Skip to main content

Interesting! I wonder if this is a reconsideration of their strategy with Nader last time that cost Gore the election?

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."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company



Now is the time to make real the promises of Democracy.

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

If Kucinich actually won the nomination, then the greens would indeed have every reason to endorse the democratic nominee.

I think that it is a mistake for democrats to blame Nader for their defeat, for several reasons.

(1) David McRenolds got more votes in Florida than the margin. Thus, it was the Socialist Party USA that determined the election, by that logic! Big Grin

(2) More blacks were probobly turned away from the polls in Florida than the margin, especially if we include people whose names were erroniously removed from the voter rolls as supposed felons. Had Gore shown more interest in this in the first place, he might very well be President, now.

(3) Why are convicted felons (many on drug charges) disenfranchised in the first place? So long as somebody is a US Citizen, they ought to have the right to vote. (ie: anybody who does not get deported after having their citizenship taken away under Patriot II!) I remember hearing some stats on the percentage of black males in Florida (and elsewhere) who have been disenfranchised, and they were quite high, although I don't recall them at the moment. It is interesting that people who may legally run for president are denied to vote in presidential elections.

"La vida te da sorpresas...
Sorpresas te da la vida...",
¡Ay, Dios!

Rubén Blades---Pedro Navaja


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
If Kucinich actually won the nomination, then the greens would indeed have every reason to endorse the democratic nominee.

I think that it is a mistake for democrats to blame Nader for their defeat, for several reasons.

(1) David McRenolds got more votes in Florida than the margin. Thus, it was the Socialist Party USA that determined the election, by that logic! Big Grin

(2) More blacks were probobly turned away from the polls in Florida than the margin, especially if we include people whose names were erroniously removed from the voter rolls as supposed felons. Had Gore shown more interest in this in the first place, he might very well be President, now.

(3) Why are convicted felons (many on drug charges) disenfranchised in the first place? So long as somebody is a US Citizen, they ought to have the right to vote. (ie: anybody who does not get deported after having their citizenship taken away under Patriot II!) I remember hearing some stats on the percentage of black males in Florida (and elsewhere) who have been disenfranchised, and they were quite high, although I don't recall them at the moment. It is interesting that people who may legally run for president are denied to vote in presidential elections.


Yeah.... what he said Wink
Actually, disenfranchisement is something that I have worked on in the past when I was in Pennsylvania. What is frustrating is that the African American community does not want to get behind it, when they have the most to gain. Not only are a significant percentage of African Americans losing this right; the population shift from urban areas to rural (predominantly white areas) are also has a political impact. Congressional districts are determined by population; i.e., inmates are counted in the census for where they currently reside, while at the same time being denied the vote.

I just don't understand why Civil Rights organizations et al have not made a bigger deal out of this.

God has told you, O man and woman, what is good; and what does the SOVEREIGN ONE require of you but to do justice, and to be compassionate, and to walk humbly with your God?
The last column of this table gives the % of adult black males that are currently disenfranchized in each state.

Human Rights Watch Report: Losing the Vote

State

Total Felons

Rate for Total*

Black Men

Rate for Black Men**

Alabama

241,100

7.5%

105,000

31.5%

Alaska

4,900

1.2%

500

6.3%

Arizona

74,600

2.3%

6,600

12.1%

Arkansas

27,400

1.5%

10,700

9.2%

California

241,400

1.0%

69,500

8.7%

Colorado

15,700

0.6%

3,500

6.1%

Connecticut

42,200

1.7%

13,700

14.8%

Delaware

20,500

3.7%

8,700

20.0%

District of Columbia

8,700

2.0%

8,100

7.2%

Florida

647,100

5.9%

204,600

31.2%

Georgia

134,800

2.5%

66,400

10.5%

Hawaii

3,000

0.3%

100

0.9%

Idaho

3,800

0.5%

100

2.7%

Illinois

38,900

0.4%

24,100

4.5%

Indiana

16,800

0.4%

6,800

4.6%

Iowa

42,300

2.0%

4,800

26.5%

Kansas

7,800

0.4%

2,800

5.6%

Kentucky

24,000

0.8%

7,000

7.7%

Louisiana

26,800

0.9%

19,600

4.8%

Maine

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Maryland

135,700

3.6%

67,900

15.4%

Massachusetts

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Michigan

42,300

0.6%

22,700

5.4%

Minnesota

56,000

1.6%

7,200

17.8%

Mississippi

145,600

7.4%

81,700

28.6%

Missouri

58,800

1.5%

20,100

11.3%

Montana

2,100

0.3%

0

2.9%

Nebraska

11,900

1.0%

2,100

10.2%

Nevada

16,800

1.4%

4,000

10.0%

New Hampshire

2,100

0.2%

100

3.8%

New Jersey

138,300

2.3%

65,200

17.7%

New Mexico

48,900

4.0%

3,700

24.1%

New York

126,800

0.9%

62,700

6.2%

North Carolina

96,700

1.8%

46,900

9.2%

North Dakota

700

0.1%

0

1.1%

Ohio

46,200

0.6%

23,800

6.2%

Oklahoma

37,200

1.5%

9,800

12.3%

Oregon

7,300

0.3%

900

4.5%

Pennsylvania

34,500

0.4%

18,900

5.2%

Rhode Island

13,900

1.8%

2,800

18.3%

South Carolina

48,300

1.7%

26,100

7.6%

South Dakota

2,100

0.4%

100

3.5%

Tennessee

97,800

2.4%

38,300

14.5%

Texas

610,000

4.5%

156,600

20.8%

Utah

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Vermont

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Virginia

269,800

5.3%

110,000

25.0%

Washington

151,500

3.7%

16,700

24.0%

West Virginia

6,700

0.5%

900

4.4%

Wisconsin

48,500

1.3%

14,900

18.2%

Wyoming

14,100

4.1%

400

27.7%

         

U.S. Total

3,892,400

2.0%

1,367,100

13.1%

"La vida te da sorpresas... Sorpresas te da la vida...", ¡Ay, Dios! Rubén Blades---Pedro Navaja

Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch

Election 2004 will be a lesson --- a reminder --- of the power of the African American-American vote. This early flirtation with the Green Party is about power. In this case, defense against the power of the African American-American vote. One candidate is a direct threat. Two candidates are are probably seen as feeding on each other. Nonetheless, the DNC does not want to go to convention with a viable non-European candidate --- of and description --- but definitely not an African American-American.

There is old believe that an incumbent is very hard to beat. That is of course unless he/she beats themselves e.g. Carter, and Bush 2st. If an African American-American Republic candidate can be unearth now or in any future election things will really get tight.

Jim Chester

JWC

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×