Editor's Note: After watching Ralph Nader's interview from Friday on C-Span's Web site, I have updated this blog entry explaining why he is not seeking the Green Party nomination.
According to the national Green Party in a press release yesterday, the Nader/Gonzalez ticket will not seek the Green Party nomination in 2008: ["Greens Respond to Ralph Nader's Decision Not to Seek the Green Party Nomination"].
This is a fatal, tactical error on Nader's part.
First, this decision means he will have to obtain 50 state ballot lines on his own, a daunting task due to the reprehensible ballot access laws in so many states. In 2006, the Green Party obtained ballot lines in 30 states and D.C. Since Nader is probably going to have even fewer resources this time than he had in 2000 or 2004, he is setting himself up for failure by not utilizing the ballot lines of the Greens.
If he then changes his mind before the Green convention, and decides to go after the Green nomination, it could create bedlam at the party's convention like it was in 2004. In addition, if Nader fails to get the nomination, after saying he wouldn't go after it, he will look foolish, just as he did in 2004. A slew of bad press in the wake of losing the Green nod will probably follow, as it did in 2004.
Second, this decision goes against what Nader said he would do just last month. On Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program, Nader stated:
But I was able to watch Nader's interview from Friday on C-Span and he basically ceded the Green nomination to Cynthia McKinney saying "it would be wonderful to have an African-American woman" on the Green Party ticket. He praised McKinney for being elected to the Congress numerous times and added that there should be "several progressive initiatives" in 2008. He also said the Greens were only on 21 ballots.
"The Greens have their way of doing things," he said. "And we have our way of doing things."
Third, not unlike a repeat of 2004, Nader will be competing for votes with another left-of-center candidate. In 2004, it was the silly "safe state" Green ticket of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. This essentially fractures the independent left's "power" - what little they have - by splintering the vote into two options for voters unhappy with the Democrats in 2008 [or more, depending on how many socialists run].
With Nader out of the Green nomination race, more than likely, it will be awarded to McKinney and that is the perception from what I have been reading on the Web. In the Green primaries, McKinney has won some and came in second in California behind Nader. While we don't know the strength of McKinney's organization, it should be assumed to be a dynamic one given that she is a former Dem, a black woman, and a very powerful speaker with an underground following nationally. She will surely receive more than 118,000 votes, the amount Cobb/LaMarche received in 2004.
Fourth, the dynamic of Nader rejecting building alliances nationally essentially feeds into the Democrat's comments that the Nader 2008 race is about nothing more than his ego. Personally, I reject this position. Anyone with a brain knows this race is about all the unfinished work the Democrats will ignore [and have ignored since taking back the Congress in 2006]. We know it is about the Nader agenda - fighting corporate power, more regulation and protection for the American people, and a single-payer health care system - all very popular positions with voters. The Nader's ego thing is just a cheap shot by partisan hacks who don't get it.
But, this all begs the question: What is the eventual outcome of a 2008 vote for Nader if we all know, deep down, that the chance of him being elected president are slim to none?
At least in 2000, everyone knew that a vote for Nader/LaDuke would go towards the 5 percent goal of making the Greens a national party. If Gore, Democrats, and supposed progressives who were happy to settle for crumbs instead of real electoral reform had not feared away millions of votes from Nader at the last minute, the Greens would be that national party now. The party would have had millions of dollars to grow beyond local elections in 2004 and probably 2008. Had things turned out differently in 2000, Nader/LaDuke would have provided the Greens with what Ross Perot was able to do in 1992, which led to the creation of the Reform Party. Of course, the outcome of this result could have been a collapsed Green Party. Money has a strange affect on people, especially politicos. Look at what happened to the Reform Party in the wake of Perot abandoning the party. Would that have happened to the Greens? Possibly, but we will never know at this point.
If Nader is not smart enough to realize that he needs help in obtaining ballot access across the country - which means he has to work to create alliances with Greens and others - I truly wonder what the 2008 race is about beyond a handful of important political positions. As a former Nader supporter - and a huge fan of Nader and his work - I can reach no other conclusion about the 2008 race than to suggest that this is some sort of vanity campaign. Does that mean Nader should not run? Of course not. He can do what he wants to do and people can support him if they so choose to. But, Nader, right out of the box, is running a campaign which will get little accomplished.
My conclusion has nothing to do with what the Democrats and Republicans do with their nominations. If Hillary Clinton is able to steal the nomination from Barack Obama, many, MANY people will want a left-of-center third choice. And hopefully, Nader and McKinney will be there for voters. But beyond a protest vote, I don't see where any of this accomplishes much.
According to the national Green Party in a press release yesterday, the Nader/Gonzalez ticket will not seek the Green Party nomination in 2008: ["Greens Respond to Ralph Nader's Decision Not to Seek the Green Party Nomination"].
This is a fatal, tactical error on Nader's part.
First, this decision means he will have to obtain 50 state ballot lines on his own, a daunting task due to the reprehensible ballot access laws in so many states. In 2006, the Green Party obtained ballot lines in 30 states and D.C. Since Nader is probably going to have even fewer resources this time than he had in 2000 or 2004, he is setting himself up for failure by not utilizing the ballot lines of the Greens.
If he then changes his mind before the Green convention, and decides to go after the Green nomination, it could create bedlam at the party's convention like it was in 2004. In addition, if Nader fails to get the nomination, after saying he wouldn't go after it, he will look foolish, just as he did in 2004. A slew of bad press in the wake of losing the Green nod will probably follow, as it did in 2004.
Second, this decision goes against what Nader said he would do just last month. On Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program, Nader stated:
Well, if I run — and we are testing the waters now — I would certainly go for the ballot lines with the Green Party.So, what changed? I missed the National Press Club event where he supposedly said he would not run under the Green Party mantle. I did a Google News search to try and find out but nothing came up explaining the change in the decision. So much for thorough political reporting.
But I was able to watch Nader's interview from Friday on C-Span and he basically ceded the Green nomination to Cynthia McKinney saying "it would be wonderful to have an African-American woman" on the Green Party ticket. He praised McKinney for being elected to the Congress numerous times and added that there should be "several progressive initiatives" in 2008. He also said the Greens were only on 21 ballots.
"The Greens have their way of doing things," he said. "And we have our way of doing things."
Third, not unlike a repeat of 2004, Nader will be competing for votes with another left-of-center candidate. In 2004, it was the silly "safe state" Green ticket of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. This essentially fractures the independent left's "power" - what little they have - by splintering the vote into two options for voters unhappy with the Democrats in 2008 [or more, depending on how many socialists run].
With Nader out of the Green nomination race, more than likely, it will be awarded to McKinney and that is the perception from what I have been reading on the Web. In the Green primaries, McKinney has won some and came in second in California behind Nader. While we don't know the strength of McKinney's organization, it should be assumed to be a dynamic one given that she is a former Dem, a black woman, and a very powerful speaker with an underground following nationally. She will surely receive more than 118,000 votes, the amount Cobb/LaMarche received in 2004.
Fourth, the dynamic of Nader rejecting building alliances nationally essentially feeds into the Democrat's comments that the Nader 2008 race is about nothing more than his ego. Personally, I reject this position. Anyone with a brain knows this race is about all the unfinished work the Democrats will ignore [and have ignored since taking back the Congress in 2006]. We know it is about the Nader agenda - fighting corporate power, more regulation and protection for the American people, and a single-payer health care system - all very popular positions with voters. The Nader's ego thing is just a cheap shot by partisan hacks who don't get it.
But, this all begs the question: What is the eventual outcome of a 2008 vote for Nader if we all know, deep down, that the chance of him being elected president are slim to none?
At least in 2000, everyone knew that a vote for Nader/LaDuke would go towards the 5 percent goal of making the Greens a national party. If Gore, Democrats, and supposed progressives who were happy to settle for crumbs instead of real electoral reform had not feared away millions of votes from Nader at the last minute, the Greens would be that national party now. The party would have had millions of dollars to grow beyond local elections in 2004 and probably 2008. Had things turned out differently in 2000, Nader/LaDuke would have provided the Greens with what Ross Perot was able to do in 1992, which led to the creation of the Reform Party. Of course, the outcome of this result could have been a collapsed Green Party. Money has a strange affect on people, especially politicos. Look at what happened to the Reform Party in the wake of Perot abandoning the party. Would that have happened to the Greens? Possibly, but we will never know at this point.
If Nader is not smart enough to realize that he needs help in obtaining ballot access across the country - which means he has to work to create alliances with Greens and others - I truly wonder what the 2008 race is about beyond a handful of important political positions. As a former Nader supporter - and a huge fan of Nader and his work - I can reach no other conclusion about the 2008 race than to suggest that this is some sort of vanity campaign. Does that mean Nader should not run? Of course not. He can do what he wants to do and people can support him if they so choose to. But, Nader, right out of the box, is running a campaign which will get little accomplished.
My conclusion has nothing to do with what the Democrats and Republicans do with their nominations. If Hillary Clinton is able to steal the nomination from Barack Obama, many, MANY people will want a left-of-center third choice. And hopefully, Nader and McKinney will be there for voters. But beyond a protest vote, I don't see where any of this accomplishes much.
No comments:
Post a Comment