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

Sat Aug 7 11:31:41 EDT 2004

	Actually, as Lorna and Carol well know, the CA ballot records
	are stored in the computer located in Area 51, subsection 418,
	which keeps John Kennedy's brain alive.

	I will be attempting to retrieve these records using a
	combination of chemical catalysts and akoshic retrieval
	techniques this weekend.

	If I do not survive, I bequeath the GRP presidential nomination
	to Eugene Debs who, as I recall, won the USGP nomination by
	voice vote acclamation in the first round in Milwaukee but was
	denied the nomination on a technicality.

               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: gnc-bounces at green-rainbow.org 
> [mailto:gnc-bounces at green-rainbow.org] On Behalf Of Owen Broadhurst
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:16 PM
> To: gnc at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: [GNC] Salzman comments on the Miller/ Hillman 
> article and my reply
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GNC mailing list
> GNC at green-rainbow.org 
> http://www.green-> rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/gnc
>