[statecom-discuss] (different plans and strategies...)

Fri Feb 16 13:41:46 EST 2007

We should be careful with this....Outreach can become difficult if it involves mutliple items being thrown at people simultaneously... people can get confused and time can be limited too. 

  (One of the reasons the Maine candidate search model worked well (in the opinion of the Maine coordinator) is because the 1500 or so people who were called were asked only one question:  Are you interested in running ?   Respondents could give one of 3 answers: Yes, No, Maybe (see notes on this that I have posted before...))

  Similarly, outreach is often better if focused.

  Agreed (with last two comments) that there is no reason not to have free flow of information and coordination (which is why I post to as many lists as I can... no reason to hide what one is doing...), but that does not necessarily mean simultaneous outreach.  

  At any rate it seems like it will probably be a while before other plans are developed, written down and criticized....especially if it will take a few "strategic" discussion meetings that due to a lot of varied reasons may take time (let's hope not,... but it could happen that way)

  I also agree with Jamie that positive energy is what is needed.  We should all support each other's different plans... and wish each initiative the best and support each effort with as much as we can and be true to our own internal anaylsis about the best ways to use the energy in our individual lives to benefit GRP.

  The "Local Ballots 2008" is exciting to me for the same reason that the Right of Return ballot question was so galvanizing (even 49.9 % in my own precinct).  It is because the ballot question medium itself inherently allows direct democracy on a fundamental question and so it allowed each ordinary person to basically say, in an unambiguous fashion, that the major parties were wrong on a fundamental matter;  45 % of the people rejected Patrick, Healey, Capuano and the other apartheid supporting racists and instead realized that the GRP values applied to Palestinian refugees can only lead to one rational and socially just conclusion: full right of return for all refugees as an inalienable human right.

  As long as our ballot question, whatever the particular word or issues, makes it clear how we are fundamentally different from the corporate and zionist parties, and gives each individual the chance to express that, then the ballot question will tap into that energy that is out there that says "the Dems and Republicans are fundamentally screwed up... they just don't get it....I'm going GRP and the reason is right there in the text of the ballot question...how could you not support what this ballot question says...."

  I'm rarin' to get going !   

  I hope everyone can join in on the Sunday phone conference.

  Ron 617 230-2835

Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
  Lloyd - yes, both - I am simply in agreement that coordinating things so that 
members who are reached are told about all plans and how to plug in - The 
ballot initiative needs to be part of the overall menu of optoins, so needs to be 
part of the larger strategy discussion.

In a message dated 2/16/07 11:39:09 AM, liveinamerica at cctvcambridge.org 
writes:

>   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 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
> 

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