[External Relations] Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on attempts by Nader/Camejo campaign's supporters to usurp

Sun Oct 3 10:46:47 EDT 2004

Hi Owen (and everyone else):

It has been clear that the progressive movement has been seriously divided
over the presidential election of 2004. It is also clear to us that the GPUS
has also been seriously divided; the national convention is a reflection of
those divisions. 

I believe that it is very important to stand for principle, and at the same
time to respect that others may be arguing for other principles.
Additionally, this has been a very emotional and scary time; many people,
including our comrades, are acting out of fear and with other negative
factors.

What role should the GRP play? I believe that we have been playing a very
positive role. Recognizing our limited numbers and resources, we have
attempted to have a good process with good discussions. I believe that we
also played a very positive role in Milwaukee.

----------------------------------------------
Cobb was not my choice in Milwaukee and I have had major problems with his
"strategy". However, despite the major problems in Milwaukee, I recognize
that he is the party's choice. Since the convention, more often than not, I
am very happy and pleased with the direction of the campaign. Cobb is the
candidate of our state party and he is my candidate too.

I believe that the GPUS has taken a principled stand in support of the
rights of Nader/Camejo to be on the ballot; I believe that we have done the
same in this state (Is this true? Have we issued a statement?).

On the other hand, I believe that the Nader/Camejo forces since the
convention have NOT behaved in the same principled way. Despite the flaws in
Milwaukee, which they have a right to be angry about, they made their choice
and did not get the result that they were seeking in Milwaukee. They have
also discovered that it has been much harder than they believed to get
ballot lines; I feel compassionate about their pain and righteous anger.
However, the GPUS is NOT responsible for this situation!

I believe that Nader/Camejo and their forces have been behaving in an
unprincipled manner to STEAL "our" ballot lines. I say "our" lines because I
believe that the question of "ownership" is layered. Our line in MA, as well
as the other states, is a results of our own efforts in COLLABORATION with
the national party. Additionally, I believe that  Nader/Camejo are complicit
in this effort to STEAL our ballot lines. As many of you know, I was a close
supporter of Kent Mesplay in Milwaukee. In that capacity, I witnessed the
pain and anger of Camejo; it was clear that he believed that the nomination
of Cobb was not legitimate ("legitimate" is my word).

----------------------------------------------------------------
I support the resolution. I believe that it is a fair representation of how
we are experiencing these developments. I believe that it is very moderate
in that it is not condemning Nader/Camejo; instead it is informing them and
asking them to correct the situation. The national party has a right to
defend itself. Additionally, to the extent that the Nader/Camejo forces are
successful in STEALING our lines, they weaken our national party and our
state parties as well (Part of our strength comes from our connection to the
national party.). 

For me, this is not an issue of grassroots democracy. This resolution does
not take away the right of a state party to defy the national party. This
resolution is aimed at the efforts of forces outside our party who are
attacking us.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Owen says that "Green" states that nominate Nader/Camejo
should be disaffiliated. I disagree. On November 3, the sun will rise. It is
my hope that the GRP will play a constructive role in this state and
nationally, to try to repair the damage done and to rebuild our party and
the progressive movement. We cannot afford to be revengeful, even if we
believe that we are acting out of principles.
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Heichman
617-265-8143 

on 10/3/04 5:50 AM, Owen Broadhurst at thersites2467 at hotmail.com wrote:

> http://green.gpus.org/vote/displayproposal.php?proposalId=111
> 
> Please note that I, by no means, am attempting, or hoping to, step on the
> toes of any GRP delegate to the GPUS CC. By no means am I hoping to direct
> any vote, and by no means am I suggesting in any way, shape, or form that
> our delegates are not capable of considered wisdom in their decision-making
> capacities. I'm merely stating a concern about the proposal.
> 
> http://green.gpus.org/vote/displayproposal.php?proposalId=111
> 
> This proposal before the GPUS Coordinating Committee has been stated as
> follows:
> 
> 
> Background:
> 
> The right of voters to select the candidate of their choice is sacred and
> should not be limited.
> 
> The Green Party of the United States has consistently fought for the right
> of all voters to select the candidates of their choice and actively opposes
> any attempt to eliminate competition and restrict the voter's freedom to
> choose.
> 
> We have been upset to learn that, while Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo are
> condemning the efforts of the Democrats to keep their name off of state
> ballots, their supporters are trying to replace Cobb/LaMarche with
> Nader/Camejo on Green Party state ballot lines, most notably in California,
> Utah and Vermont.
> 
> The Green Party is profoundly disappointed and regrets that some of Ralph
> Nader and Peter Camejo's supporters are resorting to these low,
> anti-democratic tactics to get on the ballot.
> 
> At this time, it is not clear that Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo are aware of
> these efforts, or that they approve of them.
> 
> Final Note: This resolution is to be released as a press statement after
> passage by the CC, in order to make Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo aware of these
> efforts, to give them an opportunity to correct these wrongs, if they are,
> in fact, unaware and unsupportive of them, and to set the record straight so
> far as the position of the Coordinating Council of the Green Party is
> concerned.
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> This past June, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Green Party of the United
> States held a nominating convention that was the culmination of a democratic
> process involving Greens across the country. The Coordinating Council
> recognizes that there are always improvements that can be made to our
> decision-making processes. Nevertheless, when one considers the
> extraordinary efforts that the Green Party has made to both follow the
> extremely restrictive electoral laws that exist in most states, and meet our
> own high standards for grassroots democracy, the Coordinating Council of the
> Green Party is proud of the success of the Milwaukee process, and is equally
> as proud and supportive of the Green Party's nominees for President and
> Vice-President, David Cobb and Patricia LaMarche.
> 
> Ralph Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, did not seek the Green Party
> nomination. By their own choice, they are running an independent campaign,
> and have accepted the nomination of the Reform Party, as well as other
> independent and third party ballot lines. The Green Party is concerned that
> the supporters of the Nader/Camejo campaign have been involved in attempting
> to remove (and in one case successfully removing) our candidates, David Cobb
> and Pat LaMarche, from ballot lines, and have attempted to replace them with
> the Nader/Camejo ticket.
> 
> Since Ralph Nader has, on many occasions, expressed respect and support for
> the independence of the Green Party; and
> 
> Since, in his recent court case in Michigan, Ralph Nader has argued that a
> national political party has a right to place its national candidate on the
> ballot, even over the objections of its state affiliates;
> 
> We therefore call on Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo to publicly support the
> right of the Green Party of the United States to place the Cobb/LaMarche
> ticket on state Green Party ballots wherever that is legally possible.
> 
> We further call on Mr. Nader and Peter Camejo to publicly condemn any
> efforts by their supporters to prevent the placing of the Cobb/LaMarche
> ticket on the ballot in states where there is a Green Party ballot, and to
> publicly refuse to accept any such ballot line, even if offered to them.
> 
> To do less than this would go against Mr. Nader's and Mr. Camejo's own
> public statements, both in support of the independence of the Green Party,
> and in support of the Nader/Camejo Reform Party candidacy in Michigan.
> 
> The Party asks Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo to rise above the norm of the
> petty and vicious politics of the Duopoly parties, as they have asked the
> Democrats to do in their case. We call on Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo to
> continue building on their reputation and increasing the respect and
> affection that many Greens and other Americans hold for them, by working
> together to fix the ballot access problem and create true democracy in the
> United States of America.
> 
> ================
> 
> I have concerns about this proposal!!!
> 
> "We therefore call on Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo to publicly support the
> right of the Green Party of the United States to place the Cobb/LaMarche
> ticket on state Green Party ballots wherever that is legally possible."
> 
> This is a violation of the Grassroots Democracy Key Value!!!
> 
> While I do firmly believe that any state party that refuses to field the
> candidate of the national nominating committee should indeed, having
> violated the terms of GPUS Rules and Procedures regarding affiliation, be
> dis-affiliated from the GPUS;
> 
> I DO NOT BELIEVE that the GPUS should IN ANY WAY use the State as a weapon
> against the democratic decisions of any state party! State parties MUST be
> free to decide a course of action that might or might not result in their
> dis-affiliation. This is THEIR decision to make!!!
> 
> Had the GRP decided to field, say, Nader- then that would have been OUR
> DEMOCRATIC DECISION and OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT!!! I firmly believe this
> proposal is ANTITHETICAL to GREEN VALUES!!!
> 
> In fact, I CALL UPON THE GRP STATE COMMITTEE TO DISAFFILIATE IF THIS MOTION
> PASSES!
> 
> Should offending state parties be dis-affiliated? YES!!!
> 
> Should offending state parties have a decision THRUST VIOLENTLY DOWN THEIR
> THROATS BY PEOPLE WHOSE DECISIONS THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER?
> 
> Most emphatically-- NO. NO WAY IN HADES. NO WAY PERIOD. NEVER. NO HOW!!!
> 
> ==========
> 
> Should this offensive and puke-inducing motion actually pass, then I shall
> sponsor a resolution before the next state committee meeting to
> disaffiliate. I'm serious. This is not a joke.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Owen R. Broadhurst
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom