[statecom-discuss] [candidate-development] Who are the candidates who belong on our primary ...

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Dave (and everyone),

Thanks for expressing your opinion and you make a strong case for inclusion.

I want to point out a few things in response:

1. For many months I was a strong advocate for inclusion. Specifically, 
I wanted to make room for Ralph Nader to appear on our ballot (if he 
were running for the Green Party's nomination, would agree to the 10 key 
values and accept a place on our primary ballot) even if he remained an 
Independent and did not join the Green Party. There were other members 
of our party who strongly disagreed and wanted to only include Greens on 
our primary ballot. The convention, the highest decision-making body 
debated this issue and decided on the criteria. I want to respect the 
view of the "minority tendency" who did not want an Independent to 
appear on the ballot under any circumstances. How many times are we 
going to change/adjust our rules for Nader's benefit?

2. I do not know what games, Nader and the Nader forces are playing. I 
do not even know if they are playing the same game. Does Nader support 
the "Draft Nader" campaign? I don't know. Does Nader want Howie Hawkins 
to be his stand-in? I don't know. The criteria of our party came up with 
is clear and transparent. It appears that Nader continues to exhibit a 
lack of clarity and transparency.

3. "Favorite Suns/Daughters" can be dangerous mechanisms if there is a 
lack of transparency. While I have read a couple of books about the 2004 
Green Party's national campaign (one pro-Cobb and one pro-Nader), I 
believe that in California (Camejo) and maybe some of the other states 
that it was unclear to all Green Party members that they were running 
for Nader. Who knows what will happen this year in this state and around 
the country if there is a similar lack of transparency. Our state party 
should support transparency and oppose a system of "powerbrokers".

4. It is clear that there are some Green Party members who are running 
for president. None of them has the name or resources that  Nader has. 
They are entitled to the right to engage in a fair campaign. Let them 
compete with Nader "face-to-face". Our state party should not allow them 
to compete against a phantom. If Nader wants our party's nomination, he 
needs to ask for it and campaign for it.

5. I am not confident that our state party will get its act together and 
do much of a job in publicizing this race in time for the presidential 
primary. I hope that I'm wrong. The other candidates cannot be expected 
to run a campaign in our state without the support of our party. I hope 
that we will, for example, sponsor at least a couple of events and 
invite all of the candidates to attend, and come up with some other 
plans Let's say that we don't do this, and one day, Nader comes to town 
with Howie Hawkins and holds a  press conference! Is this fair.

I hope that others will express their opinions.

Mike Heichman






DvEngland at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/09/07 5:06:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
> mikeheichman at verizon.net writes:
>
>       a. If any candidate is running as a stand-in for Nader
>     (Hawkins-definitely and Kann-I'm not sure), then I do not BELIEVE (my
>     interpretation) that this qualifies them to be on our ballot
>     unless they
>     say publicly that they are running for the GRP nomination (FOR
>     THEMSELVES). If they say they are "stand-ins for Draft Nader", this
>     would disqualify them
>
>         b. It looks to me that Joe Schiner is running as a "favorite sun"
>     for Ohio, if he is only considering running in Ohio and "considering"
>     running in a couple of other states. For me, this raises the issue of
>     "who is really running for the GRP nomination". For some of the
>     candidates below, if it is not too late, I would like to ask them if
>     they are running a national campaign "to the best of their
>     ability". I
>     do not want to exclude candidates who have less resources IF they are
>     running a national campaign to the best of their ability.
>
> If we were a bigger party, and anybody cared, this sort of exclusion 
> would put us in court.  You don't keep people off the ballot because 
> they don't follow your view of the issues or how a campaign should be 
> run.  It is a time-honored tradition in American politics for a state 
> to put forward a favorite son when it doesn't know whom to support and 
> wants to wait until the convention.
>  
> Furthermore, to attempt to exclude anyone from the primary ballot by 
> enforcing additional requirements -- other than being registered Green 
> -- is inherently undemocratic and worthy of the totalitarian politics 
> being practiced in Russia.  Every registered Green who wants to run 
> has a _right_ to be on the ballot, regardless of their motives.  It's 
> up to the campaigns to unveil a candidate's positions.  This party has 
> got to stop trying to be a filter and a gatekeeper and begin to 
> facilitate and encourage campaigns, not slow them down.
>  
> Dave England
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products 
> <http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001> 
> and top money wasters 
> <http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002> 
> of 2007.