[statecom-discuss] [candidate-development] [adcom] Nader seeks Green Party nomination

[Yarden]

Dan,
If I use the word fear, I use it with regard to those people who are 
engaging in demonizing, and/or treating those people in the party who 
are convinced that Nader would make a good candidate, as having the 
power to prevent anyone else from being our candidate.  The probability 
of this occurring is so poor that a it does appear like an irrational 
belief to anyone familiar with opinion in the NC, or in any of the 
State parties.

Certainly the DraftNader people who put Nader on our ballot have no 
intention of seeking an endorsement.  If you wish to accuse them of a 
conspiracy to deceive us  (And there are Naderites in the GPUS who 
believe that the DraftNader Committee is a conspiracy to prevent Nader 
from running independently), go ahead and say so.  Nader did not know 
what he was going to do, or what he had the strength to do.  It 
probably has far more to do with reality testing than we are in the 
habit of doing.

Perhaps it is we who should learn more about the realities of running 
for public office before we undertake to devote our limited energies to 
fantasy games.  I am sorry if I do you a disservice when I consider the 
possibility of Nader seeking and getting the endorsement of the GPUS to 
be a fantasy, whether based on fear or lack of knowledge of what is 
going on. It is far more worthwhile to find out than to suppose. One of 
the eleventh principles of ecological action.  But ones sympathies can 
get in the way of genuine compassion.
Peace,
Elie


On Friday, February 1, 2008, at 03:24  PM, Daniel Melnechuk wrote:

> Dear Merelice,
>
> By saying it is a fear, you do a disservice to persons concerned that
> Nader is going for an endorsement of our party. The use of the word
> fear has the implications that people are irrational.
>
> It is a concern about building the party, both locally and
> nationally, and what will happen at the national convention. GP rules
> state that they will only nominate a candidate, not endorse one for
> president. So Nader should have no problem saying that he is seeking
> the nomination. Yet if you read the transcript there is something
> very telling:
>
>
>> AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, if you run, would you run as an
>> independent or would you run for the Green Party nomination?
>>
>> RALPH NADER: Well, if I run ... and we are testing the waters
>> now ... I would certainly go for the ballot lines with the Green
>> Party. I would go for ...
>>
>> AMY GOODMAN: So you would go against Cynthia McKinney?
>>
>> RALPH NADER: We'll go for ... well, that remains to be seen. It's a
>> little early right now. But we'll go independent in states where
>> there aren't any parties. We'll look for progressive small parties
>> at the state level. You have to do that just to get on state
>> ballots, where there are very obstructive rules. And my campaign
>> manager, Theresa Amato, in '04 is finishing a very detailed book on
>> this major civil liberties issue of obstructing candidates' rights,
>> without which voter rights aren't worth very much. When you have 90
>> percent of the House districts one party ...
>
>
> Nader's "that remains to be seen" in response to going against
> Cynthia McKinney is a clear indication that Nader has not decided if
> he is seeking the nomination of the Green party or not. Nader wants
> to get on the ballot any way he can as he states himself. By saying
> it remains to be seen, he is saying that he may be running as an
> independent since he can't be on a ballot in November against
> McKinney if Nader gets the nomination instead of McKinney. What else
> can he mean by that?
>
> Peace,
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Merelice wrote:
>
>> So, can we at least conclude that Nader will NOT seek GRP endorsement
>> instead of nomination -- which is one fear that keeps coming up within
>> the GRP? That much seems clear.
>>
>> Merelice
>>
>> On 2/1/08, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org> wrote:
>>> Would that were the case, but sadly the full transcript of that
>>> part of the
>>>  conversation is less clear.  See below.
>>>
>>>  He does not say that he would go for the nomination.  He said he
>>> would
>>>  certainly go with the ballot lines of the Green Party and then
>>> goes on to
>>>  say that it remains to be seen whether he would oppose Cynthia
>>> McKinney and
>>>  then says:
>>>
>>>    "But we'll go independent in states where there aren't any
>>> parties. We'll
>>>
>>> look for progressive small parties at the state level."
>> _______________________________________________
>> AdCom mailing list
>> AdCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom
>> To email Administration Committee members: adcom.members AT green-
>> rainbow DOT org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>