[statecom-discuss] What does "review" mean ?

Tue Jul 24 13:48:43 EDT 2007

Just for clarification please....

Does "review" mean that amendments can be made at the convention, or does review mean that there can be no amendments and the convention must vote Yea or Nay on the existing text ?

ron

BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote: Two thoughts.

First, regarding the dearth of proposals. 

I understand that the Rainbow Caucus has a adopted a position/plan on the subprime mortgage/housing crisis. This interests me very much, but I see no reason to introduce a proposal if a caucus of the party already has a proposal. A party caucus exists to persuade the party to adopt its positions, right?

Until we reorganize our structure and process there is not much point in setting ourselves a lot of new tasks. Hopefully Mike's structure proposals and the Strategy groups's report will be the core discussions at the StateCom meeting on the 29th.

Second, on the reasons behind excluding or endorsing independent candidates. 

There is not the remotest chance of winning either the Presidency or a US Senate seat. We are not talking about running to win these elections. Our organization is far too weak. Our priority must be to change that, to strengthen organization.

We should never run candidates merely "to give voters a real choice." If we can't win, the choice we are offering is not real, but an illusion. The State lives by such illusions; we and our planet perish by them.

On reflection, I would rather not see the GPUS run our own candidate for president in 2008. That is an argument for Nader. Nader's organization is already capable of mounting a significant national electoral campaign; the GPUS and GRP is not. We can make a valuable contribution to such a campaign by affording our ballot lines and infrastructure, however limited. 

If GPUS does run owr own, at this point I want that candidate to be Elaine Brown. As the former national chair of the [old] Black Panther Party, she represents the direction I would like to see GPUS take. The media and the Dems will help us by publicizing our candidate's credentials, thinking that will discredit her and us. If that happens, it may win us a new constituency, in the same way the media and Dems unwittingly helped the movements of the 1960s. 

The task immediately ahead of us is not to win a majority to a watered-down program, but to win a solid majority to a principled program. I am convinced that this is the way we can build a foundation for the future, AND the way to have a real and present impact on US policy.

Many in the GPUS are focused on getting 5 percent of the 2008 presidential vote because it would trigger Federal money for the party. Those folks identify Nader as the best, if not the only, chance of reaching that goal. However, if Nader runs as an independent endorsed by, but not the nominee of the GPUS, he will not receive all his votes as a Green and we probably would't get the money even if he got the 5 percent.

The Nader and Brown options each have advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of strengthening the party. Thus at this point I come down on the side of flexibility. GRP should be able to back whatver choice the 2008 GPUS convention makes.  

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Francis 
>Sent: Jul 24, 2007 2:08 AM
>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: [statecom-discuss] Re: revised proposal for convention-2008 preselect-for discussion
>
>Thanks for the comprehensive summary and the background Mike.
>
> It seems that we aren't getting as many reasons behind the positions people are taking, and more of just the positions...
> 
> Could someone give briefly the arguments for preventing non-members from being on our primary ballot ?, ...and...
> 
> and then someone briefly give the arguments for the opposite position...?
> 
> I think that would help us move forward...
> 
> Ron
>
>Mike Heichman  wrote: 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

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