Saturday, May 13, 2006
In Defense of Rebecca Rotzler
I'd like to point out that Rebecca Rotzler is, from what I've seen, a) a fine person, b) loaded with integrity, talent, and drive, and c) was indeed elected, at the national convention in July 2005.
She's also pretty damn patient.
Now can we quit with the posts on Mr. Greenfield and the attempted character assassinations of Ms. Rotzler, and get on with something interesting, or am I going to have to keep on deleting most of the digests I get on this list?
grumpily yours,
Deirdre Helfferich
I only recently got access to the National Committee mailing list, and it is on the basis of what I read, and posted here, that I said I am unhappy with Rebecca Rotzler. I have read nothing by her since then that gives me pause to change my opinion. Ms. Rotzler admits to knowing about Steve Greenfield's stupid plan, and said nothing as he trashed the USGP in the press. She has known this for months, and apparently only recently revealed her involvement in Mr.Greenfield's stupid attempt to manipulate the political system, the media, the Green and Democratic parties and most importantly, his supporters and voters. He admits to keeping his plan a secret from all I can see, saying that only two Greens were consulted on his plans. Ms. Rotzler admits to being one of these two people. I consider her behavior shameful.
But Deirdre Helfferich doesn't feel the same way.
I respect Ms. Helfferich. I'm not sure what I am missing here. Her behavior seems clearly stupid and dishonest. Am I wrong?
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 12:07 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Er, Gregg, you've missed a basic point of netiquette, here--generally one ASKS the poster if one can post their communications on a listserve (limited to those who subscribe) to something that is more public, such as a blog (limited to those with a computer and internet access).
This INCREDIBLY obnoxious affair has been dragged out for months and months. As I said above, from what I have seen of Ms. Rotzler's behavior (really, only on line), it's been fine. But I've never served on a committee with her, I've never met her in person. So there may be some things she's done or said that aren't sterling--I just haven't seen them. I have been very impressed with her even-handed and calm, rational approach in some really nasty, long-winded exchanges via e-mail, over several months, from before she was on the Steering Committee.
The tendency to make quick-draw accusations against people's character happens all too often on line, and I saw that developing here, which is why I spoke up. You, for example, use the words "shameful," "stupid," "dishonest." How about "misguided" or "ill-considered"? Maybe it was the former, maybe it was the latter. It just seems that people get all bent out of shape and assume the worst of each other on list. It's just not worth the effort to read, or write, in my opinion.
Regarding Steve Greenfield: I apparently have missed something that was revealed recently, but I have long since decided that Greenfield or his behavior was not worth the time it took to read about or discuss. I asked him what he was up to when he switched to the Democratic Party; I checked out his website. I told him I thought he was making an error. He was quite up front about trying to influence the Democratic primary; at that point, no one other than Hillary Clinton was running. He didn't want her to be a shoo-in. He wanted Green issues in the conversation, and didn't think they'd be there if Hillary was a slam-dunk. He didn't say anything about going Democrat and then planning on going Green, which also seems silly, and if calculated, yes, dishonest. And I agree, his public blasting of the Green Party is obnoxious--but I don't think the party is so fragile that it will crumble from one person's criticism.
What boggles me is that everyone is surprised by Greenfield's turnaround. Why should they be? Greenfield may be cantankerous and outspoken, even infuriating, but he's always been firmly in the Green camp, at least since I've heard of him.
A question: has anyone asked Rebecca Rotzler whether she was free to reveal Greenfield's plan? Did she promise to remain silent on his strategy? Or did she choose to do so, thinking it might work?
Post a Comment
This INCREDIBLY obnoxious affair has been dragged out for months and months. As I said above, from what I have seen of Ms. Rotzler's behavior (really, only on line), it's been fine. But I've never served on a committee with her, I've never met her in person. So there may be some things she's done or said that aren't sterling--I just haven't seen them. I have been very impressed with her even-handed and calm, rational approach in some really nasty, long-winded exchanges via e-mail, over several months, from before she was on the Steering Committee.
The tendency to make quick-draw accusations against people's character happens all too often on line, and I saw that developing here, which is why I spoke up. You, for example, use the words "shameful," "stupid," "dishonest." How about "misguided" or "ill-considered"? Maybe it was the former, maybe it was the latter. It just seems that people get all bent out of shape and assume the worst of each other on list. It's just not worth the effort to read, or write, in my opinion.
Regarding Steve Greenfield: I apparently have missed something that was revealed recently, but I have long since decided that Greenfield or his behavior was not worth the time it took to read about or discuss. I asked him what he was up to when he switched to the Democratic Party; I checked out his website. I told him I thought he was making an error. He was quite up front about trying to influence the Democratic primary; at that point, no one other than Hillary Clinton was running. He didn't want her to be a shoo-in. He wanted Green issues in the conversation, and didn't think they'd be there if Hillary was a slam-dunk. He didn't say anything about going Democrat and then planning on going Green, which also seems silly, and if calculated, yes, dishonest. And I agree, his public blasting of the Green Party is obnoxious--but I don't think the party is so fragile that it will crumble from one person's criticism.
What boggles me is that everyone is surprised by Greenfield's turnaround. Why should they be? Greenfield may be cantankerous and outspoken, even infuriating, but he's always been firmly in the Green camp, at least since I've heard of him.
A question: has anyone asked Rebecca Rotzler whether she was free to reveal Greenfield's plan? Did she promise to remain silent on his strategy? Or did she choose to do so, thinking it might work?
<< Home
