[statecom-discuss] A glimpse from outside: Natlcomaffairs Digest, Vol 52, Issue 15
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Sat Feb 2 00:09:42 EST 2008
The subject is clear. Get a little distance. Still in the USA, where
what people believe electoral politics to be is not that different
inside the party from what it is in the society whose political
consciousness of planetary reality we seek to alter. For the CDLC and
AdCom, Message 4 from Howie Hawkins clarifies who is asking for lists
-- the DraftNader Committee that asked us to place him on the GRP
ballot.
Elie Yarden,
delegate, NCMA GRP
Begin forwarded message:
> From: natlcomaffairs-request at green.gpus.org
> Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 6:41:20 PM US/Eastern
> To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Subject: Natlcomaffairs Digest, Vol 52, Issue 15
> Reply-To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
>
> Send Natlcomaffairs mailing list submissions to
> natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> natlcomaffairs-request at green.gpus.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> natlcomaffairs-owner at green.gpus.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Natlcomaffairs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Are we missing the big green picture? (monte letourneau)
> 2. Re: what do you say about the lettter (sandylemberg at juno.com)
> 3. Nader and Catch 22 (greenpartymike)
> 4. Re: Nader and Catch 22 (Howie Hawkins)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:12:57 -0600
> From: "monte letourneau" <geanark at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] Are we missing the big green picture?
> To: "Discussion GPUS-NC" <natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4de340200802011512x1d7f4aakb431b4dbb3114c40 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> boy, if that is not a good argument for polling ourselves, as to which
> are
> the most important questions to poll our volunteers and donors, as to
> which
> are the questions we need to poll our voters on, i don't know what is.
>
> excellent letter Phil, i don't think most of us can trust anyone else
> better
> to know, and express, just how much we don't know about our own
> opinions,
> much less those of our voters.
>
> in a time when Zogby, and my poli sci statistics class, are amazing so
> many
> people with how many things the electorate really agrees on, we can't
> seem
> to see the forest for being the trees.
>
> i don't know what committee should be responsible, or if there should
> be a
> new comm of public opinion research, but i know which committee should
> have
> the task of polling the NC. the NC should. if anyone else has an
> interest in
> this, let's see y'all start floating what questions you think we most
> need
> to know what we think about.
>
> the first one is not a multiple choice, it is open ended, *what is the
> most
> important issue to GPUS voters?*
>
> but for now let's start easy, does anyone else think we need to know
> each
> other's opinions, if so, about what?
>
> monte letourneau WI
>
> On Feb 1, 2008 4:53 PM, Phil Huckelberry <phil.huckelberry at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim McKee writes:
>>> Are we missing the big green picture?
>>
>> The picture is like one of those photomosaic things, where there's a
>> whole lot of little pictures that aren't necessarily obviously related
>> which compose the larger picture. The difference is that here, if you
>> don't understand what many of the little pictures are, you don't
>> really understand what the big picture is.
>>
>> There is a much greater diversity of opinion within the party than I
>> think most people really understand. People are too quick to assume
>> that others can be divided into one category or another, overlooking
>> or even intentionally blowing off the nuance in a lot of positions.
>>
>> It's clear to me that some people really believe that the essential
>> question revolves around Nader, as in, go with Nader or go against
>> Nader. I think anyone who believes this has either been sold a bill
>> of goods or is in denial. Nader is a major piece in the puzzle, but
>> not the essential component.
>>
>> There has also been an attempt in recent years to oversimplify things
>> into the notion that there is one group who favors "independence" and
>> another group who doesn't. It's a largely false construct, borne out
>> of a lack of understanding of what other people really think. But at
>> least this is closer to the heart of the matter than Nader himself is.
>>
>> I think the essential question is this: What is the Green Party
>> capable of becoming?
>>
>> Answering this question inevitably leads many people into
>> contradictions they can't resolve. Consider the Green who believes
>> these three things:
>>
>> a) that the Green Party is fundamentally different than other
>> political
>> parties;
>> b) that the two-party system is fundamentally corrupt;
>> c) that the Green Party will replace the Democratic Party.
>>
>> A whole lot of people believe the first two things, but I think
>> there's a pretty significant number who believe the third thing as
>> well. How do you reconcile that with the first two? (I'm not asking
>> someone to; I'm pointing out that it's a remarkably difficult thing
>> for most people to do.)
>>
>> If I have the essential question right, then it can be used as context
>> for the question of what should happen with the presidential race.
>> What do we want in a nominee? Well, that depends on what people the
>> party is capable of, doesn't it? It depends on where people think
>> support can actually come from, and how much of that support might be
>> available from such places.
>>
>> One of the reasons I personally find the current state of affairs
>> frustrating is because Greens aren't being given an opportunity to ask
>> the questions that I think they really want to ask, because the field
>> isn't clear. For example, I think many Greens believe that it's very
>> important to make a top priority of reaching out to communities of
>> color directly, and they believe that a McKinney-led ticket will do
>> that. Other Greens believe that Nader will be more attractive to
>> voters and will be able to win move votes. This leads to some pretty
>> basic questions:
>>
>> For McKinney: How would a McKinney-led ticket make inroads into
>> communities of color? What is the actual plan?
>>
>> For Nader: What voters would a Nader-led ticket attract that haven't
>> voted for Nader in the past?
>>
>> For Green voters: Is the goal even to maximize votes in 2008, or is
>> the goal to maximize something less tangible like "outreach"?
>>
>> Also for Green voters: Do you believe there is a good chance of
>> winning 5% in this election under any circumstances, and is that the
>> basis upon which you would support a candidate?
>>
>> I think - well, no, I know - that one of the things that exasperates
>> people the most about Nader not having decided/declared is that he has
>> not put himself in a position to answer any such questions that might
>> be asked of him. If Greens are especially interested in maximizing
>> vote totals but have seen no persuasive argument as to why either
>> Nader or McKinney would be able to do so, but at least there's some
>> sort of vague answer coming out of the McKinney camp, that's going to
>> look better than a camp that can't or won't answer any questions at
>> all. This exasperation is one of the little pictures that makes up
>> the big green picture. As much as it doesn't matter to some people,
>> it definitely matters to others.
>>
>> At the same time, I think - well, again, I know - that a lot of people
>> believe that Nader is much better equipped to run a strong campaign,
>> that he has access to better fundraising, to campaign people with more
>> experience, etc. There's sort of a built-in assumption that Nader,
>> having done this before, will be better equipped to do it again, that
>> he and his people will be better able to deal with ballot access
>> requirements (and ballot access lawsuits), etc. Nader has more of a
>> track record than McKinney, and when I speak to people who are Nader
>> supporters, they're not confident that McKinney would be able to
>> handle what they see as headed her way. That lack of confidence is
>> also one of the little pictures that makes up the big green picture.
>> As much as this seems to many people like something which can be
>> dismissed, to others, it's a big deal.
>>
>> One interesting thing that I've noticed about this race is that I just
>> don't see people acting as though they're undecided. Among likely
>> Green voters I know in my immediate vicinity in Chicago and in other
>> parts of Illinois, I think 90% of them made up their minds as to who
>> they would vote for pretty much immediately once they knew what the
>> choices would be. I'm in the other 10% (not that this stops people
>> from assuming otherwise) which has actually been very helpful for me
>> in gaining a sense of what's going on on the ground - and one of the
>> things I can say is that just because that 90% made their minds up
>> very quickly doesn't mean that they did so with a great deal of
>> conviction. Rather, I think for the majority of them, the decision
>> was automatic because they only saw one prominent candidate in the
>> race. Look at the primary ballot in Illinois: two declared
>> candidates, one withdrawn candidate, one stand-in candidate. So >> don't
>> be surprised if Kent Mesplay finishes a strong second in Illinois.
>> (That's a little piece of the puzzle that most people probably
>> wouldn't have known.)
>>
>> The big green picture involves a lot of people who don't understand
>> any of the dynamics at the national party level, who don't understand
>> what a "demogreen" is, and who have very different concepts of what
>> they think the party is legitimately capable of, this year and into
>> the future. These are people who range from liberals who really do
>> keep one foot in the door of the Democratic Party to anarchists who
>> keep one foot in some other door to people who think Ron Paul is the
>> best major-party candidate going because he "tells it like it is" to
>> who knows who else. And this is at a point in our development where
>> we are still very small! We really don't know our silent members very
>> well, and I'm constantly surprised by some of the messages I get from
>> some of them, one who's running as a Ron Paul delegate (no joke),
>> people who when they join the party put "Democratic" or "Republican"
>> under local party because they honestly think they're supposed to put
>> one or the other. And then we waste so much time sniping back and
>> forth, grumbling about people who aren't "Green" enough, and then turn
>> around and talk about how we're going to get 5,000,000+ votes in 2008.
>> Folks, there aren't 5,000,000 people out there who are just like you,
>> or just like me, or just like anyone here. There aren't 5,000. There
>> aren't 50. The point is to get those 5,000,000+ to support a strong
>> candidate running a strong campaign with a strong party boasting a
>> strong platform. That, in my mind, is what we're capable of this
>> year, and therefore, that, to me, is the big green picture.
>>
>> Phil Huckelberry
>> Co-Chair, GPUS
>> Delegate, Illinois
>> _______________________________________________
> -------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:05:54 -0700
> From: sandylemberg at juno.com
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] what do you say about the lettter
> To: SteveGeiger at Freightliner.com
> Cc: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Message-ID: <20080201.162000.1424.139.sandylemberg at juno.com>
>
>
> This thinking is completely wrong headed.
>
> You are once again saying that the problem is not what Brent did or
> said, but that he got caught.
>
> Every instance of this viewpoint being stated constitutes a
> reinforcement of the propriety and necessity of the disclosure from
> Liz.
>
> This is not a matter of "internal political "gain" ". It is a matter
> of a pattern of misconduct which caused our leading presidential
> contender to drop out of the race and quit the Party --- with good
> reason and complete justification.
>
> The power elite of the GPUS has yet to acknowledge that Brent's action
> was problematic; only that outing him was problematic.
>
> I see no process that the power elite of the GPUS has in place to
> address the problem of what Brent did.
>
> All this simply reinforces the necessity of Liz's disclosure.
> Furthermore, this affair is just the tip of the iceberg of the
> dysfunctional state of the GPUS. The GPUS seriously needs to clean up
> its own house before trying to deal with "Ballot Lines" and trying to
> tell
> the US population how the country should be run.
>
> Sandy
>
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:39:11 -0800 SteveGeiger at Freightliner.com writes:
>> David McCorquodale wrote:
>> "We can't be censuring people for private thoughts. It's public
>> behavior that matters and the blame goes to the person who, if she
>> were concerned about the behavior of a GPUS employee, should have
>> handled this as a personnel matter, instead of broadcasting it for
>> entire world to see to the embarrassment of GPUS and Elaine Brown."
>>
>> I have to agree that this situation became much much worse once it
>> was leaked out to the public. But this is what happens when people
>> put a bigger priority on internal
>> political "gain" than they do with the rights of those who would be
>> adversely affected, in this case Elaine Brown.
>>
>> If this grievance would have been handled internally, everyone would
>> be much better off.
>> Hopefully this will serve as a lesson for future "leakers".
>>
>> Steve Geiger
>> Oregon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:23:33 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
> From: greenpartymike <ollamhfaery at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [usgp-dx] Nader and Catch 22
> To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Message-ID:
> <26989627.1201908214285.JavaMail.root at elwamui-
> rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I have posted these two posts together by Jill from Wisconsin and John
> Walsh from
> MA. This is my second attempt to post.
>
> It shows the dilemma we are in. The Nader supporters are saying, quite
> clearly that
> they and probably Nader do not trust some of those at the levers of
> power in the
> GP to be fair with the Nader campaign. That they fear that backroom
> deals will be
> made in attempts to sabatogue his campaign. They point out that there
> are those
> who refuse to give the Nader Exploratory Committee the lists that have
> been given
> to the other campaigns.
>
> Jill responds that in Wisconsin they are not going to give the Nader
> Exploratory
> Committee the names and contacts there or even have Nader on the
> ballot until Ralph
> Nader declares as a Green.
>
> I can see both sides but quite frankly, I'm sorry but Ralph Nader is a
> special
> case. He has proven himself to us and I hope and pray to God that we
> do not force
> him and his supporters to do what they did in 2004. Because that is
> what this kind
> of dynamics sets up.
>
> Sadly, I expect this plea to fall on deaf ears.
> Michael Cavlan
> Minnesota
>
> John,
> I have moved this to the affairs list.
> Like you, I hope that Ralph runs as a Green. I have been hoping that
> for
> many months now. I, and the rest of the Coordinating Council in
> Wisconsin,
> want to give the Green voters in Wisconsin a chance to vote for him,
> and
> will do so if he declares himself to be a Green candidate by they time
> we
> have to send our ballot to the printer.
> However, I would not be in favor of giving any of our state contact
> list to
> any candidate that has not already declared himself to be a Green
> candidate.
> This is a protection for our state party, for its Green voters, and
> for our
> Green democratic process. Since Ralph has not, at this time, declared
> himself to be a Green candidate, I would be against sharing any lists
> with
> his campaign - exploratory or draft. If and when he declares himself
> to be
> a Green candidate, I would be fully in favor of sharing lists with
> him, as I
> would with all other Green declared presidential candidats.
> Jill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: natlcomvotes-bounces at green.gpus.org
> [mailto:natlcomvotes-bounces at green.gpus.org]On Behalf Of John Walsh
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:42 AM
> To: sandylemberg at juno.com
> Cc: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org; natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org;
> grns-gpoc at greens.org
> Subject: Re: [usgp-nc] Fw: RE: [GPOC] Fw: Draft 2008 GPUS
> NationalFundraising Drive(was Prop 338 Recess Vote)
>
> I find it hard to raise more funds for the GP when a handful of people
> here in MA have been trying to remove Ralph from the ballot by
> undemocratic means and have prevented his supporters from getting
> phone lists that have been given to at least one other candidate.I
> might say that our State Convention and our State Committee have voted
> down these attempts at every turn - but the cabal by holding certain
> levers of power is defying our co-chairs and democratic votes and
> depriving Nader of support. If we can ever get around these maneuvers,
> it will probably be too late for Super Tuesday.
>
> So I raise money for the GP and I work for it and I collect signatures
> for it and Ralph, my favorite AT THE MOMENT, cannot get the resources
> he deserves. Who would want to belong to such an undemocratic
> organization? I hope things change and soon.
>
> Now if folks wonder why Ralph wants to preserve a measure of
> independence, then think about this. If he places himself at the
> mercy of the GP, he will be at the mercy of backroom maneuvers such as
> these.
> Best,
> john walsh (MA delegate)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:41:53 -0500
> From: Howie Hawkins <hhawkins at igc.org>
> Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] Nader and Catch 22
> To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
> Message-ID: <E1JL5VY-0006De-00 at pop06.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> For the record:
>
> The Nader Exploratory Committee is not asking for lists. It is not
> campaigning, only testing the waters for funding and volunteers for a
> possible campaign.
>
> It is members of the Draft Nader Committee who are asking for the
> lists for phone canvassing in MA, where Nader is on the ballot, as
> part of its effort to draft Nader for the Green nomination.
>
> For the sake of the Green Party:
>
> We are going to be bigger and more unified in the end if the
> nomination is seen as legitimate. That can happen if we include all
> potential nominees and let the grassroots members pick their
> preferences. If party officers at the state or national level exclude
> Nader (or anybody else), it may leave Nader, his Green supporters, and
> the other people he can reach feeling they have been pushed out of the
> Green Party by the process.
>
> -- Howie Hawkins
> End of Natlcomaffairs Digest, Vol 52, Issue 15
> **********************************************
>
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list