[Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments

[Greg Gerritt]

I think we need to do several things.  ONe is coordinate ourselves so that
we can move through our work somwhat systematically.  SEcond we might want
to review what the proces swas for the early stages last time.  If folks
like I can provide something of an outline.  third we ned to think clealry,
as Fred notes, about our goals for 2008 so we can think about how we shall
get there.  greg

> From: "Fred" <fx2386@peoplepc.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:45:02 -0500
> To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments
> 
> I think that Phil raises a good list of items that we should discuss.
> 
> It seems to me we need to start from the place of the Green Party in the
> upcoming elections 2006 and 2008.  What is the place of the Green Party
> nationally in the changing political scene?
> 
> I think the Green Party occupies a unique place.  We are the only national
> electoral alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, the parties
> of corporate domination. In this way we occupy a unique role in the
> political life of the country.
> 
> We are the only national electoral expression for progressive social
> movements -- the antiwar movement, the pro-choice movement, social justice
> movements. And of course, we are the only electoral alternative for millions
> of people in the U.S. who are sick of Bush, the Democrats and the
> Republicans.
> 
> At the same time, we are very much a party with potential as opposed to
> actual ability to be this national electoral alternative.  It has been very
> difficult, actually impossible, for the Greens to mount a serious
> nation-wide campaign -- anyone who was intimately involved in either of the
> Nader campaigns or the Cobb campaigns knows this is true.  All the campaigns
> failed to be really national campaigns.
> 
> So I think we need to discuss a little about what are our goals in the 2008
> elections for the presidential campaign before we can work through the
> important questions that Phil raises.
> 
> These goals should be based on the recognition that it is extremely unlikely
> that a Green will win the election. The goals may be expressed in things
> like a very clear electoral platform that speaks both to the progressive
> movements and to constituencies in the country that we wish especially to
> reach, influence and/or recruit. They may include special efforts to gather
> information from the states that might help making a more organic and
> synergistic link politically and organizationally between the national
> campaign and the state and local campaigns, including prominent local
> candidates. They may include projected financial goals. They may include a
> systematic literature effort and plan for the progressive media to address
> key questions that we know will come up, for example: whether a Green
> presidential campaign is the best response to the Democrats or Republicans
> or whether we should have a different, nuanced strategy; recognizing that
> discussion will take place inside the Green Party as well outside it.
> 
> We should be developing our process so that we act commensurate with the
> resources we have, not those we would like to have. I hope that Green Party
> candidates are announcing much earlier than last time and that we have our
> convention in late 2007.
> 
> These thoughts are meant to spur discussion and not limit it or raise the
> temperature of it.
> 
> Fred
> Michigan Green Party
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org>
> To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:27 PM
> Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments
> 
> 
> I wanted to offer a few remarks about the working group and where we could
> be going.  I'll keep them relatively brief.
> 
> First, I should note that I was and still am a member of the Presidential
> Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) and am also a member of the Bylaws,
> Rules, Policies & Procedures Committee (BRPP).  I was one of the first
> people to start formally tackling the issue of the Floor Rules for the
> national convention.
> 
> I believe that in evaluating the entirety of the Presidential Nominating
> Process, we have to break it down into various components:
> 
> * The actual nominating rules (floor rules) used at the convention.
> * The delegate apportionments for the convention.
> * Other matters related to the conduct of the national convention,
> including but not limited to matters involving site selection, time
> alotted for things, etc.
> * The national party's handling of the "primary" season.
> * The different ways that state parties conducted votes.
> * The work of the Presidential Exploratory Committee (PEC).
> * Other national party matters that preceded the "primary" season.
> * The roles of various candidates and outside groups.
> 
> Many of the complaints, especially in the aftermath of the Milwaukee
> convention, related to either the floor rules or the delegate
> apportionments.  But to focus on these is to lose sight of the big
> picture.  The floor rules must be understood in the context in which they
> were drafted - after some state "primaries" had already begun, with little
> to no comprehension of how state parties were handling things like binding
> delegates, with rampant confusion about the intentions of the Nader
> campaign.  Charges that the floor rules were somehow "fixed" to block
> Nader are categorically false.  But I think we must agree that a number of
> confusing matters slammed together that soured the relationship between
> the party and the Nader camp - and I think we have to start at the
> beginning.
> 
> Specifically, I feel that the national party's overall handling of the
> presidential preference process (or "primary season") was horrendous.
> State parties were horribly confused regarding basic matters like who the
> candidates were, how delegate votes should be bound - they were routinely
> told to do it however they saw fit, and then a lot of them got grief for
> it after the fact.  The lack of national-level coordination regarding
> primaries and the confusion over who the candidates were contributed to
> woefully low turnouts at state conventions.  Many state parties were
> unprepared to deal with a lot of issues and very few attempted things like
> mail-in ballots.  It is my opinion that the bulk of the problems with our
> process in 2004 can be traced to things that happened before January 1,
> 2004, including a confusing "exploratory" process, the refusal/inability
> of the national party to clearly designate up front that a nominee would
> be selected (which created the NOTA mess), the refusal of the national
> party to assist state parties with putting together rules, the ridiculous
> wait until after the first of the year to tackle floor rules questions,
> and much more.  The national party dropped the ball in 2002 and 2003, and
> this led to the mess we had to deal with in 2004.  Rather than focus
> narrowly on the particulars of the mess of 2004, we need to start with
> what went wrong in 2002 and 2003.
> 
> As I said, my comments here are kept relatively brief.  I look forward to
> seeing more initial feedback from all of you.
> 
> Phil Huckelberry
> Co-Chair, Illinois Green Party
> Delegate, GPUS
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg