[Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win"

[Fred Duperrault]

I may have been the only GPSCC delegate at last year's national 
convention who stuck with Nader.   I think it would have been to the 
Green Party's advantage to endorse the Nader-Camejo ticket.  Both of 
them were known nationally, especially Nader. Peter was a Green Party 
member who made a respectable run for Governor. Together, and especially 
with the Green Party's backing, they would have reached many more people 
     and made enough waves to attract much more media attention.

Although the majority of Greens wanted David to represent the party 
because he  did more grass roots campaigning with and for Green 
candidates before the convention, he wasn't pulling in many new members, 
it seemed to me.

I don't think the Green Party would have become less of a national party 
  if the Nader-Camejo ticket would have gotten the Green green light to 
represent the values of the party.  In fact, I think  with  two 
unintimidated campaigners like Ralph and Peter representing the spirit 
of the Green Party, we would have grown much more during and after the 
election.

The hard core Greens who were loyal to Cobb felt that nominating Cobb 
would be a big step in grooming an in-party prospect to become a 
national Green leader and  a stronger candidate for the 2008 
presidential campaign.  In three years we will find out if it worked.

I think both Peter and Ralph could have gained the support of the Greens 
if they had done much more to cultivate the delegates' support.  Peter 
was overconfident and apparently lost the friendship of some delegates 
who then electioneered much more intensely for David.  Also, I think it 
should have been on top of Nader's priorities to be present in Milwaukee.

Not only did I end up in the minority during the vote, I also failed to 
find a Friday Night Fish Fry (so popular in Wisconsin) that wasn't 
overflowing  with local fried  perch addicts.

Although I have been critical of Peter Camejo in a couple of instances, 
I think he can be the ideal candidate to stir the imagination of Greens 
and other independent progressives in the state.  With adequate support 
from the Green Party, he could duplicate, or exceed, the success he 
attained in the last election.

For those who felt angered by him, I suggest that they forgive and 
forget.  I believe he is an honorable person who will make the Greens 
proud while representing the party as well as the hundreds of thousands 
- if not millions - of "disenfranchised" who are so deeply frustrated 
with the many two faced, status quo milk toasts that tow the 
corporate-military-Wall Street-executive complex line.

Camejo knows how to expose the deception of Schwarzenegger and others 
with pork laden baggage and whose pockets are crammed with special 
interests' bribes.  He also comes up with some outside-of-the-box ideas 
of his own.

In the spirit of good government, good discussion and goodwill.

Fred D.





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
>
>

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org
http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss