comrades," it seems inappropriate to apologize to anyone for those
>actions when they were taken in a conscientious effort to be fair, to
>try to anticipate on short notice what the reality would be by the
>Feb. 5 Mass. primary, and to place six candidates instead of two on
>the primary ballot. It is especially egregious to single out Nader as
>having received preferential or undeserving treatment.
>
>That said, I believe the GRP should give the four remaining candidates
>equal access to whatever resources the Party might feel are
>appropriate, as recommended by CDLC. And certainly any candidate's
>supporters should be encouraged to organize on behalf of that
>candidate. That is an integral part of preparing for the nominating
>convention.
>
>All the more reason to stop sandbagging the effort to assign
>delegates. The sooner the delegates get assigned, the sooner they can
>prepare for carrying out their responsibilities and the sooner the
>candidates can communicate with them.
>
>Merelice, Co-Chair
>_______________________________________________
>candidate-development mailing list
>candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>  
>