[statecom-discuss] statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 253, Issue 4

[Yarden]

While you spend the day "fighting for the soul of our party," I plan to 
be spending it peaceably walking my precinct, distributing information 
about its reality for the voter who may wish to ignore its soul, and 
learn its principles.  Some new, calm and generous people may wish to 
join with us in accomplishing the tasks we set ourselves.

It is not difficult, for anyone familiar with the interminable quarrels 
over rules in seeking personal advantage, or the investment of personal 
identity in opinion that prevails in the politics of the Duopoly, to 
understand why those who come out of this competitive culture enjoy 
"fighting for the soul" of their party.

I am leaving this noise to work for a more inclusionary party, by 
trying to bring people into our work -- many more than we know -- who 
already understand what we say, and are much better at doing it,  They, 
truly amazed by the kind of energy that a few people can devote to the 
questionable joys of a passionately overdrawn tantrum, respond 
differently.
Some are surprised by what we are able to accomplish despite the 
nonsense.  Others are amazed by the extent of our tolerance.  And yet 
others wonder if they want to be infected by it -- usually because they 
are already doing what we claim, and without the illnesses that seem to 
accompany it.
Elie Yarden
Cambridgeport


On Saturday, February 2, 2008, at 11:21  PM, 
statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:

> Send statecom-discuss mailing list submissions to
> 	statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	statecom-discuss-owner at green-rainbow.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of statecom-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. goals (Nat Fortune)
>    2. agreements (Nat Fortune)
>    3. Re: fighting for the soul of our party (Ron Francis)
>    4. Re: fighting for the soul of our party (Nat Fortune)
>    5. Re: fighting for the soul of our party (Jamie O'Keefe)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:51:38 -0500
> From: Nat Fortune <nat.fortune at comcast.net>
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] goals
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> 	<statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <030BFA43-35DF-41FE-81F0-FA8C86F04584 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
>> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> The goal I referred to was doing Y INSTEAD of Z, where Y is run on
> our ballot  and Z is run as an independent. The INSTEAD is important,
> and the prospect of Z instead of Y is what has been voiced repeatedly
> as a concern in these discussions.   That is the concern I was trying
> to address.
>
> As for the intent of State Convention, I was referring to state
> conventions decision   to extend an invitation to both Greens and
> qualified independents to be on our ballot.   We are still hearing
> objections to having Nader on the ballot based on the argument that
> he is an independent rather than a member of the Green party. That
> Nader is an independent is something worth considering by voters on
> Feb 5th, but party membership was a criteria that State Con
> explicitly chose NOT to require.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:56:05 -0500
> From: Nat Fortune <nat.fortune at comcast.net>
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] agreements
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> 	<statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <1906C2F1-3642-473A-A12D-BBB7117D17E8 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=US-ASCII;	delsp=yes;	format=flowed
>
>
>> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> what agreement did we violate? We followed the wording that you
> yourself provided, in writing. The innuendo that we did otherwise is
> disrespectful and dishonorable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:30:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] fighting for the soul of our party
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> 	<statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <712803.33624.qm at web32204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Just an informational point:
>
> Is everyone agreed that the 3 points cited in this post are in fact 
> the requirements ?
>
> And is everyone agreed that Mr. Nader only satisfied 1 of the 3 ?
>
> I am just curious as to if there are any disagreements as to the facts 
> of the case.
>
> Ron
>
>
> 1) You have to be either a Green Party member or an Independent
>  (not a
> member of another political party.)
> 2) You have to be a DECLARED CANDIDATE pursuing the GREEN
>  PARTY?S
> NOMINATION for the presidency.
> 3) The CANDIDATE or her/his CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE must send us a
>  LETTER ?
>
> a. declaring their intent to be placed on our presidential
>  primary ballot
> b. declaring their support for our ?10 Key Values?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote: (This is a 
> continuation from Nat's response to my e-mail message of 2-01.)
>
> Feb. 2
>
> Hi Nat (and other State Committee Members),
>
> Thanks for responding. I know that you are busy and other members of
> State Committee members are busy, too. However, I encourage everybody 
> to
> respond when you have a chance. After all, this is not really about the
> future of Mr. Nader. This is about the future of our State Party
>
> I ask for understanding and your patience, because I need to respond
> once again.
>
> I. The Co-Chair?s Report to the State Committee and the ?Green-Rainbow
> Party?s Presidential Election Year Plan? document
>
> A. On Feb1, Nat wrote: ?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.
>
> If Nat is right, then the only requirement would be ?2.1?, which says:
> ?The only requirements for a candidate to be placed on the presidential
> primary ballot are:
>
> (A) 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 state?s
> 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 Party?s 10
> Key values. Proof of being a Green Party member is based on the
> membership requirements of the candidate?s home state party.
>
> (B) That the candidate declare support of the Green Party?s 10 Key
> Values (Note: This whole line is crossed out.)?
>
> To summarize Part A of ?2.1):
>
> 1. You have to be a member of the Green Party or Independent.
> 2. You have to be a candidate. (Note: The first 3 words say, ?That the
> candidate?.)
> 3. You have to indicate your intent to be placed on our presidential
> primary ballot.
> 4. You have to support the 10 key values.
>
> Part B would have required that the candidates ?DECLARE? her/his 
> support
> of the 10 key values, EXCEPT that it has been crossed out!!!!! Thus a
> reasonable person (i.e. member of our State Committee could decide for
> themselves if they think that a candidate complies, because the
> requirement has been withdrawn. The obligation to ?DECLARE? has been
> withdrawn; we must have changed our minds.
>
> Then, our co-chairs finish quoting the ?Green-Rainbow Party 
> Presidential
> Primary Election Plan? by listing the title of the next section, ?2.2
> Contacting candidates to be on the presidential primary ballot?, 
> without
> informing members of the State Comm. as if this section had nothing to
> do with the controversy.
>
> B. Important information from 2-2 that the co-chairs did not include in
> their report:
>
> (To avoid confusion, this was not rewritten to include the important
> fact that the date of our primary had suddenly been changed by the MA
> state legislature (to benefit the duopoly) which changed the date of 
> our
> primary from March 4 to February 5.)
>
> ?Four months prior to the Presidential Primary, the CDLC will send a 
> letter
> via registered mail to each declared candidate requesting that they or
> their campaign committee provides us with:
> 1) A letter indicating their intent to be placed on our presidential
> primary ballot and their support of the Green
> Party?s ?10 Key Values?;
> 2) A picture (preferably digital);
> 3) A 100 word statement on why they are running;
> 4) optionally, a list potential delegates and their contact 
> information.
> As specified in our National Presidential Convention Delegate Selection
> Rules, this list must be sorted in
> female-male order. Optionally, the list can include the diversity
> characteristics of potential delegates.
>
> After this time, the CDLC will follow the above procedure for each
> candidate who announces their desire to pursue the Green Party
> nomination. This process will continue until two weeks prior the date 
> by
> which we must provide the Secretary of the Commonwealth with the list 
> of
> candidates we will place on our primary ballot.?
>
> To summarize the important points to this controversy, 2.2 requires the
> following from those who we would place on our ballot:
>
> 1. You have to be a DECLARED CANDIDATE.
> 2. The CANDIDATE or her/his CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE will send us a LETTER.
> (i.e. in writing) This letter will include:
>
> A. their intent to be placed on our presidential primary ballot
> B. their support of the Green Party?s ?10 Key Values?
>
> 3. ?The CDLC will follow this procedure for each candidate who 
> announces
> their desire to pursue the Green Party?s nomination.
>
> I SUBMIT THAT THE OMISSION OF THE LANGUAGE OF 2-2 IN THEIR REPORT TO 
> THE
> JANUARY 27 STATE COMMITTEE MEETING HAD THE EFFECT OF SUPPORTING THEIR
> POINT OF VIEW AND UNDERCUTTING THOSE, INLUDING OTHERS AND ME, WHO
> DISAGREED WITH THE CO-CHAIRS! WHAT HAPPENED AT OUR MEETING WAS TAINTED
> BY THIS OMISSION!
>
> Once again, I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that Elie, Nat
> and Merelice had done on behalf of our party. They sought to contact 
> all
> potential candidates and to encourage them to comply with the
> requirements in order for the co-chairs to place their names on the
> ballot. Once again, because of the sudden change in the date of our
> primary and the lack of organization on part of some of the candidates,
> it is understandable that the co-chairs had placed people on our ballot
> who had not complied with the above requirements by the deadline. I am
> also sure that they had done so with the hope and the expectation that
> everyone on the ballot would very soon comply with the requirements.
>
> II. Summary of the Requirements for People to be placed on our February
> 5 GRP Presidential Primary Ballot (Policy decided by the January, 2007
> State Committee Meeting, August 2007 Annual Convention, and the
> Green-Rainbow Party?s Presidential Primary Document passed by the
> November, 2007 State Committee Meeting)
>
> 1) You have to be either a Green Party member or an Independent (not a
> member of another political party.)
> 2) You have to be a DECLARED CANDIDATE pursuing the GREEN PARTY?S
> NOMINATION for the presidency.
> 3) The CANDIDATE or her/his CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE must send us a LETTER ?
>
> a. declaring their intent to be placed on our presidential primary 
> ballot
> b. declaring their support for our ?10 Key Values?
>
> A number of those on our ballot did not comply with the above
> requirements before the co-chairs (for understandable reasons) placed
> their names on our primary ballot. According to state law, their names
> cannot be removed.
>
> Since that time?
>
> 1) Mr. Jared Ball has publicly withdrawn his candidacy and is 
> supporting
> Congresswoman McKinney.
> 2) Ms. Elaine Brown has publicly resigned from the Green Party and has
> withdrawn her candidacy.
> 3) Ms. Kat Swift, a member of our party, has complied with all of the
> above requirements.
> 4) Dr. Kent Mesplay, a member of our party, has complied with all of 
> the
> above requirements.
> 5) Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who has joined our party, has
> complied with all of the above requirements.
> 6) Mr. Ralph Nader is in compliance with the first requirement. The
> Annual Convention had changed its policy which allowed Mr. Nader, who
> has remained an Independent and has not joined the Green Party, the
> opportunity to be on our ballot. However, HE HAS NOT YET COMPLIED WITH
> ANY OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
>
> III. Response to the following paragraph from Nat:
>
> ?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.?
>
> 1) I believe that the co-chairs have not followed the policy and rules
> in placing people on our ballot. As I have written before, I believe
> that your failure to follow the policy and rules in submitting the 
> names
> of 6 people to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by the legal deadline
> was understandable. I believe that you fully expected that all 6 would
> comply with all of the above requirements. There is evidence for me to
> believe this.
>
> a. Ms. Swift, Mr. Mesplay and Congresswoman McKinney all have complied
> with all of the above requirements.
> b. I believe that you fully expected that Mr. Nader, as reported, would
> comply with the above requirements sometime in December and when he
> didn?t sometime in January. Now I believe that you think that Mr. Nader
> will comply with our requirements sometime in February, after the date
> of our primary.
>
> 2) While I have never used the word, ??fraud?, I have
> asked/pleaded/begged for greater understanding and the support of the
> co-chairs to comply with the above rules and to seek appropriate
> remedies. As of this date, I remain disappointed in the response.
>
> 3) There has been no need for the co-chairs to follow the ?spirit of
> State Convention to allow independents?? That was the decision of the
> convention and I want to remind everyone that I was the one who took on
> leadership to change this policy. At the same time, the annual
> convention added some additional requirements that a minority of 
> members
> of the State Committee and I have struggled to have implement over the
> opposition of the co-chairs of our party.
>
> IV. Nat?s next paragraph:
>
> ?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??
>
> 1) Nat, I totally agree with your analysis.
> 2) I had come to that understanding well before the January 2007 State
> Committee. At that meeting, I seemed to be either the only one who had
> that understanding or agreed with that understanding. Everyone else on
> that day wanted to only have Green Party members on our ballot and not
> to allow Independents, like Mr. Nader and Congresswoman McKinney on our
> ballot.
> 3) Not everyone in our party agreed or now agrees with your thinking.
> Some strongly argued and still believe that only members of our party
> should have been allowed on our ballot.
> 4) The Annual Convention agreed with our (you and me) thinking by
> allowing Independents to be on our ballot if they would fulfill all of
> the other requirements that members of our party had to follow.
> 5) Mr. Nader has not joined the Greens. He has remained an Independent.
> That is consistent with our policy. As of this date, he has not 
> complied
> with any of the other requirements.
> 6) The leadership of the party has the legal and ethical responsibility
> to implement the policy of the party. No one is more responsible than
> our co-chairs!
> 7) You are not free to substitute your strategic thinking in place of
> your responsibility to fully implement, to the best of your ability, 
> the
> policy of our party.
> 8) As much as you and I want Mr. Nader to be on our ballot (for the
> reasons that you have explained so well), Mr. Nader should have to
> follow the same rules and requirements as everyone else.
> 9) IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR PARTY HAVE GRANTED
> SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO SOMEONE WHO WON?T EVEN JOIN OUR PARTY AND WHO
> HASN?T COMPLIED WITH THE RULES THAT MEMBERS OF OUR PARTY HAVE HAD TO
> FOLLOW!!!!! IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT OUR CO-CHAIRS HAVE TAKEN ON 
> LEADERSHIP
> IN THE SUBVERSION OF OUR RULES AND THE VIOLATION OF OUR POLICY!!!!!
>
> V. Nat?s next paragraph:
>
> ?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? ?. 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??
>
> 1) I am thankful for Mr. Nader?s contributions to our party.
> 2) This does not entitle him to special treatment.
> 3) If the annual convention had decided to grant special dispensation 
> to
> Mr. Nader from following the rules that everyone else had to follow, I
> would have opposed such a move. However, if that were the decision of
> the convention, the leadership of the party would have the
> responsibility to implement it.
> 4) The annual convention made no such decision. Under my leadership, it
> made one major concession for Mr. Nader. He would not have to join our
> party in order to be on our ballot (as long as he complied with all of
> the other rules).
> 5) Nat, thanks for asking your last question!!!! What effects will this
> have on Dr. Mesplay, Ms. Swift, and Congresswoman McKinney, all members
> of our party, and their candidacies if they see that they have to 
> follow
> all of the rules and Mr. Nader doesn?t? I am glad that you share my
> concern. What do you think the effects will be for them if we persist 
> in
> not following our own policy?
> 6) Let?s follow your thinking to one logical possibility. Imagine that
> time moves on and Mr. Nader continues his role as Hamlet. He goes to 
> the
> convention and receives the nomination without every announcing his
> candidacy. Yes, what will the other candidates think?
> 7) Thanks to Jill, Jamie, Grace, Martina, Chuck, Luc, Rick, Ebony, and
> all those who have been our candidates (some of whom have been 
> elected).
> Thanks to everyone who supported them.
> 8) None of them is above the rules. None of them is entitled to
> dispensation from the rules that everyone else has to comply. None of
> them has the right to appear on our ballot in the future if they decide
> to leave our party or not comply with the rules.
> 9) I though that we were a party that was fighting against special
> privileges.
> 10) It appears that I have been greatly mistaken.
>
> VI. Nat?s next two paragraph:
>
> ?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.?
>
> 1) Many of us have worked hard for a long time for our party. I am 
> proud
> to be one of them and thankful that I have spent so much of whom I am
> working with so many of you in building our party.
> 2) Some of us are fighting for the soul of our party. This discussion 
> is
> part of this struggle.
> 3) I hope that more people on this list will fight for the soul of our
> party. I hope that more people on this list will participate in this
> discussion.
> 4) This party is split. Some of us have left; more may be leaving.
> 5) This party will not survive or thrive unless we are willing to
> communicate about difficult issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:45:26 -0500
> From: Nat Fortune <nat.fortune at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] fighting for the soul of our party
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> 	<statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <DE088967-8647-4266-B259-2A226EADC3DD at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Ron -- how is California? I'm surprised you still have time for us
> since you moved. I'm sure there's a lot going on with the Green Party
> of California.
>
> But since you write,  Dan says you apparently inadvertently packed a
> key to the GRP mailbox with you when you moved, and all of us on Ad-
> Com would greatly appreciate its return, because there are only two
> of them and Dan has the other.  Could you please mail it back ASAP --
> and let us know when you've done so --- so that we can help Dan pick
> up the mail? Poor Dan is going to need a new pair of shoes soon.
> Otherwise it is going to cost us $70 to get new keys.
>
> Thanks
>
> Nat Fortune, for Ad-Com
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Ron Francis wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 23:17:02 -0500
> From: "Jamie O'Keefe" <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] fighting for the soul of our party
> To: "Discussion List for StateCom members"
> 	<statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<ca1892b20802022017y49917341m65fe39d29e870943 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>> But since you write,  Dan says you apparently inadvertently packed a
>> key to the GRP mailbox with you when you moved, and all of us on Ad-
>> Com would greatly appreciate its return, because there are only two
>> of them and Dan has the other.  Could you please mail it back ASAP --
>> and let us know when you've done so --- so that we can help Dan pick
>> up the mail? Poor Dan is going to need a new pair of shoes soon.
>> Otherwise it is going to cost us $70 to get new keys.
>
> Ron emailed me earlier (after my follow up call) that he had the key
> and will send it next week.  Which means we should receive it soon.
> Yeah!  Sorry for not communicating that bit of information.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
> End of statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 253, Issue 4
> ************************************************
>