[statecom-discuss]

[mikeheichman at verizon.net]

I agree with Lloyd.

Let's have the strategy and also some party discipline (something that
Annie often emphasizes). Let us also respect 
the diversity of our members and "let 1 million flowers bloom".

Mike Heichman


Original Message:
-----------------
From:  liveinamerica at cctvcambridge.org
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:38:39 +0000
To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org, statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
Subject: Re:  [statecom-discuss]


  Hi Folks!Does it have to be either or?!It seems that there is an equal
need
  for the effort at both levels that is being planned for.One without the 
  can never be as effective!The sane should happen throughout the state
  wherever the effort can be initiated.What do folks think?Lloyd



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Merelice [mailto:merelice at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 05:04 AM
> To: 'Discussion List for StateCom members'
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] "Local Ballots 2008" Sunday Feb 18th
	conference call 9:30pm
> 
> Well, Ron, until you have brought yourself up-to-date about the
> strategy committee, you can't really address my concern. The strategy
> committee is NOT about Statecom or about a statewide plan that has no
> local relevance or flexibility. Nor is it about being "involved at the
> state-level." The committee will be made up of a representative from
> every local chapter, caucus, and working committee along with six
> others who add some diversity of viewpoints, regional perspectives,
> etc.
> 
> Of course the party will not dictate what folks should or should not
> do. But it is exactly the kind of direction and clarification that you
> are bringing to your effort that many many members have yearned for in
> the GRP as a whole. Why would you not want to share your experience
> and your enthusiasm with a broader group of members? Why the sudden
> sense of urgency to proceed unilaterally, when a couple of months of
> strategizing could add broader viability and effectiveness? And why
> set up a "straw man" so you can knock it down? (That is what your
> negative description of the strategy committee process is. This isn't
> about "a long protracted process involving lengthy discussions that
> doesn't clearly lead to any definitive results." Ouch! You really know
> how to hurt a person.)
> 
> The Rainbow Coalition Caucus also put forth a proposal at StateCom for
> a two-year program which Gary and I sponsored. But we withdrew it and
> cosponsored the strategy committee proposal (with some changes to the
> original language to accommodate us). I expect that, as a caucus, we
> will refine and advocate for some version of our abolish-poverty
> program within the strategy committee. Your program would certainly be
> consistent with that. But if you're going to take ownership, proceed
> separately, limit your leadership, and not participate in the process,
> I believe we will have lost an important opportunity to add a
> multiplier effect to whatever we do.
> 
> Merelice
> 
> 
> On 2/15/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi Merelice,
> >
> >   I look forward to a discussion of different plans at different venues
with the State level strategy discussions 
being just one venue out of many different venues.
> >
> >   "Local Ballots 2008" focuses more on local work and local strategies.
I'm finding that many people, who are 
not involved at the state-level seem attracted to this plan and outreach
hasn't even really begun yet except for a few 
emails.  It may be that folks not involved at the state level are attracted
to a concrete plan rather than a long 
protracted process involving lengthy discussions that doesn't clearly lead
to any definitive results (and might just 
lead to a consensus to try different strategies anyway....)
> >
> >   In any event, if at the end of the day there are enough people in our
party who want to do something, then 
they can and should do it, and they should also try to attract others
especially many folks who just aren't involved at 
the state level of discussion and also have no idea about things being
discussed in statecom.
> >
> >   Nothing stops another subset of GRPs, such as statecom, from trying a
diferent plan that attracts a different 
type of person.   One glove does not fit all hands.  We should let each
idea prosper to the extent that it can.
> >
> >   ron
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 


_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting