[Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win"

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

Fred wrote:

>Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:02:32 -0700
>From: Fred Duperrault <fredd at freeshell.org>
>User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002)
>To: Green South Bay Discussion <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win"

>I may have been the only GPSCC delegate at last year's national 
>convention who stuck with Nader.

I was in the same delegation to the 2004 convention.
We NEVER HAD THE OPTION to "stick with Nader."
Nader had declined our nomination half a year before.
Nader gave every indication that he didn't think the
Green Party did him any good in 2000 and would hurt
his candidacy in 2004.

Our choices were among NO CANDIDATE (represented by
Peter Camejo), Cobb, or two others who hadn't campaigned.


>  I think it would have been to the 
>Green Party's advantage to endorse the Nader-Camejo ticket.

Fred seems to be discounting the LEGAL
consequences the national party faced if it chose
NO CANDIDATE.  We stood to lose our ballot lines in
TWO THIRDS of the states where we had them.

Through the first round of voting, many of us felt losing
two thirds of our states would be worth it, sacrificing
our status as a national political party to raise our
movement's visibility.  But the person who was going to
lead that effort for us followed that vote with a
red-faced screaming temper tantrum.  Some of us were
dissuaded from supporting him at that point just because
he was so personally insulting.  But I believe more of
us were thinking practically.  If he could lose all composure
so easily AMONG FRIENDS, how might he embarrass us
on national television when a Tim Russert or a
Bill O'Reilly sprung the kind of trap on him that
Russert sprung on Nader in 2000?  (Nader kept his
cool when Russert surprised him with the G/GPUSA's
"anti-platform."  *Nobody* else could have done as well.
Camejo demonstrated that he could be provoked into an
embarrassing fit of pique by far less.)


> Both of 
>them were known nationally, especially Nader.

Unfortunately, Nader wasn't going to run as a Green.
Those of us who remembered his '92 and '96 campaigns
had seen him do that twice before.  He made campaign
appearances in '96 where he spoke for over an hour and NEVER
MENTIONED the Green Party.  In fact, Ralph Nader's entourage
made us TAKE DOWN OUR GREEN PARTY BANNERS before
Nader would enter the room, because Mr. Nader did
not want any photographs with his face and
"Green Party" in them.  One of those appearances was
at the CNA office in San Jose.  We were not allowed
to table at that event.  Fred, did you know that?
Andrea, did you know Ralph Nader's people ordered
us to take down Green Party banners and banned
Green Party literature from his campaign apperances
in '96?

So I believe it was wishful thinking unsupported
by history that Nader was going to run "as a Green"
in 2004.  He was running an independent, promoting
no political party.  Remember that the Reform Party's
endorsement of Nader in '04 did absolutely nothing
for them.  They lost ballot status everywhere
and disappeared.


>Peter was a Green Party 
>member who made a respectable run for Governor.

He did indeed.  But that was when he was running his
own campaign, with no control by Nader's staff.
And Peter was a Green Party nominee.  We were never
offered that option in 2004.  It was never on the
table.




>Although the majority of Greens wanted David to represent the party 
>because

I only met a couple of Greens in Milwaukee who felt
that way.  Many times more were lukewarm about it,
or really didn't want David Cobb representing us at all.
We knew a Cobb campaign would be a threadbare placeholder
of a campaign, attracting no attention, and its only
function would be to retain several state ballot lines.




>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

Well, you can think that, but it's an opinion unsupported by
the legal facts which existed in 2004 or the history
of Nader's three previous presidential campaigns.
Ralph Nader really isn't that interested in the Green
Party.  It's a sidelight for him, at best, and a lot
of his staffers, who completely controlled his '96
and '00 campaigns, are openly hostile to us.
They're embarrassed to be seen with political amateurs.
They're beltway insiders and the Green Party isn't in their
picture.

The legal fact was that failing to NOMINATE (not "endorse")
a candidate would guarantee losing half the ballot lines.




>The hard core Greens who were loyal to Cobb

No "hard core Greens" were loyal to Cobb.  Cobb was an
embarrassment.  Nobody liked his chitauqua pitch-man style.
We just couldn't get any of the candidates
the search committee had identified, with Nader at
the top of that list.


>felt that nominating Cobb 
>would be a big step in grooming an in-party prospect to become a 
>national Green leader.

I'd like to know who said that silly thing.  Everybody who
actually considered the tactical situation that existed
knew the Green Party was going to keep shrinking in 2004,
due to the Democrats' successful "spoiler effect" publicity
and our refusal to confront that big lie head on.

The question in Milwaukee was whether NO CANDIDATE would
shrink us less than a nobody placeholder candidate would.
Ralph Nader, by his own decision, was not on the table
in Milwaukee.  David Cobb's intended campaign strategy
was irrelevant also, since everyone knew he was going
to attract zero publicity.



>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.

I have talked about the fallacy of false assumption here
already.  Ralph Nader REFUSED our nomination.  Our
nomination was the only significant "support" we had
to offer.



Cameron