Monday, February 19, 2007
Focus
Some delegates to the Green National Committee are asking questions about whether the Green Party should accept legal corporate donations or not. Some are questioning if a 5 pack of greeting cards made of re-cycled material given to the delegates at our national meeting, a free 15 minute massage, or a free tour of local Underground Railroad sights offered by a PA delegate represents a potential downfall of all things Green.
Some are asking questions about how delegates to both the Green National Committee and the Nominating Convention are chosen. Because of what some see as an illegitimate exercise of control over the last Green National Nominating Convention, there has been a call both to change the way the size of delegations is determined, and to establish both a uniform way to assess success in each community of Greens for the various candidates, and to establish specific rules to assure that the will of the voters is represented in the outcome at the nominating convention.
I think the basic point is, most Greens not deeply involved in the maintenance of the party wanted Nader to represent the party. Many of them voted for Camejo to send a message of support to Nader, and to direct the Green Party to facilitate a reconciliation with Nader. There were some of us, myself included, who wanted Nader as ours because we believed that he represented the best tool to grow my local Green Party. Mine was a distinct minority position in my state, and continues to be.
Because Utah and Vermont (I think) chose to leave Cobb off their state ballot, the question of "party discipline" came up. Because CA has apparently never signed an agreement to put the party's nominee on their ballot line, there was the risk that Cobb would not appear there either.
Now there are these streams going on in the Green National Committee, and lots of other, perhaps more meaningful, issues are to be addressed.
One thing that saddens me is what I read a delegate discussing the Presidential race or convention, or seeking other "high offices" as being the most important thing to do right now, I just shake my head and wonder what planet these people are on.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
Some are asking questions about how delegates to both the Green National Committee and the Nominating Convention are chosen. Because of what some see as an illegitimate exercise of control over the last Green National Nominating Convention, there has been a call both to change the way the size of delegations is determined, and to establish both a uniform way to assess success in each community of Greens for the various candidates, and to establish specific rules to assure that the will of the voters is represented in the outcome at the nominating convention.
I think the basic point is, most Greens not deeply involved in the maintenance of the party wanted Nader to represent the party. Many of them voted for Camejo to send a message of support to Nader, and to direct the Green Party to facilitate a reconciliation with Nader. There were some of us, myself included, who wanted Nader as ours because we believed that he represented the best tool to grow my local Green Party. Mine was a distinct minority position in my state, and continues to be.
Because Utah and Vermont (I think) chose to leave Cobb off their state ballot, the question of "party discipline" came up. Because CA has apparently never signed an agreement to put the party's nominee on their ballot line, there was the risk that Cobb would not appear there either.
Now there are these streams going on in the Green National Committee, and lots of other, perhaps more meaningful, issues are to be addressed.
One thing that saddens me is what I read a delegate discussing the Presidential race or convention, or seeking other "high offices" as being the most important thing to do right now, I just shake my head and wonder what planet these people are on.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 11:16 AM 
