According to a source in the Nader campaign, the reason he is not seeking the Green Party nomination is that, a year ago, he promised Cynthia McKinney, that if she wanted the nomination, he would not run against her.
According to a source in the Nader campaign, the reason he is not seeking the Green Party nomination is that, a year ago, he promised Cynthia McKinney, that if she wanted the nomination, he would not run against her.
Cynthia McKinney is the logical choice for the Green Party’s presidential nomination. I am really hoping that Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez begin a brand new party. However, I still think that the Constitution and Libertarian Parties should nominate them also.
Nader, just like in 2004, wants the Green Party to go to him. It’s called E-G-O.
If this is true, I commend Nader for keeping his word. He has always been a man of his word. That’s why they call him Honest Ralph !
Unfortunately, it is not good news for the Greens as Nader would clearly be better than McKinney in terms of exposure, growing the Party and votes. It is definetly not good news for Nader as he will face more of what happened to him on 2004. He was in 35 ballots then, look for less ballots, less money, and less votes. I support Nader and have already donated $$ to http://www.votenader.org but unless he gets serious about this run for President, I will cast my vote for somebody else.
Huh? Why on earth would the Constitution Party nominate Ralph Nader? That would be like the Republican Party nominating Dennis Kucinich, and about as likely.
Jonathan C.: What is your definition of “gets serious?”
Michael: The Green Party did go to him, in a manner of speaking. It’s called D-R-A-F-T-N-A-D-E-R-.-O-R-G.
Like NADER or not he keeps his word/
More productive promises she could have solicited include “Please don’t run against me in November” or “Please run against me for the nomination and we’ll be a team whatever the outcome.”
I don’t think McKinney walked away from that exchange hoping for this scenario. If she did, I have no idea what kind of outcome either of these two are hoping for.
You can gaurantee that McKinney is unhappy with this–and she should be. Ralph, for the sake of his ego and speaking fees, is running AGAINST her and splitting the “progressive” vote—not that I have a problem with that.
But its dumb.
It would be hard for me to imagine being in McKinney’s position right now, and carrying a presidential campaign.
I think Gonzalez being Nader’s VP and not McKinney’s really says a great deal something?
I agree with Fred C. this can not be the out come McKinney was looking to if she and Nader some conversation re 2008.
And, add to all this the momentum of political insurgency in the election, on the left and center, anyway.
I agree with David. Phil, how could you possibly think that the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party would/should nominate Nader who believes in everything that they don’t? He’s for big, intrusive government and they aren’t. And then there’s the ultra liberal ideology vs. a conservative or lassaize-fare (sp – sorry, too early in the morning to look that one up) ideology. If you far left wing voters want to keep splintering your membership which leads to no concerted, organized alternative ticket, fine. But don’t expect the Libertarians and Constitutionalists to commit political suicide by nominating a person that NONE of their membership agrees with.
Comrade Nader accepts speaking fees? I thought he was opposed to capitalism.
The Greens will really damage their credibility if they nominate a nutjob like Comrade McKinney. Like Trent Hill said, it doesn’t make sense for the ‘progressives’ to split their votes, but on the other hand, that will be more candidates to drain votes from Comrade Obama-nation.
Yes, the Constitution and/or Libertarian parties nominating Nader would be even more bizarre than the Republicans nominating Crazy John McCain.
I think McKinney probably got Nader to make exactly the promise she wanted him to make. When deciding whether to run, she was dealing with the same question he dealt with in 2000 and 2004: If I seek the Green nomination, will I have to spend a lot of money I don’t have just to secure it? With Nader out of the Green race, the answer for McKinney is now “no.” She can focus on reaching out to people who aren’t already Greens and supporting other Green candidates.
I’m guessing the promise happened during the brief period last fall when McKinney withdrew from the race for the Green nomination. If I recall correctly, she dropped out right after the California Greens put Nader on their primary ballot. I saw her speak right before she jumped back in, and when an audience member asked her a question about Nader, she smiled and affirmed that she was in touch with him.
As far as the general election goes, the presidential race for small parties is never really about how many votes you get. In 2000, the Green Party promoted the opposite view by relentlessly beating the drum for “5 percent.” The same year, Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party showed us that the FEC general election funds that come with a 5 percent result do not necessarily make for a viable campaign or sustainable party-building.
For ballot access, the impact of the presidential race is negligible. In the overwhelming majority of states, small parties can retain ballot access by running quality candidates for U.S. Senator, Governor, and other positions where they are likely to get higher percentages than in the presidential race anyway.
I am not sure what speaking fees would have to do with capitalism. Most Universities use student fees to pay for speakers. I would consider that more socialistic than capitalistic.
I do agree it would be better not to split the vote. I do however believe the division between “party building” and pressure politics” is too great. As far as the Cons and Libs, I am not so sure. The Nader site has some strong Libertarian supporters. When so many on the left were supporting Paul I was similarly perplexed. I think there is this strong independent streak that crosses ideological grounds who will unite to crash the duopoly. Now there is a November 5th video out of Nader. How much you want to bet its an ex Paul supporter that put it out.
With Nader now definitely running, does this mean that
the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties will
have no chance to squeeze into the fall debates. After
all, with all of the activity that the Democrats went
through in 2004 to silence his campaign by relentless
attacks on his petitioning around the country they now
have the perfect “EXCUSE” to leave again ignore these
parties right to fairly and clearly debate their diff-
erences in a neutral setting. Also, does anybody know
what the current situation is with the Independence
Party of New York is on who they would consider for
President this year & the likely number of states that
they reasonably expect to qualify their candidate for
with the Refoem and any other one-state parties?
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the possibility of minor party or independent candidates getting into this fall’s presidential debates.
President Jimmy Carter, of course, in 1980 refused to participate in a debate that included the independent John Anderson, but Ronald Reagan debated Anderson.
In 1992, President G. H. W. Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton agreed to let the independent Ross Perot into the debates. But in 1996, Perot, the nominee of his Reform Party, was kept out of the debates.
The Independence Party – having lost its preferred candidate – might just nominate the person it nominated in 2004, one Ralph Nader.
Andrew Lane: According to their website, the IP is talking to Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa about running. I would assume they’ve also talked to Ralph Nader, or vice versa.
Steve Rankin: A quick read through Ralph Nader’s rather extensive writings on the subject, or even a viewing of _An Unreasonable Man_, will make it clear that he is quite supportive of capitalism (sadly, in my opinion). In addition, I apparently need to point out that only Stalinists are in favor of “big, intrusive government.” People like Nader (and the Green Party, for that matter) are in favor of better government, not bigger government. Of course, my twenty years or so in the libertarian movement before I bailed out convinced me that some people think any government at all qualifies as big & intrusive.
Interestingly, the Green Party’s emphasis on (bordering on obsession with) decentralization as one of its key values, along with promoting local economies & entrepreneurs — all of which Ralph Nader supports — distinguishes it from the stereotype that people who think all leftists are alike possess.
Nah, if Ralph Nader was a socialist, there’d be a lot fewer socialist candidates running against him, and the rhetoric of groups like the ISO and Socialist Alternative about Nader being this great “progressive anti-corporate campaign” would ring better in my ears.
Nader has specifically stated he wants to defend capitalism from the large corporations and protect small businesses. Oh, he’s also anti-union when it comes to his own non-profits.
Yes (like it or not) Ralph Nader wants to regulate capitalism, not abolish it. The same is true for most people in the Green Party.
Nader feels (rightly or wrongly, I’m just explaining what he has said about this) that you can’t function in a union inside something that is a “calling” rather than a job or a profession. For example, he has often asked people who bring this up if you ever see unions in monasteries.
The ISO has its disagreements with Nader but they see his campaigns as a helpful step along the way, not an end in themselves.
The Constitution and Libertarian Parties really need to change – if they desire ever to amount to anything!