|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
The Green Party's Goal - Ensuring that Republicans Take Over the Senate |
Current rating: 0 |
by Joe Conason, quoted
(No verified email address) |
02 Jul 2002
Modified: 08 Jul 2002 |
Ralph Nader can talk out of either side of his mouth about the consequences
of his Green Party presidential candidacy and third-party spoiler strategies. What he says at
any moment depends on whether he is avoiding blame for Republican advances or promoting
himself and his followers as the inexorable progressive vanguard. |
Ralph Nader can talk out of either side of his mouth about the consequences
of his Green Party presidential candidacy and third-party spoiler strategies. What he says at
any moment depends on whether he is avoiding blame for Republican advances or promoting
himself and his followers as the inexorable progressive vanguard.
In the immediate aftermath of the November 2000 election, there were moments when Nader
celebrated the defeat of Al Gore as his own victory. But there were also moments when he
insisted that his third-party campaign didn't affect the outcome. He occasionally cited a poll
that shows he took relatively few votes from Gore, although most surveys indicate that he
drained away more than enough to "elect" Bush (for a convincing analysis, read this Reason
article by Matt Welch).
Nader often threatens to deliver both houses of Congress to the Republicans unless the
Democrats surrender to his ideology. But sometimes he will claim -- as he did not long ago in
Slate -- that Green votes actually helped the Democrats gain control of the Senate, by
mobilizing left-leaning voters who otherwise wouldn't have showed up at the polls.
In other words, he wants to have it both ways. As the self-appointed scourge of the Democratic
Party, he feels entitled to destroy it for its political sins, without assuming any responsibility
for the ill consequences of his moralistic posturing.
That convenient ambiguity will no longer be available to Nader after this year's electoral
returns come in, which is why certain prominent Greens -- most notably his 2000
vice-presidential running mate Winona La Duke ? are seeking to soften their party's
destructive vendetta against the Democrats. But so far, the great Green guru himself has
remained silent about the potential price of the party's midterm crusade, which may return
the Senate to Republican control and preserve Republican power over the House of
Representatives. Nader evidently feels no qualms about handing the country over to Sen.
Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, those most faithful servants of corporate
power, so long as the hated Democrats are ousted.
There isn't really much else that the Greens can hope to achieve. Whatever their utopian
platforms may say about renewable energy, corporate responsibility, diversity rainbows or
frogs in top hats, the ruin of the Democratic Party is their only feasible aim. The first
Democrats to be taken down, if the tiny party's plans are effective, will be the most
progressive.
In Wisconsin, for instance, a pair of Democratic representatives with strong environmental
and labor voting records will face both Green and Republican challengers. Gerald Kleczka of
Milwaukee has a perfect rating from the League of Conservation voters, while Ron Kind's
record is almost as pristine. Yet they are being targeted by the Greens, whose national
co-chairman resides in Madison, solely because of their party affiliation (and because the
party may be able to create an illusion of mass support in their progressive districts).
Similar Green candidacies around the country, targeted opportunistically at certain
Democrats, may well affect the exceptionally tight struggle for control of Congress. Every
extra dollar needed to defend an otherwise safe Democratic seat against a third-party
challenge, of course, makes a fall offensive against the better-funded Republicans more
difficult.
Even in conservative Texas, where black Democrat Ron Kirk is regarded as a potential upset
winner to fill the Senate seat of retiring Republican Phil Gramm, the Green vote will make a
difference for the worse. Nader took slightly more than 2 percent of the Texas presidential
vote two years ago, a number that was meaningless then but might represent the margin of
victory for the Republicans next November. Again, the opportunism is blatant, with the
Greens likely to nominate an African-American activist to run against Kirk.
And in their most appalling move, the Greens are running a candidate for the Senate in
Minnesota, where incumbent Democrat Paul Wellstone is facing a well-funded challenge from
Norm Coleman, a popular former mayor of St. Paul (and former Democrat) who enjoys
strong support from the White House. Experienced observers believe this important race will
be decided by a very small margin.
National Republicans have stuck a bulls-eye on Wellstone because they don't like his
independent attitude and they believe his progressive politics will make him vulnerable.
Instead of endorsing him, however, the state's petulant Green Party leadership is cooperating
with Karl Rove by nominating their own Senate candidate. They reportedly balked at the
pressure from Minnesota Democrats -- and their own wiser members, such as La Duke -- to
join in an endorsement of Wellstone.
The Minnesota Greens suffer from the confused mental state that leaves them and many of
their comrades unable to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans or liberals and
conservatives. They cannot comprehend that wrecking Wellstone will only advance the most
environmentally destructive Republican schemes, while tilting the Democratic Party to the
right.
But the Greens tend to welcome such disasters as confirmation of their own moral hygiene.
What matters to them is that Minnesota voters will be able to vote in good conscience for a left
candidate still purer than the very principled Democrat who now serves them.
The Progressive magazine, a publication ordinarily sympathetic to Nader and his supporters,
recently exposed the weird conduct of the Minnesota Greens in a fascinating article by editor
Ruth Conniff. She quoted a party official saying that they oppose Wellstone because of his
votes on terrorism and military issues: "We want to give people in Minnesota the opportunity
to vote their conscience. If they're opposed to military actions in the Middle East, the Patriot
Act, the sanctions on Iraq."
Unfortunately Ed McGaa, the mystically minded Senate candidate nominated by the
Minnesota Greens, is barely able to formulate any coherent position. He is certainly no Green
purist. (Among other offenses, he hunts and eats meat.) When he articulates his opinions on
foreign policy and defense, they are often to the right of Wellstone's. He appears to have been
selected primarily for his Native American ethnicity, because he is otherwise an utter
embarrassment to his political sponsors.
On foreign policy issues McGaa, an author of books about ecology and spirituality, is closer to
George W. Bush than to the party that nominated him. He is a military veteran who "remains
proud of his 110 combat missions in Vietnam" and feels that an armed response "was needed
to Sept. 11."
According to Conniff, McGaa hasn't really considered how his candidacy might affect the
bigger national picture. "It will be a shame if the Republicans get in. On that I have to agree
with you," he told her. "I'm not enamored by George Bush's policies. I think I may draw a lot
of people, though, because I'm uniquely different, and I have a lot of knowledge, and plus I'm
a veteran and right now people are very, very patriotic." As for the political geniuses who
chose him, they admitted to Conniff that they knew almost nothing about McGaa when they
picked him at their nominating convention.
"Unfortunately, we're just now finding out," sighed one of them.
In keeping with their infantile style of politics, the Greens have nominated a joke candidate
against a serious public servant. This fiasco demonstrates their disrespect for the democratic
process and for an opponent who deserves better. Such is Wellstone's reward for a lifetime of
activism and an outstanding record in the Senate. Such is the gratitude of Nader and his
followers toward one of the very few Democrats who publicly praised his role in the 2000
election.
Right now, Nader seems more concerned with silly posturing, complaining about the
officiating in Game 6 of the Western Finals to NBA commissioner David Stern. But if the
Green assault on Wellstone succeeds, the Minnesota Democrat won't be its only casualty.
Nader can still prevent this debacle, which will complete the pointless and ruinous process he
began two years ago. Otherwise, what will he say when, thanks to him and his party, the
Republicans gain control of the Senate?
|
See also:
http://www.atwitsend.org/Joe%20Conason.html
|
|
Sources? |
by Jon
jon (nospam) unixgroup.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Jul 2002
|
Many allegations, zero citations/sources, other than off the cuff - same goes for his website.
Sorry, but I'm still voting for Carl - call me silly, but I still believe in democracy, and voting for the candidate who most closely espouses one's beliefs, regardless of the failures of our current institutions to address the unfair disadvantages he will receive in the coming elections. I assume the poster knows who that [Carl] is - this article does not seem locally relevant in any way (correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem to be Minnesota, or Texas, last time I checked). Possible cross-post?
As I understand it, one of the reasons the Green party was formed was to address the failings of the two major parties, which have become more or less indistinguishable in their suport of the current plutocracy. If the democratic candidate [Wellstone] feels he advocates more liberal and socially progressive ideals than the current Green candidate, maybe he sould join the Greens and challenge the currently nominated candidate? Or are his ideals too identical to his republican adversary that one other candidate with opposing ideals could turn the balance of the election?
Sounds like the same old democratic song-and-dance to me.
Just my $.02,
-Jon |
|
Pretty sad |
by ...
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2002
|
While Jon tries to pretend that the article is about something limited to specific states and candidates, it's interesting to note that he has nothing to say about its actual issues.
It's funny to see someone demand sources from somebody making a philosophical argument, too. Kids today! =)
Of course Jon should vote for whoever he wants - any voter should. It's the hypocrisy engendered in the Greens' refusal to bow out in the cases where a very close election might make them the enablers of exactly what they claim to despise, that the article is addressing.
And their answer to that - that dems and repubs are the same party - is a blatant lie, easily seen through by anyone not completely entranced by their great platform. Which, of course, doesn't matter if they don't win.
And why would a third candidate being able to tip an election reflect on how close the other 2 platforms are? Sorry, non-sequitur. All they need are similar numbers of voters. |
