[statecom-discuss] Re: [candidate-development] revised proposal for convention-2008 preselect-for discussion

[Mike Heichman]

7-23

Hi Everyone:

I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion so far. 
I just finished having another phone conversation with Elie, the author 
of the proposal which was approved by the January 21 State Comm. meeting.

A. I want to respond to those who want to bring this item before the 
next State Comm. meeting. I am not opposed, but I refuse to be the 
primary sponsor. The last time I checked the website-I’m so far the only 
one who has made any proposals (6) for the upcoming meeting. So, if 
anyone else wants to make a proposal for the upcoming meeting, please do so.

B. Back on January 21, Elie accepted my amendment as friendly to review 
the decision at the annual convention. By review, I saw that there was 
an important difference in the party about an important issue and that 
there was an excellent possibility that, as the campaign season moved 
forward, there would be members of the party, including me, that would 
be in disagreement with at least parts of the ratified proposal. I also 
believed then and do so today that the place to resolve important 
differences about important issues is at our annual convention, the 
highest decision-making body of the party.

C. The decision made on January 21:

1. We, the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts declare that, in the 
upcoming Presidential election, 2008, we will place in nomination 
candidates for the Presidency on the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow primary 
ballot.
2. We will consider as candidates only those who wish to have their 
names placed on the ballot, and will select delegates to the Green Party 
Nominating Convention by the same, or improved, apportionment methods 
that were used in the election of 2004.
3. We will not, as a party, endorse or give support to independent 
candidates or candidates of other parties.

Mike Heichman wanted to insert language to automatically have this 
decision reviewed by the State Convention. Elie agreed that this is a 
friendly amendment.

The proposal was adopted with no remaining concerns in the expedited 
round! 4:04PM.

D. My current thinking about the adopted proposal:

1. No change in #1
2. No change in #2: I want to clarify. We will not place on our ballot 
line the name of any candidate who is not pursuing the Green Party’s 
nomination for president in 2008 and will not place on our line the name 
of any candidate who will not consent to have their name on the GRP line 
for the March 4, 2008 presidential primary.
3. I want to change #3 by removing the prohibition of support for 
independent candidates. The new language would read, “We will not, as a 
party, endorse or give support to candidates of other parties.”

E. I interpret the above as a proposed change to the existing policy, 
consistent with the wording and intention of the Elie Yarden proposal 
accepted by the January 21 State Comm. meeting. In no way do I see this 
as a new proposal. I have sent to the Convention Planning Committee a 
request of a review of this decision. I understand and respect that 
other members of the party may still have a different interpretation of 
what I am doing.

F. Earlier today Elie sent an e-mail which described what he saw as the 
differences that have currently been expressed. He also expressed the 
belief that these differences need to be discussed. There is also a very 
important concern that we not get bogged down at the convention in a 
long (and nasty-my concern) debate. It is my hope that we have a 
productive discussion before the convention (e-mail, etc.) and hopefully 
the time we spend on this topic at the convention will be comparatively 
brief and civil.

G. This is my position:

1. I would prefer that the presidential ticket be members of the Green 
Party.
2. I would prefer that the presidential ticket be members of the Green 
Party who would have the resources to run a “serious” campaign for the 
nomination, and have the capacity along with the party to run a 
“serious” national campaign all the way to Election Day in November.
3. As of today, I see no current Green Party member who has the 
resources to run even a “modest” campaign for the nomination and the 
potential of running even a “modest” campaign after their nomination. 
This could change and I hope that it will.
4. I am appreciative of all those members of our party who are seriously 
interested in running for the Green Party nomination-regardless of the 
perception of the amount of resources and potential that they may have 
to run a national campaign. Without question, all of them will deserve a 
place on our state’s party line if they decide to continue to pursue 
their candidacy and will give their consent to be on our ballot. They 
deserve our consideration.
5. As of now there are two people who are comparatively speaking well 
known and the perception is that they have more resources and more 
potential to run a serious campaign for president. They are Ralph Nader 
and Cynthia McKinney. I believe that both of them are “Independents” and 
both of them are considering running for president.
6. I hope that they will decide to run for president. I hope that they 
will decide to run for the Green Party’s nomination. I hope that they 
will publicly change their party affiliation and become members of the 
Green Party.
7. If one or both decide to run for the Green Party nomination and if 
they decide to consent to have their name placed on our state’s ballot, 
there are members of our state party, including myself, who will want to 
have their names on our primary ballot, even if they remain unwilling to 
publicly become Green Party members.
8. It is my understanding that there is a member of our party who 
believes that there is no such thing as an “Independent” running in a 
party’s primary. A “Real Independent” would gather the necessary 10,000 
signatures to appear only on the November ballot. Therefore, if Nader 
and/or McKinney, decides to run for the Green Party’s nomination and if 
they agreed to have their names placed on our PRIMARY/PARTY ballot, then 
they are by definition, Greens. (This is my understanding of this 
person’s belief. I will not name him/her, but will ask him/her to better 
explain his/her position.) While this interpretation makes a lot of 
sense to me, I believe that this is an interpretation that is open to 
discussion.)
9. Regardless of whether or not they would be considered as 
“Independents”, I believe that it would be wrong and damaging to our 
party to deny them a place on our ballot.
10. As one of the leaders of my party, I believe that it is my 
responsibility to represent more than my own preferences. On March 4, 
2008, I want every member of our party, who believes in the building of 
a progressive 3rd/alternative party and movement, to be able to vote in 
our primary and have their preferred choice on our ballot.

H. I believe that there are other members of the party who strongly 
disagree with my position. My understanding is that they believe that 
the current statement would deny anyone a place on our primary/party 
ballot line who would not be willing to publicly be a member of the 
Green Party. They want to maintain the current policy and believe that 
it best represents the values and future direction of our party. I hope 
that this is an accurate and brief summary of their position. I ask my 
fellow members of the GRP to correct any misunderstanding.

I. I agree with Elie. There is currently a disagreement. So, let’s 
continue to have a good discussion.

Love,

Mike Heichman
mikeheichman at verizon.net
617-265-8143