[GNC] Re: FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
Gil Obler
greengil at comcast.net
Thu Aug 5 21:16:57 EDT 2004
Mr. Hill and Ms. Miller -
What a boatload of bullcrap. Here's a dose of reality for you.
First a point about the allegations that we have sold out our
values. That Nader is fundi and Cobb is realo. Nuh uh.
Part of what Nader pulled here is to distance himself from our
"radical agenda" but then try to sell us his followers are the
"true left" of the party. Well someone told me that the true
radical notion of our party was "neither left nor right but
forward". And I think that the Green analysis is more radical
than socialism (let alone bourgeois consumer activism - which
is all Nader EVER represented) because it rejects the industrial
revolution, not just capitalism. So that would make mainstream
socialists our right wing anyway.
The convention result was not a case of insider conspiracy,
it is a simple case of growing up and rejecting a BATTERING
relationship. Did activists have more influence than the
average Green voter? Probably. What representative democracy
does not have that problem? Sour grapes are no prettier when
couched in self-righteous indignation.
Mr. Nader and his pals have been selling some pretty smelly
stuff here. Mr. Nader wants to sleep with whomever he pleases,
the Reform Party of Patrick Buchanan, the Populist Party
501c4, the Republicans who are funding his ballot drives, and
the not-so-secret meetings with Terry McAuliffe. Who has been
selling out who here?
But we Greens are supposed to remain monogamous. We are BAD for
flirting with Cobb and Mesplay and Glover, even though they
actually try to live our values.
Mr. Nader can insult us at parties in front of our friends. He
can refuse to run in our primaries and caucuses. He can mock
and disparage us in the press. He can refuse to meet with us
when we ask to talk things out. He can renege on promises to
share data that our members gathered for him in 1996 and 2000.
He can insult our intelligence and confuse our voters by having
a mishmash of apparently opposing candidates actually fronting
for him (remind you of a certain farm that Orwell wrote about?).
He can refuse us even the courtesy of showing up in Milwaukee
to ask for our pledge of loyalty. He couldn't even FAX us his
proposal from the strip club.
Be we owe him our blind loyalty and allegiance. We are supposed
to deliver him our pledge of monogamous loyalty, even though he
won't actually give us a ring. We are BAD for wanting respect
and reciprocity.
And he can batter us, yes, beat the crap out of us, by causing
us to lose ballot status in several states when we run him as
independent rather than as a party nominee. Oh, and should he
rate 5% and get matching funds in 2008, that is his pot of gold,
not the party's - no common law marriage here - thank you (talk
about a patriarchal wet dream). And he can punch us, tear us
apart with a scorched earth politics, for daring to leave him.
But we are BAD partners for not taking the abuse with gratitude
and telling the press, "we got that bruise from the Democrats".
Well, Ms. Miller and Mr. Hill, I hope you don't give the same
shitty advice to your girlfriends that you give to your party.
Otherwise, the Green Party may have discovered its own Phyllis
Schlafly and Bill McCartney.
Gil Obler
GRP Alternate (MA), USGP Coordinating Committee
Middlesex Delegate, Green-Rainbow Party State Committee
======================================================================
email greengil at comcast.net
home phone (978)455-3984
cell phone (617)388-5445
======================================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: natlcomaffairs-bounces at green.gpus.org
> [mailto:natlcomaffairs-bounces at green.gpus.org] On Behalf Of
> natlcomaffairs-request at green.gpus.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:48 PM
> To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Subject: Natlcomaffairs Digest, Vol 6, Issue 19
>
>
> Send Natlcomaffairs mailing list submissions to
> natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> natlcomaffairs-request at green.gpus.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> natlcomaffairs-owner at green.gpus.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific than "Re: Contents of Natlcomaffairs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY (nikhilananda)
> 2. Re: FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
> (Juhrich43 at aol.com)
> 3. P.S. Re: [usgp-dx] FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN
> PARTY (Juhrich43 at aol.com)
> 4. Re: FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
> (Juhrich43 at aol.com)
> 5. Re: Re: sabotage as a strategy . . . (Juhrich43 at aol.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:49:03 -1000
> From: "nikhilananda" <s.nikhilananda2 at gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
> To: <natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org>, "Dean Myerson"
> <greens at deanmyerson.org>
> Message-ID: <29b901c47b2d$a6491a50$b2f28744 at NIKHILANANDA>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> ALOHA:..... hope i find everyone well..... it feels as if it
> would be much better to be running a positive campaign FOR
> ralph and/or FOR david, rather than attacking the cobb
> nomination or nader's campaign!!..... as it is now, there are
> THREE anti-war candidates, including michael badnarik of the
> libertarians..... let's keep this a positive site and
> discussion for values that NEITHER the democrats nor the
> republicans profess, and get BOTH david AND ralph on as many
> ballots as possible....
>
> THE WHO concert yesterday here on maui was an excellent place
> to get people to sign.... EVERYONE was anti-bush.... either
> they signed or said no, not this time, though i voted for
> nader in 2000...... anyway, we should be able to get nader's
> name on the ballot here in hawai'i and david is ALREADY on
> our ballot ...... the more the better..... aloha from
> maui..... nikhilananda.... :o}
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean Myerson" <greens at deanmyerson.org>
> To: <natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
>
>
> > Apparently some people are willing to try and destroy this
> party when
> > they don't get their way. They ignore single percent
> turnout in their
> primaries.
> > They apparently want to disenfranchise millions of Greens in states
> > that can't register Green by law, and they ignore that the
> primaries
> > they boast of were dishonest because their candidates were
> portrayed
> > as seeking the Green nomination, when in fact they were supporting
> > endorsing an independent. You don't build a genuine grassroots
> > movement by manipulating the will of under-informed voters.
> >
> > This piece or false propaganda will probably be posted on
> Counterpunch
> > and other such places and enter the realm of myth, just as
> the false
> > accusations of some GPUSA members did in years past. In fact, the
> > one-person, one-vote mantra follows directly from some of the myths
> > that were spread about the ASGP in its early years. They
> claim to be
> > more democratic while manipulating the voting process by
> > reinterpreting votes
> to
> > their own benefit. But good organizing overcame that and it will
> > again.
> But
> > in the mean time, it will slow down the building of this party in
> > those states where some Greens believe this stuff, and the
> writers of
> > this article will have that on their hands.
> >
> > It would seem to me that a caucus of "potentially disenfranchised
> > states", or maybe they actually are "currently over-represented
> > states" :) might want to put out a joint resolution
> responding to this
> > attack on their participation on the Green Party. Based on this
> > article, they should hand Green decision-making over to the
> hand full
> > of states whose laws permit both party registration and
> primaries for
> > Greens.
> >
> > Dean Myerson
> > DC
> >
> > At 08:43 PM 8/4/2004, Marybeth wrote:
> > >Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 20:05:52 -0700
> > >From: Forrest Hill <forrest_hill at comcast.net>
> > >Subject: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party
> > >
> > >PLEASE FORWARD
> > >
> > >
> > >RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
> > >
> > >By Carol Miller and Forrest Hill
> > >
> > >How did David Cobb become the Green Party presidential nominee
> > >against
> the
> > >overwhelming majority of the Green Party?
> > >
> > >The answer is quite simple. The Green Party followed a
> policy that is
> > >fundamentally undemocratic and allowed the will of its
> members to be
> > >manipulated.
> > >
> > >PRIMARIES - THE WILL OF THE VOTER
> > >
> > >In five states, registered Green Party members, who are
> the rank and
> > >file of the party, had the opportunity to vote in a presidential
> > >primary.
> These
> > >five primaries represent the majority of registered Greens in the
> country.
> > >
> > >The five primaries took place in California, Massachusetts, New
> > >Mexico, Washington DC and Rhode Island. The total number of votes
> > >cast for a presidential candidate as recorded by Ballot
> Access News
> > >was 45,733.
> > >
> > >The results from these primaries for the leading three
> candidates are
> > >as
> > >follows:
> > >
> > >Camejo 33,255 72.7%
> > >Cobb 5,569 12.2%
> > >Salzman 4,953 10.8%
> > >Others 1,956 4.2%
> > >
> > >In the three largest States, California, Massachusetts and
> New Mexico
> > >David Cobb was defeated. In California he was beaten six to one by
> Camejo,
> > >and Lorna Salzman almost tied him for second place. In
> Massachusetts
> > >he was beaten by Lorna Salzman and in New Mexico by Carol Miller.
> > >Both Lorna Salzman and Carol Miller endorsed the Nader/Camejo
> > >campaign.
> > >
> > >In DC Cobb received 37% of all votes cast. The total
> number of votes
> > >cast in the Washington DC primary, including write-in
> votes was 374.
> > >Cobb
> faced
> > >only one local opponent, yet received only 138 votes!
> > >
> > >In the Rhode Island primary, the one state Cobb actually won more
> > >than
> 50%
> > >of the vote, only 89 votes were cast. The primary ballot only
> > >included Kent Mesplay and Cobb. It did not even include New York's
> > >presidential nominee Lorna Salzman. The vote was 71 for
> Cobb and 18
> > >for Mesplay.
> > >
> > >Overall, the total primary vote for candidates who support
> > >Nader/Camejo was over 83% compared to Cobb's 12.2%. Where Greens
> > >actually were able to vote, Cobb was roundly defeated.
> > >
> > >NOMINATING MEETINGS - THE WILL OF THE FEW AND SELECTED
> > >
> > >In all other states Green Party delegates were chosen at
> nominating
> > >meetings. These meetings varied in size but were overall
> quite small.
> > >The national Green Party web site never reported the
> number of votes
> > >cast at any of the state nominating meetings. This
> cover-up, whether
> > >intentional or not, hid from Greens the small number of
> voters that
> > >were determining how large numbers of delegate were proportioned
> > >between the candidates.
> > >
> > >Nor did the web site explain the delegate formula or
> justify the size
> > >of each state's delegation so that Greens could follow the
> process.
> > >In fact the formula completely ignores the number of Greens
> > >registered in each state as a determinate for the number of
> > >delegates. Most Greens assumed that delegates were proportioned
> > >according to a one-person one-vote
> system
> > >as any democratic organization would normally assume.
> > >
> > >Only the Cobb campaign organized a turn out of their
> supporters for
> > >these nominating meetings. This enabled Cobb to appear to have a
> > >higher percentage of support than he would gain if local
> Green's had
> > >an easier way of expressing their views, such as a primary.
> > >
> > >In caucuses where the turnout was relatively large, Cobb often did
> poorly.
> > >But in some cases Cobb supporters were able to get around
> their low
> > >vote count by packing the delegation selection. For
> example in Maine,
> > >where Nader's name was on the ballot, Nader defeated Cobb 52 to 42
> > >(the remaining 65 votes went to 13 other candidates). In
> percentage,
> > >these votes represent 33% for Nader and 26% for Cobb. Yet
> during the
> > >vote at
> the
> > >convention in Milwaukee, 18 out of 19 Maine delegates
> voted for Cobb
> > >and
> 1
> > >voted for Nader, or 95% for Cobb and 5% for Nader.
> > >
> > >DEMOCRATIC VIOLATION OF "ONE-PERSON ONE-VOTE"
> > >
> > >Even this one sided, basically one candidate campaign, could never
> > >have led to a Cobb victory at the convention without the help of a
> > >second undemocratic factor. The Green Party does not use a
> one-person
> > >one-vote system but instead has an electoral-college system that
> > >punishes states like California for its success in
> recruiting tens of
> > >thousands of
> Greens,
> > >while rewarding states that have only a small membership.
> Unlike the
> > >national electoral-college, the Green Party's weighted
> voting gives
> > >some states 100's of times more votes per Green member then other
> > >states.
> > >
> > >For example in Iowa there is officially no Green Party. The state
> > >liquidated it after they failed to reach the 2% threshold
> for their
> > >gubernatorial candidate in 2002. However, Iowa had nine
> delegates to
> > >the Green Party Convention. There are 90 people registered
> as Greens
> > >in Iowa and over 150,000 registered Greens in California.
> Thus, for
> > >every 10 registered Green Party members there was one
> delegate to the
> > >nominating convention. If the party were to weigh all its members
> > >equally, then California would have received over 16,500 delegates
> > >instead of 132. The 90 Greens in Iowa had as much power in
> the party
> > >as 11,363 members in California.
> > >
> > >Imagine a party in which candidate A gets 11,300 votes and
> candidate
> > >B gets 90 votes, and candidate B is declared the winner.
> > >Unfortunately that parties name was the Green Party at the
> Milwaukee
> > >convention.
> > >
> > >It is disturbing that while the Green Party platform opposes the
> > >electoral-college and favors one-person one-vote it does
> not practice
> what
> > >it preaches. Without the undemocratic voting process
> implemented by
> > >the national coordinating committee, Cobb had no chance of winning
> > >after the primary vote in California and the heavy
> opposition to his
> > >candidacy in other major states like New York and New Jersey.
> > >
> > >DENYING CANDIDATES THE RIGHT TO APPOINT THEIR DELEGATES
> > >
> > >But even taking into account this undemocratic ratio of
> > >representation that worked mightily for Cobb, he was still
> unable to
> > >win outright. He just didn't have enough delegates. To win the
> > >nomination, his supporters were allowed to alter the
> decisions of the
> > >small state meetings and primaries. This last
> non-democratic step was
> > >achieved because Green Party rules do not allow a
> candidate chosen by
> > >its rank and file to appoint their delegates like all
> other parties
> > >have in American history. The only requirement for becoming a
> > >delegate is simply having the ability to
> attend
> > >the convention. Thus, whichever candidate can get their
> supporters to
> > >the convention can end up winning regardless of the votes of the
> > >primaries or caucuses, like in Maine.
> > >
> > >In this manner Cobb was able to take delegate votes from other
> candidates.
> > >This was achieved simply by having his supporters show up and cast
> > >their votes for him after the first round of voting.
> Examples where
> > >this practice was highly evident include Maine, Missouri,
> California,
> > >and
> Texas.
> > >
> > >In Maryland, two Cobb delegates attempted to become a
> Nader delegate
> > >and
> a
> > >Carol Miller delegate prior to the convention. They were
> only stopped
> > >because a Nader supporter prevented them from doing so by
> making it
> > >publicly clear that they were in fact Cobb supporters.
> > >
> > >In California Cobb supporters were able to turn his 12% support in
> > >the primaries into a delegate vote of 26% by packing the
> delegation.
> > >Specifically 22 votes shifted to Cobb during the second round of
> > >voting. These votes are equal to the margin by which Cobb won the
> > >election.
> > >
> > >In effect the Green Party picks its presidential candidate
> not based
> > >on the will of its members but by discriminating against Greens in
> > >some states, and in the end, by allowing anyone to become
> a delegate
> > >who can show up at the convention. Cobb's support at most reflects
> > >but a small percentage of Greens. The overwhelming majority of the
> > >rank and file members oppose his candidacy.
> > >
> > >FIGHTING BACK
> > >
> > >Cobb's amazing rise from 12% in the primaries against 83 % for
> > >pro-Nader candidates, to a majority at the convention was due to a
> > >well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party
> > >into what appeared as a "majority" decision at the convention.
> > >
> > >Behind the Cobb phenomena is a very real political
> difference in the
> Green
> > >Party. As many articles have pointed out, the party is divided
> > >between those who want to oppose the two parties of money
> and those
> > >who support voting for the lesser of two evils to help prevent a
> > >Republican victory. Cobb represents a political capitulation away
> > >from our independence from the two corporate controlled parties.
> > >
> > >The nomination of Cobb is a step backward, away from an
> > >uncompromising challenge to the two-party "duopoly" and
> away from the
> > >prominence that
> the
> > >Greens have achieved, thanks in good part to Nader's 2000
> campaign.
> > >It is time we take back the Green Party from those who want to
> > >capitulate to
> the
> > >Democratic Party!
> > >
> > >---------------
> > >
> > >*Carol Miller*, a public health administrator, first rose to
> > >prominence
> in
> > >the New Mexico Green Party by running for Congress in 1997. She was
> active
> > >in the Nader for President Campaign 2000, ran for State
> Treasurer in
> 2002,
> > >and sought the Green Party nomination for President in
> 2004. Miller
> > >has actively worked for health care reform by as a member of the
> > >White House Health Care Task Force, serving two terms as
> President of
> > >the New Mexico Public Health Association and six terms on the
> > >Governing Council of the American Public Health Association.
> > >
> > >*Forrest Hill* has served on the Coordinating Committee
> for the Green
> > >Party of California, is a member of the State Finance
> Committee and
> > >the Campaign Support Fund Committee, and is a coordinator of the
> > >Campaigns & Candidates Working Group. He has a Ph.D. in
> Oceanography
> > >from MIT and has worked as an environmental consultant to ensure
> > >compliance with the Endangered Species Act and improve
> water quality
> > >in California Rivers.
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Natlcomaffairs mailing list
> > >To send a message to the list, write to:
> > >Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list
> > >options, go to:
> > >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs
> > >
> > >You must know your password to do this.
> > >
> > >If you can't figure out how to
> > >unsubscribe, as a last resort only,
> > >send a message OFF LIST to
> > >steveh at wagreens.us
> > >
> > >If your state delegation changes, please see:
> > >http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html
> > >
> > >For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
> > >http://gp.org/committees/cc/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Natlcomaffairs mailing list
> > To send a message to the list, write to:
> Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> > To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs
> >
> > You must know your password to do this.
> >
> > If you can't figure out how to
> > unsubscribe, as a last resort only,
> > send a message OFF LIST to
> > steveh at wagreens.us
> >
> > If your state delegation changes, please see:
> > http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html
> >
> > For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
> > http://gp.org/committees/cc/
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:18:56 EDT
> From: Juhrich43 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
> To: huckelberry at softhome.net, natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Message-ID: <be.130acf0f.2e43fe40 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> In a message dated 8/5/04 3:00:28 PM, huckelberry at softhome.net writes:
> > This is such an incredible load of bullcrap.
> >
> Phil:
>
> I am in total agreement, though I am not suprised at such
> bull coming from a
> master slinger like Carol Miller.
>
> To me, it is beyond irony that Carol Miller is complaining
> about things being
> undemocratic in the Green Party. When I was in NM she did
> all kinds of
> things to undermine the democratic will of Greens in New
> Mexico, to the point
> where she dropped out of running for a second term as
> Co-Chair in 2000, because it
> was obvious she was going to at least face a very tough
> reelection campaign;
> and overwhelmingly lost an attempt at being elected to the
> USGP CC in 2001.
> It was because of her policies, and the alienating most of
> the progressive
> people-of-color groups in New Mexico, that I risked my health
> to run against her
> running mate for Co-Chair of the party in 2000. Her
> heavy-handed manner made
> her so unpopular among Greens that year that she had to have
> the Nader
> Campaign appoint her as their official spokesperson over the
> heads of the elected NM
> GP leadership (even though I, my Co-Chair, and the NM GP
> Green Council were
> trying, in good faith, to work with her and her supporters).
> Finally, just
> before leaving office, she and several of her buddies went
> and used the NM GP's
> own Political Action Committee to set-up a political PAC that
> was totally
> independent of the elected leadership of the NM Green Party ,
> even though they
> used their Green Party positions to attract speakers like Jim
> Hightower to raise
> money for the PAC. It was revelations about the PAC, and
> the fact that she
> soon lost control of it, and thus of thousands of dollars
> that could have been
> used on Greens' campaigns in 2000, that led to her failed
> campaign for CC rep
> at the NM Green Party Convention in 2001. Finally, it is
> her purist politics
> from '97 on that have led to the NM Green Party being a shell
> of its former
> self.
>
> If any one set of examples points out the errors of the
> extremist approach to
> Green politics and the need for a strategy of practical
> fusion to help us
> build our party, it is the impact of Carol and her tactics on
> the Green Party of
> New Mexico.
>
> Jack Uhrich
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:24:49 EDT
> From: Juhrich43 at aol.com
> Subject: P.S. Re: [usgp-dx] FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN
> PARTY
> To: Juhrich43 at aol.com, huckelberry at softhome.net,
> natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Message-ID: <81.126fa48a.2e43ffa1 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> But ultimately, it's a great compliment, if you think about
> it. Peter
> managed to manipulate his enormous prestige from the support
> Greens had given him
> in the Governor's race, along with his false promise to run
> for President, to
> give Ralph the largest singly bloc of Green delegate votes in
> the country.
> Plus, Ralph had raised almost $1 million, numerous paid
> staff, and he had over
> 40 years of name recognition. Despite all that, on about
> $30,000, almost no
> paid staff, the Cobb volunteers managed to outorganize the
> Nader/Camejo forces.
> And that is what is really pissing them off! No amount of
> manipulation of
> the numbers can change that basic fact.
> Jack Uhrich
>
> In a message dated 8/5/04 5:18:56 PM, Juhrich43 writes:
>
>
> > In a message dated 8/5/04 3:00:28 PM,
> huckelberry at softhome.net writes:
> >
> > This is such an incredible load of bullcrap.
> >
> >
> > Phil:
> >
> > I am in total agreement, though I am not suprised at such
> bull coming
> > from a
> > master slinger like Carol Miller.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:41:04 EDT
> From: Juhrich43 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] FWD: RIGGED CONVENTION DIVIDES GREEN PARTY
> To: jodyhaug at hotmail.com, natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org,
> huckelberry at softhome.net
> Message-ID: <84.2ffeb06f.2e440370 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> In a message dated 8/5/04 10:01:55 AM, jodyhaug at hotmail.com writes:
> > But most importantly, individually and collectively we must
> keep our
> > eyes
> > on
> > the prize, our backs bent over the oars, etc. etc. After a
> few minutes of
> > rolling my eyes heavenward and a few expletives undeleted,
> it's time to get
> > back to the work I know must be done.
> >
> Sorry I didn't get to Jody's post first, as her advice is the
> wisest. In
> 2000, we could do nothing about the imposition of Carol on us
> by the Nader
> Campaign, or the money taken from us by the unethical PAC
> they used to siphon funds
> we could have used. All we could do was continue to build
> the party. And
> we did, and I'll be forever grateful to those New Mexico
> Greens that stayed
> the course. If the New Mexico party ever bounces back, I'm
> sure they'll be a
> part of that effort, long after Carol and the other purists
> are gone.
> Jack Uhrich
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:47:51 EDT
> From: Juhrich43 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] Re: sabotage as a strategy . . .
> To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Message-ID: <146.300951b6.2e440507 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> In a message dated 8/5/04 11:23:38 AM, manski at greens.org writes:
> > Remember, Nader did not come to the national conference in
> D.C. last
> > year, despite being invited to keynote, due to "jury duty"
> obligations
> > in Connecticut.
> >
> I wasn't aware that Ralph gave that as his reason.
> Interesting, in that, if
> my memory is correct, on the Sunday of the DC national
> meeting, Ralph was
> quoted in the Washington Post as saying (*from Colorado*),
> that he didn't know if
> he would seek the GP nomination. Anyone else recall the
> timing of that
> article?
>
> > Remember, that Carl Mayer, Nader's some-times treasurer, issued a
> > statement last year, which condemned the primary results before the
> > primaries even took place -
> > http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/blog/index.php?p=781 . . .
> >
> I think it should also be stated for the record that, though
> asked a number
> of times, Carl Mayer gave *nothing* to the party during the
> time I was
> fundraising, though he could easily have given the maximum
> each year. That wasn't
> just before Ralph decided not to run. That was in '01, '02
> and '03. So he
> never had a commitment to the USGP. Don't know how that
> played out in New
> Jersey, where he lives. But that was his relationship with
> the national party.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Natlcomaffairs mailing list
> To send a message to the list, write to:
> Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your
> mailing list options, go to:
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/list> info/natlcomaffairs
>
>
> End
> of Natlcomaffairs Digest, Vol 6,
> Issue 19
> *********************************************
>
More information about the GNC
mailing list