[statecom] Delegates at the national convention

[Yarden]

Dan,
Thank you for adding clarity to our position.  It was my intention in 
the proposal that was submitted and approved by a State Committee 
meeting, a year ago, to decide and inform ourselves and the GPUS, that 
we would not agree to endorsing a candidate who was not the candidate 
of the convention.  The purpose at that time was to take this position 
so that there would not be a repeat of 2004, with an alternative of 
'no-candidate' followed by an endorsement.  At the time, I considered 
it important to take this position, because it would be taken without 
any particular possibility in mind.  And it would build on what we (the 
GPUS) did achieve with the nomination of David Cobb.  We were able to 
choose a Green as our candidate.
I did not want to take a step backwards.  Some people then considered 
my stand overly rigid, wished me to include that this decision by State 
Com could be reviewed by the State Convention.  I agreed simply because 
I considered this to always be the case.  Mike Heichman specifically 
cited a change of attitude on the part of Nader as an example of what 
might happen.

Not only does Merelice say this.  So too do I.  And the statement from 
Howie Hawkins of the DraftNader campaign reaffirms the same position.  
When I was asked to contact the Nader people -- I was unwilling to rely 
on Howie Hawkins, who incidentally did come through in his response to 
the Secretary of the Commonwealth Office, and told them that Mr. Nader 
was aware that his name was being placed in nomination -- I did so and 
received the 'coded' response that 'we; do not want a "repeat of 
2003-2004."

I am incomplete accord with the your idea of clarifying the matter.  
See comments below; and please check my memory.
Peace and Justice,
Elie

On Tuesday, January 29, 2008, at 06:10  PM, Daniel Melnechuk wrote:

>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> If Nader pursues the nomination, he gets
>> his votes and his delegates at the convention. If he doesn't, his
>> delegates go to another candidate.
>>
>> Merelice
>>
>
> Merelice and statecom reps,
>
> I would like to make sure that this is at least true for the
> Massachusetts delegation. In that light, i will be bringing to
> statecom for April 12th 2008 a proposal that says essentially the
> following (language may be tweaked by that time based on input):
>
> ----
> Delegates from Massachusetts at the National Green Party 2008
> Presidential Nominating Convention, whether committed or uncommitted,
> may only vote for candidates who are seeking the nomination for
> president of the Green party and will be running as the Green Party
may be clearer if "  .   .   .   . seeking the nomination of the GPUS 
for the
presidency of the United States, and will  .   .   ."  for,  " .   .   
. seeking the nomination for president of the Green party and will .   
.   ."

> presidential candidate in the 2008 Presidential election, and may not 
> vote for
> candidates who are seeking the endorsement for president of the Green 
> Party or will
> not be running as the Green Party presidential candidate in the 2008 
> Presidential election.
I may be mistaken but it seems clearer if the statement ends here.  The 
continuation
seems contradictory in that it suggest a possibility against which we 
have decided.
I.e. If we all are as opposed to the idea of endorsement as I am, 
someone cannot
be a delegate for a non-existent candidate.

> Committed  delegates to a candidate who is seeking the endorsement for 
> president
> of the Green Party or will not be running as the Green Party 
> presidential candidate in
> the 2008 Presidential election are considered to be released from that 
> candidate and
> can vote as an uncommitted delegates.
> ----
>
> Does any one know where the decisions are written that our committed
> delegates must continue to vote for their candidate until they are
> released by the candidate?   I know in 2004 that is the rule we had and
> that we followed -- i remember since i was there.   Did we decide that
> as the delegates or did the party decide that for the delegates?    I  
> can't
> find it anywhere.
No.  But if you look at the apportionment of delegates by candidate 
from 2004, that might be informative.  Remember that Lorna Salzman was 
the stand-in for Nader for states outside of California, so we had 
delegates for Mesplay, Salzman, Cobb, and a large number of 
'non-committed.'  My recollection is that all of our delegates changed 
their votes on the second round with an overwhelming majority for 
Mesplay, planning to go for Cobb on the third round -- that never 
happened. I do not remember candidates withdrawing or delivering their 
delegates to  any position.  I would prefer not to be around these 
candidate gaming strategies, and had hoped to avoid it.  I am receiving 
telephone calls from various parts of the country explaining to me 
various conspiracies.  1) The 'hounding' of Elaine Brown out of the 
Green Party is part of a conspiracy to prevent Nader from being 
nominated.  2) Howie Hawkins, whatever he says, is the front man for an 
endorsement campaign.  3) Cynthia McKinney is a demo-Green candidate 
for people who want to use the GPUS to push the Democratic Party to the 
left.  4) The GRP is part of a conspiracy to prevent Nader from running 
if he does not get the nomination of the GPUS at the convention.  5) 
The people who say (4) are trying to cover up the 'fact' that he is 
really seeking an endorsement and not the nomination.

> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Peace,
> Dan

There are times when I try not to think.  Just observe.
Peace,
Elie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>