[Pnp-wg] Reply to the Presidential Exploratory Committee

[Gary Hecker]

I think we should be framing the convention this way:

"The Green Party fully expects to run a candidate for President. We are
planning a full-out campaign, and are committed to getting our message to
the voters via a campaign for President."

If we have NC and/or NOTA on a ballot template, and someone brings it up, we
say:

We respect the right of each Green to vote her conscience. Each voter should
have the ability to express an opinion. A minority of Greens will not choose
to run for President. This in no way detracts from the desire of the
majority to pursue the Presidency.

Gary
FL


On 7/7/05 11:59 AM, "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org> wrote:

> Greg Gerritt writes:
>> While I strongly support the GP running a presidential candiate in 2008,
>> as I did in 1996, 2000, and 2004, the fact remains that we can decide
>> proclaim to the moon and sun we are running, but unless we have a
>> candidate it is just hot air.  And the fact remains that if the
>> grasroots greens decide that they do not want a candidate all the
>> proposals the NC pass to the effect that we will have a candidate are
>> moot.  It is legislating things we have no power over.
> 
> I think you are framing this falsely.  You are framing this as:
> 
> * Either we declare up front that we will field a candidate, or we do not
> so declare.
> 
> I am framing this as:
> 
> * Either we declare up front that we will field a candidate, or we declare
> up front that we won't decide until June 2008.
> 
> The party was making statements in the media in 2003 and then deep into
> 2004 that the decision whether or not to field a candidate wouldn't come
> until June 2004.  As much as we like to rip the media for refusing to
> cover us, it's hard for the media to see us as much more than a joke when
> you look at the way WE framed the issue ourselves.
> 
> Now, as regards Nader and timing, Greg said to Liz:
>> Not to say we did not have deficincies, but what ZNader saw waws more in
>> his own mind than really on the ground.  He came in not wanting to run as
>> a Green becazsue he does not like to actually have to work with people
>> collaboratively. Everything he said was just excuses.
> 
> I don't disagree with this assessment of Nader's willingness to work
> cooperatively, but I frankly don't see the relevance to the matter at
> hand.  More on this below.
> 
>> And if we are going to be a ballot access party in a number of staes, the
>> only time to do a convention is the summer before the election, after the
>> primaries are all done.  Any candidate with any real understanding of
>> politics would know that and accept that.
>> Complaints about the scheduling of the convention are a reflection of an
>> unwilingness to accept that we have ballot access state parties.
> 
> Jonathan Lundell has argued on the PCSC list that Nader was complaining
> more about the convention date than anything else, and it seems like
> you're saying the same thing here.  But I disagree.
> 
> Best as I have been able to understand, the reason Nader chose to harp on
> the convention date was because GPUS had already said, we're not making a
> decision until the convention.  Had a decision been made well in advance
> of the convention to field a ticket, then the campaign still could have
> started in earnest prior to the convention.  But instead the whole thing
> was framed as, we don't know what we're doing and we won't know until
> June.  He'd already given up on the "we don't know what we're doing" part
> but then was aghast to find the "we won't know until June" tacked on.
> 
> So I don't see his complaining about the convention date as unrealistic or
> disingenuous - though I do think it was a convenient excuse.  I think the
> party's wishy-washiness was already what pushed him away, or made it easy
> for him to break away, depending on how you want to look at it.  And it's
> the wishy-washiness that I'm harping on here.
> 
> Finally, on Nader himself, Liz said:
>> Some folks say Nader was uncooperative, but I can see his point.  If he
>> hung around for the Greens to get their act together, he'd still be
>> twiddling his thumbs.
> 
> Ahh, but Liz, you said yourself Nader had been the Green candidate twice.
> Ralph is a smart man.  He knows the glacial speed at which Greens deal
> with some things.  And he also knows that it's not a matter of waiting for
> Greens to get their act together.  Even a decentralized party wants strong
> leaders.  Had he offered the kind of leadership that he should have known
> would have worked, I think he would have gotten more of what he truly
> wanted.  Honestly, I also think he got a lot of bad advice.  He claimed
> that he spoke to Greens in a number of states - but so far as I know, he
> never came around to Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan... all states
> that wanted to see him run, but when push come to shove in Milwaukee, went
> with Cobb because he was running Green.
> 
> We should all be able to agree that there was a schism between Nader and
> the Green Party that occurred during 2003 and that had major ramifications
> on the party in 2004.  Arguing over whether it was Nader's fault or the
> party's fault doesn't get us anywhere - especially when it should be
> gawkingly obvious that Ralph and GPUS were both to blame.  I do think it's
> important to separate mistakes the Nader camp made from mistakes the party
> made, not to pillory Ralph but rather to figure out more precisely where
> WE went wrong.  And a lot of it starts with this hands-off, dilly-dally,
> wishy-washy, "wait 'til the grassroots speak" approach.  What do the
> grassroots really want?  They want a party that will make some decisions
> and move forward.  Yes, they want a voice in that process.  But most
> Greens I know have gotten to the point where they are actually offended at
> the party sitting around doing nothing, waiting for the grassroots to
> speak.  They were pissed about the way the party handled things in 2003,
> regardless of who they wound up supporting in 2004.  Doesn't that matter?
> 
> Phil Huckelberry
> Illinois Green Party
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>