[GNC] Salzman comments on the Miller/ Hillman article and my reply

[Owen Broadhurst]

What follows are comments by Lorna Salzman written in response to my very own comments on certain flaws in the Miller/ Hillman analysis (if it can accurately be called that). I disagree with several of Lorna's hypotheses, but some of the matters that she discusses are matters that also disturbed ME. First, some points where I believe Lorna mistaken:

1) The BRPP and FRWG did not, I believe, engage in "dirty tricks"- but were caught between a rock and hard place. The BRPP had no true role in the formation of floor rules, but actually proposed a set of floor rules that Lorna should in fact have found more to her liking as they did not involve eliminations. The FRWG felt compelled to have eliminations due to the time constraints. Future conventions should not prioritize expediency.

2) Carol and Forrest were not in fact truly "on the mark." They made several valid points- but then promptly deflected attention away from their valid critiques of the process by calling attention instead to their very own bile while also mixing in a few blatant fabrications, blatant omissions, and some distortions of the facts for good measure.

3) Suggestions of a California conspiracy to pack the delegation with Cobb supporters is inaccurate. That twenty-two delegates pledged on the first round to Camejo voted for David Cobb on the second round is certainly more than enough to turn heads- but it must be remembered that several of these delegates had hoped that they might "draft" Camejo, convince him to run himself, and understood from Camejo that they were not obligated to back Nader. Several of these delegates faced the same conundrum that I know the Salzman delegates faced in Massachusetts: to back the "No Candidate" option ran the risk of convention failure. That certainly dissuaded a few folks, and I can certainly see why. So, this seems far less a conspiracy to pack delegations than an unfortunate side affect of unfortunate floor rules that served to frighten some pro-Nader delegates away from it.

Lorna, however, does call attention to certain matters that I, too, found quite disturbing-

1) California refused to disclose delegate identity to candidates Salzman and Camejo. The state party may have refused delegate identity disclosure to all candidates. I don't know.

2) States where nominating decisions were made at conventions or caucuses had decisions made based on turnout and organization behind turnout, calling machine politics to mind instead of a genuine committment to making an attempt- at least- to reflect rank and file.

3) The formula for determining the size of state delegations just didn't seem "Green." I disagree with any suggestion that only states that hold primaries should hold sway, but I do believe the formula gave smaller parties significantly disproportional input.

Lorna Salzman's comments follow, from the greensnotdems Yahoo! group list-
========

Owen is correct in his assessment of my campaign. While I was always
supportive of Ralph Nader's candidacy, especially during the period prior
to his announcement of his independent candidacy, I continued to assume
that the state primaries, convention and floor rules would allow a fair
process to unfold, which would allow me to conduct my environmental
campaign. I looked forward to making my environmental pitch at the
convention, and then graciously conceding to Nader whom I was certain would
win.

However, I felt obligated to let greens (and future delegates) know my
moral  support for Nader so they would not think I was trying to deceive
them. If Nader had actually become a GP candidate for the nomination, I
had, at that point,  no doubt that he would win overwhelmingly, whether I
withdrew or not since I didnt have large support.

The importance of support for Nader did not become clear until the final
month preceding the Milwaukee convention, when information started to drift
in about the various state conventions, the California primary (the
confusion created by its devious manipulations became apparently almost
immediately, when it didnt report the results of its delegate count),
dirty tricks by the BRPP and Floor Rules Committee, and the efforts of the
Executive Committee to promote Cobb and trash Nader. The behind-the-scenes
shenanigans of these groups and the states where Cobb supporters dominated
made it clear - especially after Nader announced he would not seek the GP
nomination - that Cobb was on a roll and his team going all out to secure
him the nomination.

The main stumbling block to Cobb  then became Peter Camejo, with his large
bloc of California delegates. Peter  then raised the issue of a No Nominee
resolution followed by a dual endorsement of Cobb and Nader if the
resolution passed, which would have allowed each state to choose which one
they wanted to put on their state ballot line, thus avoiding a split in the
party and general animosity. I was asked at this point whether I was a
stand-in for Nader or a genuine candidate, and I said I was the latter, and
issued an email to this and other listservs to clarify this.

Obviously there was no way to see how things would shake out until the
convention. And then
things suddenly crystallized and it became clear to me that the only option
available to either endorse Nader, endorse no one, or defeat Cobb, was to
go for the No Nominee option and then seek a Nader endorsement if that
option prevailed (which it didnt). I then notified some of my delegates -
the ones whose names I knew, since with the exception of Massachusetts, and
a couple of people I knew personally from California I didnt know who they
were - that after the first round of voting (when presumably they would
vote for me), I would like them to vote for the No Nominee option.

 Of course this was pointless in the case of California (and undoubtedly
Maine, Oregon, Illinois and Ohio) where I had half of my total delegates.
California fudged and pretended it didnt have named delegates but that 12
of them, whomever they were, would vote for me on the first round. Little
did I know that these were already Cobb delegates and/or taking orders from
the California state party leadership and Medea Benjamin. Little did Peter
know this either, which was far more important since he had 75% of the
total primary vote and should have won outright.

Carol and Forrest's accounting of the totally corrupt crooked convention
rules and processes is right on the mark. Some Cobb supporters are still
trying to deny this, since they themselves were deceived. But some of them
were in on the plot to begin with - probably the state party leaders at the
very least. Carol's statement that Iowa has only 90 enrolled members but
had 9 delegates was infuriating. New York State has 36,000 ENROLLED
members, according to the state board of elections, and got 43 delegates.
By that formula Iowa should have gotten 2 1/2 delegates, or NYS should have
had 170. If this wasnt an intentional fraud, then nothing is.

Lorna Salzman