[statecom-discuss] Re: [candidate-development] Choosing delegates in the2008GRPpresidential primary

[Yarden]

John,
This discussion requires that I agree that the impression that we 
generate wherever there are people who are engaged in ways that do not 
require sustained daily effort, such as
> .  .  .  . word in Washington at the demonstration among many Greens 
> to whom
> I spoke was that ALMOST everywhere the Greens are dysfunctional. It 
> seems that there four things that many Greens do not understand: 
> organization, leadership, power and money. 

But let me begin by answering your question,

> If you do not "get" those things, then how can you be in politics?

That's easy.  There is no way to not be. The political animal and all 
that.  So I suppose that when we are talking about " .  .  .  . things 
that many Greens do not understand: organization, leadership, power and 
money," we might be talking about anyone of us.
How can one be effective without understanding the above, and how can 
one understand the four ideas that you mention without paying 
attention.  You seemed to find it difficult to pay attention to had to 
say about Nader with regard to the four things that we do not 
understand, and that Nader does.  So you respond by writing,"Eli, You 
are way over my head there."  I am glad that Kevin Zeese and you did 
run a workshop on third party prospects in 2008.  So you remind me of 
the fact that one of the reasons that Greens do so well or badly in 
'understanding' OLPM, is that Kevin Zeese, a highly competent 
fund-raiser, does not consider offering his abilities in this regard to 
the GPUS at this particular moment.  If I knew him, I would suggest 
that he contact the national office. Perhaps a Green Party 
understanding of OLPM would be different from a 3rd Party 
understanding.  Are we emulating the duopoly or trying to get rid of 
it.  And why would anyone run for U. S. Senate, if they cannot raise 
more money than Kerry, wield more power than Kerry, have a better 
organized organization than, or be more skilful at getting one's foot 
to one's mouth?

Seriously, do you believe that doing things the way it is done is what 
it's about?  Have you tried imagining politics that is different?  
Please let me know when you come up with something.
peace
elie




On Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 11:58 AM, John Walsh wrote:

> Eli,
> You are way over my head there.  
> What I heard was from among the demonstrators.  The only valuable 
> thing I got from the Congressional aides, some of whom were very 
> pleasant (not Kerry's), was that Kennedy continues to be shunned by 
> the Dem establishment for his opposition to the war in January 2005.  
> And Kevin Zeese and I did manage to run a workshop on lobbying day on 
> third party prospects in 2008.  It was a good experience.  People are 
> thirsty for it.
> jw
> p.s. Nader has more or less said on CNN that he will be running 
> barring some dramatic about face in the Dem establishment.  
> On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Yarden wrote:
>
> John,
> Now I am confused. How does one compare the values of a person with 
> the values of a a corporation? Advertising. The 'values' advertised by 
> the GRP, are a set of principles formulated by some committee or 
> another, and are composed in an improvable committee grammar. The 
> 'values' advertised by Ralph Nader are inferable from his actions 
> including his statements. I may respect or admire his personal values, 
> but I do not have the illusion that they provide me with a structure 
> of political goals. In another life, I was an admirer of the values of 
> Napoleon Bonaparte. But then he decided that since he was the 
> embodiment of French Revolution, what he happened to desire 'was' the 
> French Revolution, and accepted the Imperial crown to represent the 
> values of that revolution and carry it throughout Europe. I swore I 
> would never treat another man -- I have yet to be tried by a woman -- 
> as an embodiment, or even as an expression of a party's 
> values. Especially if the party is not around to tell that person what 
> the values are at all times. We in the GRP sometimes refer to this as 
> 'participatory democracy,' an easily misunderstood democratic 
> ideological term. For Greens, 'participatory democracy' is the 
> obligation of citizenship, stemming from the recognition that no 
> person can be regarded as present for the rebuilding of our 
> environment unless conscious and at least to that extent, 
> engaged. Plenty of cause for those who think as consumers of 
> governmental services to regard us as 'dysfunctional.'
>
> The people in the South who decided not to sit in the back of the bus 
> were far more so.
> Not only that, but they had the NAACP to tell then that they were 
> dysfunctional. I trust nothing a hear about in Washington. But it is, 
> I admit, a good place to acquire 'attitude.'
> Peace,
> Elie
>
>
> On Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 11:13 AM, John Walsh wrote:
>
> Personally I do not know how the values of the GRP differ from Nader's.
> jw
>
> On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:05 AM, GracCRoss at aol.com wrote:
>
> In2004, Nader decided not to run as a Green then he used the personal 
> loyalty some felt for him to ask us to endorse him as our presidential 
> candidate even though he had already said he did not want to represent 
> us. That attempt to sway people's sense of personal loyalty as opposed 
> to deciding based on our values was incredibly divisive (and still 
> lingers). We are different because we are a values based party - and 
> yet, again, we enter this conversation as if we are not based on 
> values but made our choices based on popularity alone.
>
> Here then the question can legitimately be asked - what's the 
> difference between us and the dems?
> thanks, Grace
> In a message dated 2/8/07 10:56:07 AM, john.walsh at umassmed.edu writes:
>
>
> I am afraid that if Nader decides not to run as a Green, it will be
> the fault of the Greens not Nader.
> The word in Washington at the demonstration among many Greens to whom
> I spoke was that ALMOST everywhere the Greens are dysfunctional. It
> seems that there four things that many Greens do not understand:
> organization, leadership, power and money. If you do not "get" those
> things, then how can you be in politics?
>
> We should ask ourselves to what degree we are effective, rational and
> organized versus ineffective, emotional and bureaucratic. Personally
> I see many very capable people in the GRP, people whom I am proud to
> know and work with, like Jill and Ron and Bill and Chuck and on and
> on. But with all this ability and commitment we seem to be making
> only modest advances. It seems something is wrong, and part of this
> is the lock that the Dems have on MA. Part of it is that quite
> honestly we live in a very conservative state, conservative in the
>
> sense of being very unadventurous and very proper and PC.
> jw
> p.s.
> In 2008 the awful John Kerry will run for Senate again. It is sad
> that we cannot challenge him. After all the guy put his presidential
> ambitions above the lives of so many in 2004!!! What kind of human
> being is he anyway. But I fear we are not in a position to make
> anything but a token run - although it would be very interesting for
> Chuck to have a go at him.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2007, at 10:38 AM, mikeheichman at verizon.net wrote:
>
> > Hi Jamie,
> >
> > 1. I like your idea about a lawsuit--Do we have a lawyer who would be
> > willing to take on the case? If not, I like your
> > idea (expressed in the next message) to conduct a mail ballot to
> > those who
> > we believe are denied the right to
> > participate in our primary.
> >
> > 2. If we worked to make sure that our members would be sufficiently
> > educated about the choices they would have
> > for our primary (and some coverage by us and the media so that 
> non-GRP
> > members who would be eligible to take
> > our ballot would be adequately informed) and if we worked to make
> > sure (and
> > believed that the State would come
> > through) that our members would be able to vote and have their votes
> > accurately counted, I would see NO need for a
> > convention. To the extent that we will predict that the above would
> > not
> > happen, I believe that a convention would be
> > necessary.
> >
> > 3. To prevent packing at a convention, I'm proposing that only
> > eligible GRP
> > members on primary day AND still be
> > members at our convention (whether they voted or not) be allowed to
> > vote at
> > a convention. This would prevent
> > people, including our members, who would engage in party shifting,
> > from
> > having a vote at our convention.
> >
> > 4. I was a Kent Mesplay delegate in 2004. The candidate selected
> > me. Do we
> > have to go along with the past practice
> > in 2004 of allowing the candidates to select their delegates? What
> > are the
> > advantages of this practice? I can see a
> > couple of disadvantages:
> >
> > a.   What if Nader (or someone else), for example, would decide to
> > run in our
> > primary and refuses to be a Green
> > AND selects delegates who are not members of our GRP? Is that OK?
> > It is my
> > belief that only members of the GRP
> > should be delegates.
> > b.   Was there a requirement for the candidates to select a diverse
> > slate?
> > Will there be a requirement in 2008? I
> > believe that having a diverse delegation is more important than
> > “respecting
> > the wishes of the candidates”. I do not
> > know what the rules from the national party should be. If we see
> > this as a
> > potential problem, we can ask our NC
> > members to address this issue-both for our benefit and for the
> > benefit of
> > our national party.
> >
> > 5. Jamie, do you know the rules (and other important information)
> > from both
> > the national and our state parties for
> > 2004? If not you, who? This is something that we should have soon.
> >
> >
> > Mike Heichman
> >
> > --------------------------
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: Jamie O'Keefe jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org
> > Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:48:43 -0500
> > To: mikeheichman at verizon.net, yen.yarden at verizon.net,
> > gracegrnrnbw at aol.com,
> > etwee at earthlink.net,
> > adcom.members at green-rainbow.org, john.walsh at umassmed.edu,
> > experimental_radio at hotmail.com, candidate-
> > development at green-rainbow.org
> > Subject: Re: [candidate-development] Choosing delegates in
> > the2008GRPpresidential primary
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> >> I think that the best thing for us to do is to have a primary and a
> >> convention about 1-2 months after. 50% of the
> >> delegates would come from the results of the primary and 50% by the
> >> convention.
> >
> > While I believe that we need to include members who do not meet the
> > state's criteria, I do not believe that it is a) workable, b)
> > allowable by state law. Also, let us not forget that 1000+ people
> > (and likely more wanted to) participated in our 2004 primary. This is
> > way more than we have ever had vote at a convention.
> >
> > We should focus on increasing that turn out and education our 
> members.
> > A newsletter is good, but local chapters doing outreach is best. If
> > we focus our efforts on registering more voters, then that will help
> > on all points.
> >
> > Personally, I believe that if we are really committed to seeing that
> > our members who are not voters have a vote in the prez primary, then
> > we should sue the state to include them.
> >
> >> To prevent packing and to have transparency in our rules, the only
> >> people
> > who could
> >> vote would be GRP members who were registered by the day of
> >> the primary or to be qualified GRP members by other criteria.
> >
> > That won't stop packing since individuals can change their reg. to
> > Unenrolled, pay a fee and become a member well after the primary
> > occured and it is hard for us to determine that they didn't vote in
> > the primary.
> >
> >> The convention would also choose the delegates. Of
> >> course we would build in affirmative action requirements and select 
> a
> >> diverse delegation.
> >
> > All three of these are in the 2004 plan.
> >
> >> Additionally, part of our plan should be to do some fundraising so
> >> that
> > no one will
> >> be prohibited from attending because of a lack of funds.
> >
> > Yes, and fundraising so we can get our message out after the
> > primary too.
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider 
> -
> > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
> >
> >
> >
>
> John V. Walsh, MD
> Professor of Physiology
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
> 55 Lake Avenue, N.
> Worcester, MA, 01655-0127
> Phone (work): 508-856-3360
> Phone (cell): 508-868-1653
> email: john.walsh at umassmed.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>
>
>
> John V. Walsh, MD
> Professor of Physiology
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
> 55 Lake Avenue, N.
> Worcester, MA, 01655-0127
> Phone (work): 508-856-3360
> Phone (cell): 508-868-1653
> email: john.walsh at umassmed.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>
>
>
> John V. Walsh, MD
>
> Professor of Physiology
>
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
>
> 508-856-3360 (Office)
>
> 508-868-1653 (Cell)
>
> john.walsh at umassmed.edu
>
>