[statecom-discuss] new and important information from the 1-27 State Comm.

Sat Feb 2 12:08:10 EST 2008

Ah, this helps to clarify -

Nat says:
"More broadly, I cannot understand the argument that placing Ralph 
Nader on the ballot is contrary to the goal of wanting Nader to run 
on our ballot line instead of as an independent. "

Nat does not say whose goal "wanting Nader to run on our ballot line" belongs 
to but his arugment does follow logically from that.

My only problem with it was that that was never the goal of a number of 
people.   And we have no way to verify even what the intent of a majority of the 
State Convention was.

In a world where we are trying to create positive change and are constantly 
being bulldozed by forces greater than us, my goal is to have agreements that 
meet the needs and aspirations of as many of us as possible.   And that, 
especially when the going gets rough (which seems to be every day these days), that 
I can rely upon them.

One sets of agreements for everyone that we can rely on when our backs are 
against the wall in the dark allies of life.   If we want to renegotiate those 
agreements, great - situations change.   But our commitment to each other need 
to remain the same - which to me means not trying to guess at intents when we 
could instead follow (or renegotiate) real agreements.

I did not care *who* was on our ballot line - I cared that whoever they were, 
that they had as much commitment to building our party as we did.   Period.

That is why agreements matter, because many of us, our lives depend upon 
them.   - Grace

PS. Remember neither McKinney nor Nader had declared at that point and 
neither of them were Greens - which is what I had argued for at the Convention)
In a message dated 2/1/08 3:41:21 PM, nat.fortune at comcast.net writes:

> I have given up hope that anything I can say about the presidential 
> primary ballot access process will ever prove satisfactory with 
> everyone, but since I was asked to respond to all of state com, I 
> hope this will suffice for most:
> 
>   The important word in 2.1  about requirements (see below) is ONLY.  
> We took 2.1 to be the only requirements, because that is what the 
> document says. There have been serious allegations from a couple of 
> our own party members  that we failed to follow our own rules, and 
> did so willfully and fraudulently. I find such allegations slanderous 
> and astounding.  We followed the spirit of the State Convention to 
> allow independents in addition to Green Party members and we followed 
> the letter of the requirements that were written.
> 
> More broadly, I cannot understand the argument that placing Ralph 
> Nader on the ballot is contrary to the goal of wanting Nader to run 
> on our ballot line instead of as an independent.  In 2000, with a 
> candidate who happened to be Ralph Nader running for our party's 
> nomination and appearing on our ballot line, we gained major party 
> ballot-access status. In 2004, with Nader running as an independent 
> instead of appearing on our ballot line, the vote was split and we 
> did not keep that status. As a result, many want to ensure this time 
> that Nader seeks our party's nomination instead of running as an 
> independent. Let's suppose you are one such person and you want Nader 
> ( or any other individual) to run on our party's ballot line instead 
> of as an independent. The necessary first step is for that person to 
> actually be on the presidential primary ballot.   If your goal is to 
> encourage Nader to run on the Green Party ticket instead of as an 
> independent, how do you make that happen by leaving him off the 
> ballot? How would leaving him off the ballot discourage him from 
> running as an independent?
> 
> More broadly still, what hubris is it for us to declare that someone 
> who has already twice been our national party's  candidate for 
> president --  on our ballot line ---- is not even worthy of a 
> position on our state party's presidential primary ballot? This is 
> the same behavior that surfaced when Jill Stein sought endorsement 
> for her run for state rep after she had already run for governor on 
> our ticket, and, like Jamie,  had earning a high enough percentage of 
> the vote to preserve our ballot access status.  Is this really how we 
> want to treat those who have run at the head of our ticket? How more 
> discouraging of candidates can we actually be before we have no 
> candidates at all?
> 
> What, precisely, is the goal here? Why are we more content to 
> endlessly bicker about the primary in a contest we will not win this 
> November instead of doing any of the work that would have been 
> necessary to field candidates in races we could win? Why is it 
> thought that this is really the best use of the time of state com, ad 
> com and the co-chairs? Are we afraid to let this party grown in 
> membership (instead of decline) and be successful electorally at ALL 
> levels (instead of flounder at the lowest non-partisan level) because 
> we will no longer have the same influence we have today, for better 
> or worse?  Are we afraid of democracy? Why not let the voters say who 
> merits being the Green Party's presidential candidate this fall? Why 
> would we tolerate an election in which they didn't?
> 
> If discussion on the presidential primary ballot access process must 
> continue,  I hope it is because everyone involved thinks it is more 
> important to spend our time (and the time of others) on this than on 
> any other issue. I hope it is because everyone involved thinks it it 
> is worth splitting the party over.
> 
> signing off,
> 
> Nat Fortune
> 
> 
> > On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:21 PM, mikeheichman at verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > 2.1 Requirements
> >
> > The only requirements for a candidate to be placed on the presidential
> > primary ballot are:
> >
> > (Note from Mike: ãAä is crossed out.) That the candidate be either 
> > a Green
> > Party member in their home state
> > (provided their home state has an active state Green Party that has
> > membership criteria) or, in lieu of a state Green
> > Party membership criteria, be a declared Green Party member 
> > according to
> > their stateâs regular process, or be an
> > independent, i.e. a member of no other political party who indicate 
> > their
> > intent to be placed on our presidential
> > primary ballot and their support of the Green Partyâs 10 Key 
> > values. Proof
> > of being a Green Party member is based on
> > the membership requirements of the candidateâs home state party.
> >
> > (B) That the candidate declare support of the Green Partyâs 10 Key 
> > Values.ÿ
> > (Note: This whole line is crossed out.)
> >
> >
> > 2.2 Contacting candidates to be on the presidential primary ballot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 

**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)