[GNC] [Fwd: [GreenAllianceUSA] Cobb vs. Nader at the Milwaukee Convention, as seen by a Massachusetts Delegate]

[Mike Heichman]

Elie,

Thanks for sharing a very fine piece from the perspective of a "Democrat".

However, I believe that he is either incorrect or glamorizes our political
party in the following ways:

1. He is wrong about IRV.

2. Our convention was in many ways very similar to the conventions of the
duopoly.
    --Our convention did NOT set the strategy of the campaign. The strategy
was certainly discussed off the floor of the convention, but except for the
person who argued against a presidential run, all of the speeches were by
the candidates. We selected Cobb/LeMarche and as people on our state
committee have been discussing for many different reasons and "rejected"
other options for many different reasons.

    --A majority of the delegates were clearly divided up into 2 different
camps-complete with campaign shirts and signs. Each camp had their own
meetings; I didn't go to any one of them, but I believe that it would be
more accurate to call them "rallies" than meetings where things were
discussed. While "sensitive" to the mood of their supporters, decisions were
made from above by the candidate and probably a couple of key lieutenants.

    --Important rules that many believed  were anti-democratic were
determined by the leadership of the party (I believe favorable to the
endorsed candidate). Yes, there was a successful revolt from the delegates
which led to minor changes in the rules. However, the rules were written to
narrow the choices of the delegates and to prevent debate on the floor of
the convention. In fact the rule to eliminate candidates if they did not
receive enough votes and to prevent anyone from voting for them (by not
counting their votes) is something that I have never seen the Republicrats
do since I have been following their conventions since 1960.

    --Anyone who watched our convention on TV that day would have been very
comfortable with the entire process. Our party created a process which
closely mimicked the conventions of the Republicrats. I understand that our
convention had limited time and had over 600 delegates, and at best had to
come up with a process that would "compromise" our own values over how to
make decisions. I found the convention to be very exciting and I had a
wonderful time. I also know that this was the first presidential convention
where our party had a contested race. However, in my judgment, our
convention did not do a good job of living up to the values of our party.

Mike Heichman
mikeh.massed at rcn.com
617-265-8143


on 8/1/04 6:29 PM, Yarden at yen.yarden at verizon.net wrote:

> To everyone,
> from Elie Yarden
> Cambridge, Massachusetts
> 
> 
> Rather than put my personal views on this public site, I would prefer
> to offer something that I just happened across this morning on a
> Democratic Party blog.  I have no idea who the writer (Jay) is.
> But it does show some awareness of who we are.
> 
> 
> From http:ejswanso.blogspot..com
> 
> From http:ejswanso.blogspot..com
> 
> 
> 7.31.2004
> 
> "I felt like a Nazi, but it had to be done"
> 
> I quote Thompson here without restraint. While he may have been talking
> about coaxing underage women out of his hotel room, I'm referring to
> politics. Specifically? The Democratic Party. Today, right now, when it
> comes to the Democratic Party and that little election that happens to
> be speeding towards us so quickly, and knowing what I'll be doing on
> November 2nd: I feel like a Nazi. On that day I'm going to vote for
> John Kerry, and I'm going to try as hard as possible to swallow the
> loathing I feel for him and the Democratic Party as a whole. This man
> and his party don't represent me and won't lead this country in the way
> I'd like to see it proceed into the future.
> 
> You see, in my history as a politically aware individual I've come to
> certain realizations, and as I've watched the Democratic National
> Convention this past week those realizations have been confirmed time
> and time again. The Democratic Party, as much as they like to portray
> themselves as a party that believes in and advocates for progressive
> policies, does not and will not represent me and my ideals.
> 
> This is a party that has spent the week playing up their convention as
> something of importance. They present the convention as an event that
> brings people together, that the delegates make up the party and they
> decide its policies. The reality is that the convention is not the
> policy-making body that it could be. It is, instead, a sham and a
> distraction. Delegates dance around to canned, piped in music while the
> Democratic Party stalls long enough for all the television pundits to
> comment on the last speaker. There is no panel set aside to actually
> decide what the party's policy is; it is given to the delegates.
> Whenever a new speaker comes on, the delegates suddenly have a whole
> new set of posters and banners that cheer the individual on the podium.
> These people aren't delegates anymore; they are props and cheerleaders.
> The only people at the convention who have any connection to the voters
> - the bulk of the party, the laymen, the delegates don't have any voice
> in the party that they define. Policy is thrown on them and they simply
> get to cheer and wave their signs.
> 
> The convention is now simply an advertising medium. The Democrats know
> that the networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CSPAN and
> others - will be watching and commenting. They know that they'll have
> the entire week pretty much to themselves with no other political news
> to interfere. They know that the Party and it's most recognized members
> will be name-dropped over and over again - the same thing that Nike,
> Disney, Microsoft and others have learned is good for business.
> 
> Granted, the political convention process has been like this for a
> while. Other people who complain about this travesty get shot down with
> responses about the old days of smoke filled back rooms and power
> brokers choosing candidates. So sure, the old ways of the Democratic
> Party were pretty sad too, but a responsible political party should
> engage in an actual democratic process where the membership decides
> what the party stands for and believes in. I want a political process
> that is responsive to the desires of the electorate instead of poll
> numbers, sound bytes, and short-sighted reactionary tactics. I don't
> agree with the Republicans any more than I do with the Democrats, but
> at least they act according to their goals rather than creating policy
> based entirely on what the Democrats have done.
> 
> Those of you who happened to catch the Green Party convention on CSPAN
> at the end of June may have seen just this sort of process in action.
> The convention may not have had the glam and spectacle of the
> Democratic convention, but they stuck to their ideals and the delegates
> worked out some serious party issues. Just before the bulk of the party
> was split three ways on the presidential campaign - nominate David
> Cobb, endorse Ralph Nader, or forgo a presidential campaign and focus
> entirely on building local and state parties. They hammered it out.
> They stuck with their convictions and used instant runoff voting to
> come to a decision as a party. And now David Cobb is their presidential
> candidate. Party leadership didn't declare anything ‹ the delegates did.
> 
> The Green Party convention was successful because they accepted dissent
> within their ranks and settled issues. The Democrats, however, spent
> their convention glorifying their historical acceptance of dissent
> while pretending that right now there simply isn't any. Those
> convention speakers who clearly have different opinions about the
> Party's direction gave speeches that glossed over their differences and
> portrayed party unity as a valid catch-all for liberal concerns of all
> sorts. Take Dennis Kucinich for example, who ran a presidential primary
> campaign with the specific intent of reintroducing the Party to
> liberalism and as an antithesis to the establishment candidates like
> Kerry, Joesph Lieberman and Dick Gephardt. Kucinich spent his speech on
> Wednesday mapping his interests - pacifism, the ICC, sustainable
> energy, climate change - to the Kerry campaign, even though many of
> these things are contrary to Kerry's platform. A few speakers even
> referenced Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democrats -
> whose famous trip to Atlantic City in 1964 shamed the Democrats over
> Mississippi's all-white delegation and introduced the Party to
> diversity. At the same time, those who travelled to Boston to protest
> the Democrats - those who were willing to voice their dissent - were
> given a small pen with double chain-link-and-razorwire fences in which
> to gather. The pen and the area surrounding it were under video
> observation in Washington D.C. by the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> I have my issues with the politics of the Democratic Party, certainly ‹
> they're a centrist opposition party instead of the leftwing party they
> pretend to be ‹ but both parties have shown over the years that their
> politics can change.   The Democrats, though, have moved in a direction
> that takes their presumed constituents for granted and disrespects them
> - and that has very little to do with their politics.  Unless the party
> fixes the disconnect between ideals and actions they've lost my support.
> 
> For a while, I thought I was blessed as regards the election: I can't
> vote for either Nader or Cobb in Illinois due to some of the nastiest
> ballot access laws in the country.  When November comes I wont have the
> option of voting for a candidate that I can trust and have faith in.
> In November the only option I will have is to vote again George Bush.
> 
> However the truth of the matter is that I'm not blessed at all.  If
> anything, I've been screwed.
> 
> The Democrats are the ones who should feel blessed because I'm stuck
> without any other option.  They're blessed because they'll be getting
> my vote without having earned it.
> 
> posted by jay @ 19:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
>