Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Guess I was not alone
Delegate John Murphy of PA wrote to the GNC about the Rensenbrink proposal
On the other hand, Martin Zehr (aka Mato Ska) of NM wrote:
In a subsequent post, Murphy wrote in response to Zehr
I'll not endorse every particle of this perspective, but I do agree that Rresebrink is not being rational talking about 25 year horizons. There is a difference between building with future generations in mind and trying to lay out today a path to carry us for 25 years. That's just silly.
I'm not even interested in their strategic relevance right now. I am just flabbergasted at this point. Perhaps we will have more opportunity to investigate the thinking behind this rather bizarre menu of "short-term and long-term goals". I at least hope that this is just a conversation starter and not something that anyone should take seriously.
On the other hand, Martin Zehr (aka Mato Ska) of NM wrote:
THIS is leadership. Can we nominate John Rensenbrink for SC and formalize the proposal or establish a Working Committee at the workshop to formalize it.
Martin Zehr
NMGP
In a subsequent post, Murphy wrote in response to Zehr
A short-term planning horizon for the Green party would be three to five years out. A long-term planning horizon for the Green party would be five to 10 years out. What we need is a set of objectives for the immediate term: now until the election of 2008 along with a strategy statement. This must be followed with a short-term planning horizon then a long-term planning horizon. Even talking about 25 years out is irrational due to the uncertainties in the political world.
I'll not endorse every particle of this perspective, but I do agree that Rresebrink is not being rational talking about 25 year horizons. There is a difference between building with future generations in mind and trying to lay out today a path to carry us for 25 years. That's just silly.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 6:24 PM 
