-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please
Note:
Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written
communications to or from College employees regarding College business are
public records, available to the public and media upon request.
Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public
disclosure.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/08/04 5:03 PM >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a "majority" decision at the convention. 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, "Rigged Convention Divides Green Party," by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. ; <<<<<>>>>>
i've indicated in previous posts that i'm not big green party person while also thinking that greens need to wean themselves from nader, what follows are pulp musings... above is smarmy, smelly stuff that has long left rotting carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape, not to mention turning-off folks outside of organization (assuming anyone notices) and making contribution to turnout decline/civic disengagement/withdrawal from public realm/whatever else likes of robert putnam and social capital types call non-participation (how about alienation and cynicism)... circumstance reminds of buchanan-hagelin/2000 reform party implosion which left rp with ballot status in about 1/3rd of states where it had previously qualified... re. reform party (at least one of them anyway), nader received 'endorsement' (not nomination) back in may by way of telephone conference call, 4-5 people had 'qualified' to have their 'candidacies' debated by national/state committee people - wonder how democratic process of choosing members of such committees is - for a couple of hours one evening, nader was 'overwhelming' choice although i don't recall any actual vote totals being released, other names were complete unknowns, reform party people chose nader because he offers opportunity for party to get attention that it otherwise would not get (of course, kind of pub that buchanan debacle produced i suppose they'd rather do without)... reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds'), media likely to pay attention to nader in fla and mich - 'spoiler', 'darth' nader, blah, blah, blah, this is pure instrumentalist politics of mainstream sort (that's less criticism than it is observation, btw) on nader's part and explains why his campaign was so concerned about flap *between* michigan reform parties that appeared as if it might result in his name being kept off reform line (don't know if matter has been resolved)... re. dems trying to keep nader off ballots, obviously disgusting (didn't someone long ago say something to effect that all political issues in u.s. wind up in court)... nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... re. miller and hill article cited above, they characterize primaries as 'will of voters', u.s. is only political democracy in which party nominees are chosen this way (and in this instance, winners were placeholding), primaries are one legacy of not-so progressive era, example of peudo-democratization, early 20th century 'reformers' who pushed primaries claimed they were giving ' power to the people' as new procedure would empower 'ordinary citizens' at expense of party bosses, what happened was that such bosses were largely supplanted by activists (who, of course, have always exercised more influence than 'ordinary' people because they participate and their views are more intense)... re. each state party nominating its own candidates, silliness of this for prez election should be obvious... re. nader/camejo ticket, how democratic is it for person at top of ticket to choose vp candidate (i realize that nader's candidacy is independent one but that actually serves to make my point), party conventions chose vp candidates until fdr in 1940s, today, prez nominees announce their choices and conventions accept them (btw: reform party endorsed nader, not nader/camaejo, as far i know)... re. prez debates, it is disingenuous to suggest that nader will be included, unfair prez debate commission rules requiring that candidate poll at last 15% in 4 of 5 nationa polls insures his exclusion... michael hoover
