Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04
Recycled News
Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04
Party Still Mulling Its Own Ticket
By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, May 27, 2003; Page A02
The lesser of two evils doesn't seem like such a bad choice these days
to some Greens.
As the Green Party hashes out its plans for next year's presidential
election, some of its activists are urging the party to forgo the race
and, instead, throw its support behind one of the Democratic
candidates -- all in the hopes of unseating President Bush.
It isn't an especially popular idea, but it is being seriously
considered.
"At the moment, everything is on the table and everything is being
discussed," said John Strawn, co-chairman of the group's presidential
exploratory committee.
The committee began the process of finding a candidate months ago,
soliciting recommendations from its state party representatives across
the country. It compiled and picked over that list, contacting about
40 people it believed might make suitable candidates -- those who
could help build the party, while upholding its leftist commitments to
nonviolence, anti-corporatism and diversity.
The party declined to identify who is on its list or who has responded
to its inquiries. But officials confirmed media reports that they have
been conferring with two-time candidate Ralph Nader, former
representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), party consul David Cobb and
New York activist Paul Glover. All are considering running.
That the Green Party is also considering not running a candidate would
probably surprise some. Nader brought the party to new heights during
the 2000 election, winning nearly 3 million votes -- more than four
times as many as he received in 1996, when he first ran for president.
It wasn't enough to qualify for federal election financing, but, as
Democrats have long complained, it was enough to throw the election to
Bush.
But while Nader often said, during the campaign, that there was little
difference between Al Gore and Bush, the party has since become an
especially vociferous critic of the Bush administration, attacking
seemingly every major presidential initiative -- from the war on
terrorism and the conflict in Iraq, to the latest push for tax cuts.
That has some rethinking their plans for 2004. "There are Greens at
all levels who are so infuriated with . . . the Bush administration
that they would do anything to see him turned out," Strawn said.
It is unclear under what circumstances the party could agree to
support a Democrat. Many of its officials adamantly oppose supporting
any of the more centrist Democratic candidates. "There is no possible
way that we would ever support someone like a [Connecticut Sen. Joseph
I.] Lieberman or a [Missouri Rep. Richard A.] Gephardt," said Anita
Rios, one of the party's five national co-chairs.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), one of the most liberal Democratic
candidates, appears to have gained the most traction among the Greens.
But he is considered one of his party's longest long shots -- and it
is uncertain whether the Green Party would pass on its own
presidential race to support someone with such a slim chance of
winning.
The prevailing opinion, among the officials, is that they should run a
candidate. For all their complaints with the Bush administration, many
remain almost as disenchanted with the Democratic Party, complaining
that it is too weak-kneed to adequately oppose the president's agenda.
"We have a lot of problems with [Democrats], too, just as much as we
do with the Republicans," said Tom Sevigny, another party chairman.
"It's not just Bush."
Then there are the more practical concerns: The party could lose its
ballot status in some states if it doesn't run a presidential
candidate. The public might assume the Greens' time has come and gone,
without someone at the top of their ticket, and it could hurt Green
candidates running for other offices.
"There's a lot of people who look at the pressure, from the Democratic
Party, in particular, for the Greens not to run a candidate as being a
sort of invitation to commit suicide on the Democratic Party's
behalf," said co-chairman Ben Manski. "That's not something that a lot
of people have a strong inclination to do."
For now, Nader appears to be the party's most likely candidate. His
candidacy would bring the party media attention, instant name
recognition and experience running a national campaign. But officials
said the nomination is not simply his for the taking. Some complain,
as they did during the 2000 election, that Nader never adequately
emphasized minority issues or gay concerns. Others are irked that he
never registered as a Green (he is an independent). Still others fear
the party has become too closely identified with the longtime consumer
activist and ought to look for a new voice.
Nader did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
The party won't begin making any hard decisions on him or any other
candidate until July, when it meets for its annual national meeting.
And it won't formally choose a candidate -- if it does -- until the
2004 nominating convention, slated to be held in Minneapolis,
Milwaukee or San Francisco.
Until then, Rios said, "none of us knows what's going to happen."
John Ladasky
contains an old lie.
Recycled News <de...@extra.lafn.org> wrote in message news:<bb0hf1$c4u$1...@localhost.lafn.org>...
I'd love to see Lani Guinier added to this list.
> That the Green Party is also considering not running a candidate would
> probably surprise some.
For a little history, look into the 1994 California Governor's
election. I'll simplify a bit... the California Greens made the
conscious decision not to run in that race, in order to maximize the
possibility of unseating Republican Governor Pete Wilson. The choice
between him and his Democratic competitor, Kathleen Brown, was
crystal-clear. You see, Dems? We can be quite reasonable. But for
starters, your candidate has to be an actual *Democrat*, rather than
an impostor.
> Nader brought the party to new heights during
> the 2000 election, winning nearly 3 million votes -- more than four
> times as many as he received in 1996, when he first ran for president.
> It wasn't enough to qualify for federal election financing, but, as
> Democrats have long complained, it was enough to throw the election to
> Bush.
Here's the old, tired lie once again. "As Democrats have long
complained...", but *never* proven. Nader's candidacy was not the
deciding factor in the 2000 Presidential election, not by a long shot.
We Greens have refuted this a thousand times, and it still rolls off
the tongues of journalists like an established fact.
I think that Brian Faler needs a little refresher course on the sham
known as the Electoral College, on the half-hearted efforts of the
Florida Democrats to ensure that all of their voters were properly
registered and could vote, and on the eleven percent of *registered
Democrats who voted for Bush*.
> But while Nader often said, during the campaign, that there was little
> difference between Al Gore and Bush, the party has since become an
> especially vociferous critic of the Bush administration, attacking
> seemingly every major presidential initiative -- from the war on
> terrorism and the conflict in Iraq, to the latest push for tax cuts.
> That has some rethinking their plans for 2004. "There are Greens at
> all levels who are so infuriated with . . . the Bush administration
> that they would do anything to see him turned out," Strawn said.
>
> It is unclear under what circumstances the party could agree to
> support a Democrat. Many of its officials adamantly oppose supporting
> any of the more centrist Democratic candidates. "There is no possible
> way that we would ever support someone like a [Connecticut Sen. Joseph
> I.] Lieberman or a [Missouri Rep. Richard A.] Gephardt," said Anita
> Rios, one of the party's five national co-chairs.
>
> Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), one of the most liberal Democratic
> candidates, appears to have gained the most traction among the Greens.
> But he is considered one of his party's longest long shots -- and it
> is uncertain whether the Green Party would pass on its own
> presidential race to support someone with such a slim chance of
> winning.
>
> The prevailing opinion, among the officials, is that they should run a
> candidate.
I agree. And one of the main reasons that we should run someone is so
that no one thinks that we've bought the media B.S. about a vote for
Nader being equivalent to a vote for Bush. Two other good reasons are
mentioned in Faler's article, and then I'll bring up a fourth.
Point 2:
> For all their complaints with the Bush administration, many
> remain almost as disenchanted with the Democratic Party, complaining
> that it is too weak-kneed to adequately oppose the president's agenda.
> "We have a lot of problems with [Democrats], too, just as much as we
> do with the Republicans," said Tom Sevigny, another party chairman.
> "It's not just Bush."
Indeed. A vote for Lieberman/Gephardt is arguably *very much* like a
vote for Bush.
Point 3:
> Then there are the more practical concerns: The party could lose its
> ballot status in some states if it doesn't run a presidential
> candidate. The public might assume the Greens' time has come and gone,
> without someone at the top of their ticket, and it could hurt Green
> candidates running for other offices.
On one level, this ticks me off. The Demopublicans in many states
have written the election laws so that you must be running a
Presidential candidate in order to be considered a "real" party. And
we all know how much a huge race like that costs. In a manner
reminiscent of the Jeffersonian anti-Federalists, we Greens also
question the centralization of authority embodied in the office of
President. On the other hand, there's a certain delicious irony.
Because of their stupid law, the Democrats have to face us in a
Presidential election -- in part, just because we want ballot status!
Finally, my last point: If we Greens don't have a strong Presidential
candidate, we give up our leverage against the Dems. We certainly
didn't muster the votes to decide the 2000 election, but I suspect
that we'll be stronger in 2004. Eventually, we will be decisive.
What do we have to offer to a potential Democratic competitor to the
Greens, if not votes? What will the Dems offer us but paternalistic
sneers, if they feel that they've already won any Green votes for
President, because we don't have a candidate? Hey, look, that's just
what Ben Manski was talking about:
> "There's a lot of people who look at the pressure, from the Democratic
> Party, in particular, for the Greens not to run a candidate as being a
> sort of invitation to commit suicide on the Democratic Party's
> behalf," said co-chairman Ben Manski. "That's not something that a lot
> of people have a strong inclination to do."
>
> For now, Nader appears to be the party's most likely candidate. His
> candidacy would bring the party media attention, instant name
> recognition and experience running a national campaign. But officials
> said the nomination is not simply his for the taking. Some complain,
> as they did during the 2000 election, that Nader never adequately
> emphasized minority issues or gay concerns. Others are irked that he
> never registered as a Green (he is an independent). Still others fear
> the party has become too closely identified with the longtime consumer
> activist and ought to look for a new voice.
>
> Nader did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
>
> The party won't begin making any hard decisions on him or any other
> candidate until July, when it meets for its annual national meeting.
> And it won't formally choose a candidate -- if it does -- until the
> 2004 nominating convention, slated to be held in Minneapolis,
> Milwaukee or San Francisco.
>
> Until then, Rios said, "none of us knows what's going to happen."
My recommendation: we should nominate the best candidates that we can.
Those candidates should run the best campaigns that they can. We
should make no decisions at all about endorsing a Democrat until we
see 1) who wins our primary, 2) who wins *their* primary, and 3) the
candidates' states goals and political track records. An
eleventh-hour endorsement is a possibility, but should by no means be
assured. As I said in a post several months ago -- if The System
seves up two turkeys once again, we need to be ready with our own,
better breed of bird.
I am even considering giving the Democrats a little hint, by
temporarily registering with their party. It all depends how the
primaries are shaping up. I will require two conditions to be true to
make the switch: 1) Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich will need to look
like they have a fighting chance to win the Democratic nomination, and
2) it is clear that I will be happy with the outcome of the Green
Party presidential primary, whatever the outcome.
Of course, I'm re-registering with the Greens immediately after the
end of the primaries. And I make no promises about how I'll vote in
the general election. I need to gather all of the facts first.
Pardon the military metaphor, but let's keep our powder dry.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Earth
Susan Dridi
news:<c09b237b.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> A provocative article from the Washington Post. Unfortunately, it
> contains an old lie.
John, thanks for your nice critique.
The article contained several lies besides the ones you mentioned, imo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41545-2003May26?language=printer
> > Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04
> > Party Still Mulling Its Own Ticket
Not running a candidate is not the same as supporting the Democratic
ticket.
The Greens I know who are thinking about this are more interested in
focusing their energy on local candidates. Given the obstacles before third
parties, it's not a bad thing to consider forgoing a high intensity race
and spending that energy elsewhere. However I hope that we run a
Presidential candidate for many reasons. Some of these have to do with
Party building, but most of all, we need to give the voters a choice and
get our issues out.
> > The lesser of two evils doesn't seem like such a bad choice these days
> > to some Greens.
The key word being "some." Many Greens feel that such a choice is still
bad. As do former members of other parties, who have joined the Greens.
What a way to lead a story!
<snip>
> > "At the moment, everything is on the table and everything is being
> > discussed," said John Strawn, co-chairman of the group's presidential
> > exploratory committee.
Quite right. Though some of us are waiting to find out what the PEC survey
said, whose first question was, "should the Greens run a presidential
ticket in 2004?" As a grassroots organization, that should answer a lot of
questions. It may need to be asked again, based on the responses the PEC
received from the potential candidates they queried.
> > The committee began the process of finding a candidate months ago,
> > soliciting recommendations from its state party representatives across
> > the country. It compiled and picked over that list, contacting about
> > 40 people it believed might make suitable candidates -- those who
> > could help build the party, while upholding its leftist commitments to
> > nonviolence, anti-corporatism and diversity.
That is the BIG lie in the story, that the Greens are a leftist party. The
idea is absurd. If you look at our Ten Key Values, they are all common
sense. Conservatives don't like big institutions, and neither do the
Greens. Decentralization and Community Based Economics are traditionally
conservative values. So is our value of Personal and Global Responsibility.
Ecological Wisdom is a concept embraced by the vast majority of Americans.
Non-violence is embraced by many religious communities, and does not
preclude self defense. Future Focus and Sustainability - we talk about
loving our children and wishing that they and their children have a good
future - is that all lip service? I think that people mean it, that they
wish the best for those that will come after us. Respect for Diversity -
well, life would have been a lot better for my Irish ancestors if my
Pilgrim ancestors were nicer to them, but eventually, they all got along
just fine, or I wouldn't be here. America is supposed to be the melting
pot, so why do we have such trouble with this one? Social Justice - who
could possibly be against justice? Isn't that what America is founded on?
And, isn't that what Feminism is all about? And Grassroots Democracy? What
could be more patriotic?
The Green Party is not left, it's not linear. The most suitable description
of this party is Green.
-Susan
John Ladasky
> John Ladasky wrote in message
> news:<c09b237b.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > A provocative article from the Washington Post. Unfortunately, it
> > contains an old lie.
>
> John, thanks for your nice critique.
>
> The article contained several lies besides the ones you mentioned, imo.
Hello, Susan,
Yes, you're right, I could have said more.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41545-2003May26?language=printer
>
> > > Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04
> > > Party Still Mulling Its Own Ticket
>
> Not running a candidate is not the same as supporting the Democratic
> ticket.
>
> The Greens I know who are thinking about this are more interested in
> focusing their energy on local candidates. Given the obstacles before third
> parties, it's not a bad thing to consider forgoing a high intensity race
> and spending that energy elsewhere.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. On the Internet, I spend some time
arguing about the global issues, but in my eleven years with the Green
Party, all of my real-world energies have been focused on the local
races. Even in 2004, I will probably find myself stumping for some
local issue or candidate rather than canvassing for the Presidential
campaign.
If we had a more equitable political system in the United States, one
that truly decentralized power, I would not feel that the Greens are
compelled to run high-profile races.
> However I hope that we run a
> Presidential candidate for many reasons. Some of these have to do with
> Party building, but most of all, we need to give the voters a choice and
> get our issues out.
Media coverage and elections laws basically require it of us. The
American people are conditioned to hear the word "President" whenever
the word "politics" is spoken.
> > > The lesser of two evils doesn't seem like such a bad choice these days
> > > to some Greens.
>
> The key word being "some." Many Greens feel that such a choice is still
> bad. As do former members of other parties, who have joined the Greens.
> What a way to lead a story!
>
> <snip>
>
> > > "At the moment, everything is on the table and everything is being
> > > discussed," said John Strawn, co-chairman of the group's presidential
> > > exploratory committee.
>
> Quite right. Though some of us are waiting to find out what the PEC survey
> said, whose first question was, "should the Greens run a presidential
> ticket in 2004?" As a grassroots organization, that should answer a lot of
> questions. It may need to be asked again, based on the responses the PEC
> received from the potential candidates they queried.
I agree, surveying the Green electorate in advance of running is wise.
Yet I would urge Greens to consider having a Presidential candidate
at the ready, even if their first reaction is that a Presidential race
is not in our best interests.
To explain why, I must refer back to the 1994 California governor's
race, because it was more complicated than I mentioned. I said in my
earlier post that the California Green Party chose not to run a
candidate in the Governor's race, because the choice between Democrat
Kathleen Brown and incumbent Republican Governor Pete Wilson was a
no-brainer. In fact, getting to that no-contest decision was hard for
the Greens. The reason is that a party has less control over who runs
under its name than it would like.
At the California Green Party state plenary session in January of
1994, the assembled delegates voted not to endorse any candidates for
the Governor's race. Two people decided that they wanted to run
anyway as Greens. They did not need an official party endoresement to
do this. All they had to do to get on the ballot was to be registered
as Green for a few months before the candidate registration deadline
in February, and collect a few hundred signatures from party members
(whom they might have even registered themselves for the express
purpose of getting the signatures). It's bizarre registering a
state-wide partisan candidate requires so little effort, while
maintaining ballot status often requires so much.
Both of these 1994 California gubernatorial candidates had axes to
grind with the party, were relatively unknown, and would likely have
been public embarassments as candidates. Some of us wondered whether
these folks were actually Democratic Party agents provocateurs, and
not merely crackpots.
The California Greens had a unique option in their elections bylaws
back then, called None of the Above (NOTA). We could nominate NOTA
for any partisan race, and if NOTA won, the Greens would not advance a
candidate to the general election. It was a nifty law, specifically
designed to stop impostors from taking our party from us (it happened
with Peace and Freedom). NOTA indeed won the GPCA Governor's primary
in 1994. But compared to having the plenary simply vote to close the
race, running a campaign for NOTA was a lot more work. We spent time
and money that we could have spent supporting local candidates.
Of course, once the Demopublicans saw what we were able to do with our
elections laws, they sued to take it away from us. And won.
Personally, I want that option back.
Now, there has never been a NOTA option for federal elections. If the
Green Party plenary says that it will not contest the 2004
Presidential race, what's to stop someone who does not have our best
interests in mind from grabbing our ballot line anyway? It would take
more work to collect signatures state by state, but it wouldn't be
impossible. Let's nominate someone, someone good, even if we think
that we might want to trade that person's endorsement at the last
minute.
Yes, I glossed over this one. Why try to sideline such basic human
values as non-violence, anti-corporatism (== opposition to economic
serfdom), and diversity, by calling them "leftist"?
O.K., it's a rhetorical question...
> -Susan