One week ago, Ralph Nader announced officially on Meet the Press that he would be running for office. Interestingly, he chose to address his candidacy without really calling to attention the fact that he is running for the Green Party nomination. Whether he becomes the Green Party presidential candidate after the Green Party convention in the summer or not, Ralph Nader and his fellow supporters from the Green Party will have it exceptionally rough during this election.
It’s not like they haven’t been met with issues before. The system has always been stacked against them. Draconian ballot access laws, exclusion from debates, and political bigotry all are expected by the Nader campaign and the Green Party.
There are also the widespread myths and allegations that Nader threw the election to George W. Bush in 2000 or that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 by siphoning votes away from him.
And now as the Iraq War rages on, Nader will have to deal with the antiwar movement’s opposition to participating in this election.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting where stalwart anti-war anti-occupation Americans spoke out angrily at Nader for not clearly articulating. I wonder how deep this sentiment runs within the anti-war movement.
If you go to OntheIssues.org you can find this quote on Ralph Nader from the Green Party:
Q: Briefly describe Nader's position on the following issue: Middle East Policy, including Iraq.
A: On Iraq, Ralph Nader supports the rapid and responsible withdrawal of US military forces, civilian military contractors, and US corporate interests fro Iraq. Ralph Nader has put a major focus of his time and energy into the Stop the War Campaign of Democracy Rising, which provides grassroots antiwar activists across the country with fact sheets, information, and tools they need to be effective.
Source: Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Feb 3, 2008
Is supporting Democracy Rising not enough to prove he is against the war and occupation of Iraq? Is writing numerous articles calling for people to be a movement against this spoiled system not enough to show Nader is against this "war on terror"?
Nader has characterized the Bush administration in ways that Hope and Hill would never characterize Bush. On Nader’s blog on Democracy Rising, you can find phrases like “the rogue regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney”, descriptions of Bush that characterize him as the “obstinate, messianic militarist in the White House”, and statements that say “Presidential outlawry did not start with Mr. Bush. It has been building up for a long time going from the episodic to institutionalized forms.”
I wonder how any antiwar movement member could possibly watch the first seven minutes of this above video and not think the movement owes Nader for what he is doing to spur antiwar sentiment in America.
But, as I spend more and more time with the antiwar movement because I do not care to put time and resources into the Obama or Hillary campaign, I learn more and more about how they view our democratic society or lack thereof.
The movement in Chicago has almost universally decided that incorporating politicians into the antiwar events that they organize for is a bad idea. For the March 19th/20th rallies to mark the unfortunate fifth anniversary of this illegal war and occupation of Iraq, the organizers collectively chose to demand that people be out in the streets challenging the powers that be and the corrupt, broken, and rigged imperialist system that allows this war to rage on instead of calling attention to choices like Nader that will show up on the ballot in Illinois.
Kevin Gosztola goes to Columbia College in Chicago where he is studying film. He hopes to become a documentary filmmaker. He is currently working as a production assistant on a documentary called "Seriously Green" which traces the development of the Green Party throughout the 2008 election. He has a passion for journalism and writes articles or press releases in his spare time. Kevin Gosztola is also a student activist who believes in questioning the way America's systems work(its electoral system, its military-industrial complex, its foreign policy of American exceptionalism, its media which has become the Fourth Branch of government,etc.)
His ambitions have him currently organizing and raising money for a Chicago Conference for Media Reform in April or May of 2009. It will be organized by college students to promote youth involvement in media reform and justice. Those interested in attending or helping with the organization of the program should contact him.
It's not enough to just be against the war in Iraq. You still have the lies of 9/11 and the Al Qaeda myth with which the War on Terror will continue in Afghanistan, Pakistan and where ever else they please. This War on Terror is the basis of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, Homeland Security and all the other wrongs and wastes.
As important as ending the Wars is, it is the monetarist monopoly-oligarchy that's really sucking the life out of Americans.
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 8:51:50 AM
Probably because most people recognize the war is his fault
If 1/100th of his Florida support instead had voted for Gore, we would have had President Gore irrespective of GOP shenannigans and hence, no Iraq war.
Nader's egotistical presentation of the race and Ds=Rs gave the election to Bush and gave us everything since. Nader bears a significant responsibility for everything Bush has done, and everyone on the left except for the most blindly ardent Naderites know it.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 9:09:04 AM
I thought everybody knew that the vote for Socialist Party candidate David McReynolds was more than enough to account for Gore's loss in Florida. That is, if you don't factor in electoral fraud and the US Supreme Court.
by
Cass Martinez (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 10:46:29 PM
REPUBLICAN VOTE THEFT NOT NADER COST GORE THE ELECTION
Actually, Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 and not even the electoral vote when you consider that the media went back and counted the disputed ballots in Florida and, when the long awaited recount was finally released, it turned out that in the four scenarios in which a consistent method of accepting or rejecting ballots was used, Gore won. Only in the other two of the six scenarios the media considered, in which the different standards for accepting or rejecting ballots used by the different Florida counties was used, did Bush win. In other words, whenever a consistent, non arbitrary standard for countinG ballots was used, Gore won.
The hysterical Democrats who blame Nader for electing Bush then retreat to their next line of attack. They argue that if Nader had not run, Gore's win in Florida would nave been so clear that the election would have never landed in the courts and the Supreme Court would have never had the opportunity to appoint Bush. This argument does not hold up either in the light of press reports that the disenfranchisement of African Americans in Florida through purging African Amricans who had been CHARGED with felonies from the voting roles, without further checking whether they had been CONVICTED, cost Gore an estimated 90,000 votes. This figure dwarfs the differance of mere hundreds of votes between Gore and Bush when all the disputed ballots were counted. And it also means that Gore lost because the Republicans STOLE the election and however many votes the Republicans needed to steal the election, they would have stolen no mater what the discrepancy between Gore and Bush had been
And finally, why all these tears about Gore since the Democrats have always disappointed us whenever the Democrats did win the Congress and the Presidency? We have only to look at the last election. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table even before she assumed her post as Speaker of the House. And the Democrats continued to vote for appropriations to fund the Iraq war, even though they only needed 51% of the votes in either house to defeat an appropriations bill.
The reason Nader ran was that people have to stop letting the Democrats scare us with the big bad greater evil if any social progress is going to be achieved.
While Mr. Leser is his usual depressingly biased self, those of us with less blinded loyalties understand the overwhelming evidence that shows Nader to have been no such thing. While, in the 2000 campaign 2 million American cast a ballot for Ralph Nader , 6 million registered democrats voted for George Walker Bush. Look to your own house Stephen, clean it up if you really want progress, though I suspect all your interests lie in maintaining the status quo...enough about agendised and increasingly trivial matters and people.
Kevin, your article is worthy of much more than this so;
there is a bias towards the status quo and an inability to look outside the box for solutions present within our electorate. The ability to seek solutions outside of the usual sources is a rare commodity and that is why such folks with such abilities command great earning potential in industry and make great impacts socially and politically.
Ralph Nader , not that Mr. Leser might care to know, prior to his entry into the race in 2000 met with both Al Gore, personally, and representatives of George Bush, who wouldnt speak with him at all. It was only after these meetings and his sending his proposals for campaign issues to both candidates that he realised it was up to him to bring these issues forward, and , to his credit and to the enhancement of the debate he did so.
Again in 2004 he repeated the process with both parties candidates and met with similar treatment so, as he is a good citizen, better than those blinded by loyalty and willing to forego issues in order to continue to keep America in the swamp of a two party charade certainly, he once again entered the race.
You and I know, as does Steve Leser, democratic propagandist, that the system is weighted very heavily against the participation of those outside the Duopoly that has trapped us within a cycle of corporate rule. Some of us reject such entrapment, some like Leser are more loyal to their party than to their nation, a real pity that. It is of the greatest importance that we hammer for the inclusivity of ideas and ideals within the political process. I dontoshare your belief that the anti war movement has a bias against third party candidates, though I understand the experiential evidence that leads you to this belief.
Lastly I would thank you profusely for including the Mario Savio quote. Bob, as he was known to his friends (Mario Robert Savio), was the valedictorian of my High School graduating class, Martin Van Buren, class of '60 ( and yeah I am old) and remained a close friend and political ally until his death in 1996. I didnt share his or his wife's belief in Communism but did share their unquenchable thirst for truth and justice and still work as best I can to achieve those goals.
You are a real asset to the cause , young man, I trust you will continue to grow and remain active in the political arena because , as George Bernard Shaw might have noted; you are an unreasonable man and all progress depends upon such.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 9:47:08 AM
You cannot pretend to be intelligent and a thinker and
then pretend to ignore the real consequences of your vote choice. This is a mistake the progressive left has been making since at least 1933 and probably beyond, but 1933 is when the lesson that should have been learned by everyone on the left was made clear. That lesson is that progressives need to find another way to assert themselves other than enabling vicious right wing war mongers and war criminals to come to power.
The fact that it seems the building of little much of anything substantial seems to have happened in the last eight years from the progressive community other than support for Nader that enables Republicans is all the more frustrating.
In Germany in 1933 the Communists and various other left groups refused to align themselves with the Social Democrats to defeat the NSDAP and the result was a holocaust and a world war. In the US in 2000 progressives refused to align themselves with Democrats and we got Iraq, the response to Katrina and all the rest. What more is it going to take?
It isnt that I object to progressives asserting themselves, the point is that it is obvious that this is not the way to do it.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM
Well you might ask. How is it you cannot see all the crossover Democrats who voted for Bush? Blame Nader? Blame Greens voting for their candidate? How about winning our vote with a GOOD CANDIDATE and a platform that is corporate free?
Many have supported the Democratic candidate in the past and look what we get. The likes of Pelosi and Reid and their 'keep your powder dry' antics. We do not need more of that. Why don't you get behind Nader or McKinney?
by
Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 427 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 1:33:09 PM
What on earth has happened to you? There was a time when you posted erudite and intellectually sound stuff, now you whine and snivel and post childish nonsense...Are you all right?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 6:02:50 PM
But I still think if you aren't voting for people who wish to repudiate the system you are allowing the entrenched corporate and special interests and the fascist leaders of the United State to increase their stranglehold.
Voting is not good enough. We need movements that are so powerful politicians would not think twice about running and ignoring these movements. But these movements of the people can come from the electorate and Nader does serve as a way to pull people in to issues-based movements that daily and weekly act for the betterment of the people of America.
by
Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES (GREEN PARTY) - The Green Party -- the informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement -- is one of the two largest third parties in the nation. The party regularly fields candidates for local, state and federal offices in many states, and has established active state affiliate parties in nearly all 50 states. The Greens scored a major political points when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore's campaign -- answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%). More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning the party remained ineligible for federal matching funds. Until 2001, the Greens were largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. That faction -- formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) -- was the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal, unified national party organization. Nader made another run in 2004 -- but ran as an Independent. Nader picked a prominent Green leader as his VP runningmate, but Nader's backers were unable to secure the party's endorsement for his 2004 run. Instead, Green Party General Counsel David Cobb of Texas won the Presidential nomination (ballot status in 29 states - 120,000 votes - 6th place - 0.1%). Cobb argued the party needed to nominate a candidate who openly belonged to the party (note: Nader had never joined) and was pledged to building the party at the local level. Cobb ran what was called a "safe-states" strategy -- a controversial move whereby Cobb only made major efforts to gain votes in states where a strong Green showing would not compromise the ability of the Democratic nominee to defeat Bush in the state. Democrats appreciated the move, but it weakened Cobb's message. For 2008, the Greens have adopted a strategy resolution which dumped the "safe states" strategy and commits to running an aggressive campaign wherever possible. There is much buzz within the Greens of a desire to nominate a woman or person of color for President in 2008. Other official Green Party links include: Green Pages (quarterly newspaper), Global Green Network, Green Party News Center, Campus Greens, Lavendar Greens Caucus, National Women's Caucus, Disability Caucus, Coordinated Campaign Committee, and Green Party Election Results. The Green Party Platform 2004 sets forth the party's official stances.
THE GREENS/GREEN PARTY USA (G/GPUSA) - When people talk about "the Green Party" in the US, they are likely NOT talking about this entity. The G/GPUSA is the older, very much smaller, and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. While the GPUSA also nominated Nader for President back in 2000, Nader rejected the G/GPUSA nomination (while embracing the other Green party, listed above). Prominent Nader campaign strategist Jim Hightower described the two Green factions as follows in 2001: "There are two Green party organizations -- the [Green Party of the US] whose nomination Ralph accepted and the much smaller one [G/GPUSA] ... on the fringes ... [with] all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas." Some in the G/GPUSA protested that Hightower's comments were a bit unfair -- but read the G/GPUSA 2000 Platform (which remains the current G/GPUSA platform) and decide for yourself. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majorty of the G/GPUSA delegates and large number of party activists quit the group and bolted to the larger Green Party of the US in 2001 (forming an informal leftist caucus within the Green Party). The small splinter group remaining within the G/GPUSA are more dogmatically Marxist. The G/GPUSA maintain formal local affiliates only Chicago, St. Louis and Philadelphia. The G/GPUSA has fielded a few state and federal candidates over the years -- often running them in primaries against candidates affiliated with the larger Green Party of the US. Related G/GPUSA links include Synthesis/Regeneration (party magazine), and Green Politics (quarterly newspaper).
The problem with the "Antiwar Movement" which includes Nader, is that the left is claiming "ANTIWAR", and they have shunned and ignored, refusing to unite with pro-peace on the right, beit, Libertarina, www.antiwar.com , or GOP www.ronpaul2008.com .
The Pro-Peace movement is Ron Paul rEVOLution, where peace voters from all parties and Independents have compromised and UNITED for PEACE. We have ammassed more money than any peace candidate. I for one do not see any other PEACE movement but Ron Paul rEVOLution, the rest, including Nader, are merely gatekeepers to the corporate parties.
I hope that when Nader starts his petitition for ballot access you will film that. I was told more than once by complete strangers who responded to my standing and holding up a Nader petition, "You should be shot in the head". It still shakes me up and has forever changed how I see Democrats. Furthermore, It will be very interesting to see how this March 17th War Protest will go. I fully intend on "crashing" with my Ron Paul rEVOLutrion banner. Last time I had two reactions from Democrats. One, they ran like hell away from me and hid. Two, they had to stop themselves from beating me with their peace signs. The antiwar left is a circle jerk and a global reminder that WAR is what liberals do best.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM
But I wanted to respond directly to what was said about Nader in the antiwar movement.
It seems that the antiwar movement shoots themselves in the foot because it does not know how to respect the work of politicians on their side.
The reason the movement discounts Ron Paul is because of his domestic agenda for America. But that is no reason to ignore his support to remove all military bases around the globe that we have. It does not change the fact that of the remaining candidates he is the most outspoken against this administration and the war.
Of Republicans and Democrats on the ballot in upcoming primaries, Ron Paul is by far the best.
by
Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM
Being a three time Nader supporter, who was never a Green, I had a ring side seat to watching the dirtiest tricks being played, and even on me. I got a phone call from a detective from 300 miles away saying he had a complaint of assult charges against me, wouldn't say who made them, but I had been accused of hitting a person. I was blown away by this call. What had happened, was I, helping Mike Feinstein host a Nader-Camejo event on Pico, went outside, where a group of protesters massed, many protesting Feinstein...who I took to be Diane Feinstein (not being a Green and knowing all the ugly Green local politics). So I went outside to ask why they were protesting Feinstein and Nader and what the two had to do with each other. I discovered it was Mike Feinstein, and why, and I moved to watch Camejo join us and practically hide from everyone, and Nader showed up and gave a great speach..and what I like about Nader is he will answer you honestly, and openly, and he's sharp...he sees things "outside the box", so his answers many times will lead you to new places or ideas you never knew before. I LOVE him for that. I LOVE him really for many reasons, but, he is not a saint (which I personally like because it makes him human). I hope to vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, which means he should be starting a ballot access drive.
Nader is the person who advised me to register "Decline to State Party", which had been working very nicely (until this election and the GOP blocking their ballots to Indys). In 1995 I had attended a Nader speach at "The Onion" in Los Angeles (New Age church). Several hundred people showed, many Greens were there, and that's when I asked Nader what his stand on Cannabis hemp was and he admitted he didn't know what it was and to inform him. And this issue is what has glued me to Nader all these years (Yet Ron Paul is writting legaization into law, so I gotta go with that). Nader was asked about going Green, afterall he represented much of what the platform was. But he refused to join but suggested instead we all join together for a shared goal, (since Greens were nothing and he was revered to Democrats, many who made their lives working in jobs created in his vacuum..any OSHA or EPA job...on and on.).
Nader came out with a book, "Crashing the Party". (which is what Ron Paul did BTW) The book explained how elections were BOUGHT, and as a Consumer Advocate, Nader felt elections should be "rated", for public safety, and legalities. Green Party grew because of Nader, not the other way around. As people joined and back then it was easier to get ballot access, and so Nader got on the ballots, but then Nader was not allowed to debate. I believe Perot influenced Nader because Perot, like Romney and McCain use their own money. Nader cast every presidential bid around his birthday and with $5,000.00 of his own money, on principle.
Nader's campaigns were not about winning, they are about finding out what is corrupt and exposing it to create civic action. But the Democrats have been the ones who are eating their own and to get what the GOP has, Bush power (which they voted to create and refuse to impeach, making Nader's scoff that there's no difference between parties, matter of fact).
Nader and Ron Paul are both candidates worth supporting because you get an education that is priceless, if you can handle the truth, and the majority can't, and they will be supporting whoever MSM says.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 1:27:04 PM
MCKINNEY ONLY CANDIDATE TO DENOUNCE GOVERNMENT ROLE IN 9/11
I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. However, activists in the 9/11 truth movement have pointed out that 9/11 dwarfs all other issues in importance and I agree with them. Nader has not said anything about Bush-Cheney and the neo cons complicity in bringing 9/11 about. Ron Paul has explicitly disagreed with the 9/11 truth movement. But Cynthia McKinney has openly charged the Bush Administration with complicity in 9/11. So, although I began 2008 with the intention of voting for Ralph Nader, I am now supporting Cynthia McKinney.
At my Green Party meeting last night (March 4th) Cynthia McKinney received 11 votes, Ralph Nader 2, Kent Mesplay 1, and No endorsement 1. In the light of Cynthia McKinney's statements about 9/11, this is as it should be.
Thank you Kevin for this great post. I was expecting the standard smear from a party hack when I clicked here.
Steven Leser, though did not disappoint. He can not, of course, claim to be an intelligent person and a thinker and still continue to promote the incredibly simple minded idea that Nader caused Bush to be elected in 2000. He can not claim to be an intelligent person and still do the "Nader is an egomaniac" smear again and again and again. Like the Clintons are not egomaniacs? And why is it that he does not spend more time ridiculing people who do not vote at all? There are many more of those then there are people who will vote for Nader. This rabid Nader hate really is not quite as intelligent as he claims it is, huh?
I’ll probably vote for Obama this time though the more of this DLC propaganda I read the more likely I am to change my mind. If Hillary wins, I vote for Nader for sure. The Democratic Party will move nowhere without being forced to. Guaranteeing them our vote will only get us more Clintonian triangulation. We do have some place else to go. By the way, I live in Minnesota where a protest vote is safe. You see Steven, I am not ignoring the real consequences of my vote and neither is Nader.
I can identify very strongly with Jeannette’s comment here: "I was told more than once by complete strangers who responded to my standing and holding up a Nader petition, "You should be shot in the head". It still shakes me up and has forever changed how I see Democrats." I bet it has. It is really just so sickening to have to read this crap over and over again. Trying to reason is futile. So every time I read one of these vile comments or articles I am making another contribution to Nader’s campaign. Believe me, this is starting to get expensive. I started at 25.00 a pop but I can’t afford that anymore. But I am sure Nader will thank you, Steven, no matter what I can manage to send.
by
Warren Colison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 1:46:10 PM
I love it. Donate to Nader everytime you read a malicious and ignorant comment from a Democrat. Everyone with monetary reserves to do this should take action in that way.
I wonder why you feel like still voting for Obama possibly and wonder what your conceptions of him are that would make you want to vote for him.
Anyways, hope to see you around on OpEdNews. We're a great community of thinkers (usually).
by
Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 4:21:43 PM
At this point in time, ending the reign of the Clintons, once and for all would send a very loud and clear and important message to the DC establishment, don’t you think? "We’re tired of this shit!", you know?
I may change my vote at anytime; I've voted Nader twice. Yes, Obama is owned by corporate America. No one else would be allowed anywhere near the Democratic Party nomination, not a chance. But he is now the "liberal" candidate whether he likes it or not. He has stirred up us "unwashed masses" better than anyone else in a long time. Yes, his style and personality are amazing. A half African running the WHITE house is a great idea, a model for the world. Maybe we will get lucky. He will be under a lot more pressure than usual to deliver. There is a reasonable chance that, once in office and with a bad economy, he will find he has a tiger by the tail and that his money boys are no longer in control of their fake movement. FDR did not run on the New Deal, either, did he? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is the same kind of crap we are hearing from Obama. It has also been suggested that the "hope" generated by the election of Kennedy helped greatly to stimulate the unrest in the later ‘60's. Kennedy, as Vidal says "did not have a liberal bone in his body". See Lindorff, Obama and Progressive Change 2/12 for a similar view. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/forward/12782/
I really don’t take this completely rigged two year long issue-free (s)election horse race all that seriously. Should I? It is mostly a two year long sporting event, a diversion that keeps us from talking substance. We need to exert pressure from the left anyway we can do it, short of violence. That should be the focus.
The Dims lynch mob (yes, I did say "lynch mob") response to Nader has worked wonders for the corporate wing. So many so-called progressives have joined the mob, cutting their own throats (and ours) just to remain socially acceptable. If only we could have hit them over the head very aggressively eight years ago. The power of the right wing propaganda machine is astounding.
by
Warren Colison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 11:36:58 AM
just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore's campaign -- answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%). More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning the party remained ineligible for federal matching funds. Until 2001, the Greens were largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. That faction -- formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) -- was the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal, unified national party organization. Nader made another run in 2004 -- but ran as an Independent. Nader picked a prominent Green leader as his VP runningmate, but Nader's backers were unable to secure the party's endorsement for his 2004 run. Instead, Green Party General Counsel 
G/GPUSA nomination (while embracing the other Green party, listed above). Prominent Nader campaign strategist Jim Hightower described the two Green factions as follows in 2001: "There are two Green party organizations -- the [Green Party of the US] whose nomination Ralph accepted and the much smaller one [G/GPUSA] ... on the fringes ... [with] all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas." Some in the G/GPUSA protested that Hightower's comments were a bit unfair -- but read the