[Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win"

[Andrea Dorey]

Cameron,

I wasn't at the National convention, so I don't know about what Nader  
did or didn't do.  I have to depend for information on those of you  
who attended.

But I WAS THERE AT THE PLENERY WHEN COBB ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO  
RUN "SAFE STATES" AND I ALSO READ HIS HANDOUT AT THAT PLENARY.
When and where he backed off from that intention, I don't know, but  
that plan was his at the plenary, and it was his way to present  
himself as different from the other presidential candidates.  If it  
was just a temporary ploy, then I have even less respect for him than  
before.

Andrea

On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:

>
>> From: Andrea Dorey <andid at cagreens.org>
>> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:41:34 -0700
>> To: Green South Bay Discussion <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win"
>
>>  He certainly had every intention to do
>> so,
>
> That's just not true.  I believe you have been persuaded of
> that damaging lie by the corporate media, the Democrats,
> and gullible Greens who were also persuaded.
>
> We do not know what was happening inside David's head.
> Nobody knows what's happening inside someone else's head.
> All we know is their actions and statements, and
> David's actions and statements were "run all-out,"
> not "safe states."
>
>
>> and THAT in itself caused a loss of face for the GP.
>
> WHAT caused a loss of face?  The lies broadcast by
> Democrats?  Or David's lack of media access to counter them?
>
>
>
>> Sorry, but I still think the guy was not the candidate we should have
>> run.  No star quality.  No ability to force election discussion to
>> subjects the majors didn't want to discuss.
>
> I agree, but that's a different issue.  Nader declined
> our nomination.  He was *not available to be our candidate*
> in 2004.  Our choices as a party were to stop being
> a national political party in 2004, by not nominating
> anyone, or run someone besides Nader.  The strategic
> decision was about which course would do more damage,
> not being a political party and wishing that would
> be only a temporary setback, or nominating a weak
> candidate as a placeholder.  Nominating Nader was not
> an option for us.  "Endorsing" Nader was the same course,
> legally and tactically, as not being a political party.
> We'd be trying to become a low-budget Public Citizen
> type organization instead.  ("Greens/Green Party USA"
> is trying to do that right now.  It's a total failure.)
> It came down to which course would lose us fewer state-level
> ballot lines.  I wish more people realized that.
>
>
> Cameron
>
>