Most Popular

Most Viewed
Most Commented
News
"Most Popular" tools sponsored by:

National Features

  • The Pitch
    We (Heart) Matt

    The Shawnee Mission East class of '08 loves its gay homecoming king.

    By Jen Chen
  • Broward-Palm Beach New Times
    Things That Go Bump on the Flight

    Something went horribly wrong on American Airlines Flight 48--and we've got the pictures to prove it.

    By Ed Newton
  • Seattle Weekly
    Being Gary Busey

    Everybody thinks Jeff Swanson is somebody famous. And he does nothing to dissuade them of the notion.

    By Aimee Curl
  • Cleveland Scene
    The Artful Dodger

    Women loved Zachary Coleman. And he loved their money.

    By Lisa Rab

Independent vice-presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez sits attentively in the front row of UC Berkeley's Wheeler Auditorium, waiting for an introduction to 400 political science students who overwhelmingly support U.S. Senator Barack Obama. His pinstriped suit is in subtle conflict with his hair, which hangs loosely over his ears from a middle part. A hardback copy of Tom Sandqvist's Dada East, a historical account of the avant-garde art movement, is tucked under his arm.

Gonzalez walks slowly to the podium where, in his trademark soft-spoken style, he spends the better part of 40 minutes relentlessly bashing the voting record of the students' favored presidential candidate.

"Do you know that in 2005 the Energy Policy Act, which had enormous giveaways to oil companies, tax breaks, subsidies, etc., was on the table, and Senator Hillary Clinton voted against it, Senator John Kerry voted against it, Senator John McCain voted against it?" Gonzalez says.

He pauses for a beat. "Barack Obama voted for it."

He goes on to question Obama's conservative senatorial votes on war appropriations, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, a Mining Act amendment, and the approval of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. At one point he cites a quote from a political blog: "Senator Barack Obama speaks like Martin Luther King Jr., but votes like George W. Bush."

Gonzalez really seems to get the students' attention when he contrasts Obama's antiwar rhetoric with his voting for billions in Republican-proposed military appropriations. Obama's voting record, he says, has resonated favorably with defense industry executives. Since February, they have contributed twice as much money to Obama's campaign as they have to the pro-war McCain's, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"If you think the Democratic candidates are against the war, you're not listening to them," Gonzalez tells the audience. "Obama saying he wants to leave 150,000 private soldiers in Iraq is not leaving Iraq. Leaving 60,000 troops in the region to carry out targeted strikes against al-Qaeda is not leaving Iraq."

After Gonzalez finishes speaking, a student yells out from the back of the auditorium that the political left cannibalizing itself is unproductive: "Why are you attacking Obama so much? Aren't the Republicans the problem?" The questions get sustained applause.

"I don't want Senator John McCain to be the president of the United States, but you know what? I don't want Senator Clinton or Senator Obama to be president either," Gonzalez says. "I would say to you that George Bush's policies, which we all abhor, could only occur with the votes of Democrats. I feel very strongly there should be an accounting."

Gonzalez was once the most promising Green politician in the country. The disciplined campaigner and popular city supervisor was elected president of the Board of Supervisors in 2002. In 2003, he nearly won the mayoral race against Gavin Newsom, the much-better-funded darling of the national Democratic Party. Gonzalez then stunned his supporters in 2004 when he decided not to seek a second term as supervisor, opting instead to start a private law practice specializing in civil-rights issues.

Last year, Gonzalez' supporters were hopeful he would run for mayor again, but he decided to sit it out after early polls showed that Newsom's sky-high approval ratings made him impossible to beat. But Gonzalez still seemed to have a promising political future if he wanted one. Many believed that, with his sharp mind and appeal to younger voters, Gonzalez had the potential to be the second Green elected to a state legislature and possibly Congress.

Gonzalez threw a curveball in February when he announced he would be leaving the Green Party to serve as independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's running mate. San Francisco is one of the most liberal strongholds in the country; some progressives, many of whom believe Nader tipped the 2000 election to George W. Bush, thought Gonzalez might not only ruin his political future, he also might contribute to another Democratic presidential loss. Even his old allies on San Francisco's left criticized him for taking part in yet another Nader presidential campaign.

Gonzalez says he wasn't considering his political future or that of the Democratic Party when he decided to run on the Independent ticket. Rather, he was thinking of the public good. The Republicans are unacceptable, he says, but the Democrats are simply not a good enough alternative — and if they lose in November, it will be their own fault, not Nader's.

Nader and Gonzalez say they plan an aggressive campaign to create public debate about issues on their agenda, which include single-payer healthcare, a crackdown on corporate crime, election reform, cutting the military budget, and ending the war in Iraq. But according to strong showings in recent polls, the Nader/Gonzalez ticket could have a greater impact on the presidential race than providing discussion topics.

The day after Ralph Nader named Matt Gonzalez his running mate, the two appeared on the KQED radio show Forum. In a nearly hour-long interview with Rachel Myrow, they put forward their agenda and discussed the failings of the Democrats on the war, trade, environment, and workers' rights.

One caller hit a raw nerve by accusing Nader of being responsible for the Iraq War because his 2000 candidacy helped elect George W. Bush. "This is bigotry, and I won't listen to it anymore," Nader erupted. "Stop! This is political bigotry, period ... "

Gonzalez stepped in and spoke directly to the caller with the calm and reasoned tones that helped bring him success as a trial attorney. "We don't know what would have happened if Al Gore was elected," he said. "We don't know that 9/11 would have happened. There's a problem when somehow every problem that exists in the country is laid at the feet of someone who ran for office in a democracy."

Nader, who had calmed down, added that the Democrats in Congress ceded their authority to declare war to President Bush, and have sustained the war by voting for every military appropriations bill the Republicans put before them.

Nader recently turned 74; he has been at the center of heated debate and controversy for more than 45 years. Despite many appearances on the likes of Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, he has a reputation for being sullen and forbidding. Four presidential campaigns and years of battling corporations, Congresses, presidents, and political parties have left him a little frayed, and occasionally cranky. This is where the 42-year-old Gonzalez, with his bohemian appeal and Zen-like detachment, is expected to be an asset.

Nader and Gonzalez have known each other for a decade, but their friendship grew in 2004 when the two were on an antiwar speaking tour. Gonzalez was Nader's first choice for a running mate after a recommendation from Peter Camejo, who shared the ticket with Nader in 2004.

When asked about his choice, Nader said, "The real question is, 'Why not Matt Gonzalez?' He's a great person. As a civil rights lawyer, he's very knowledgeable about criminal justice, he's proven his appeal to voters, and he's committed to fighting the good fight."

Gonzalez has a long history of fighting the good fight. After getting his law degree from Stanford in 1990, he spent 10 years as a San Francisco deputy public defender, and won his clients' respect and confidence as well as that of the police, opposing district attorneys, and judges. "He wasn't bombastic, wasn't over the top or theatrical, he was brilliant — and that's a word I don't use very often," says Daro Inouye, who has been with the Public Defender's Office for 35 years. "He could have worked anywhere in the United States, but he chose to work in San Francisco. We're very lucky."

As a supervisor, Gonzalez was able to pass a great deal of progressive legislation, including the highest minimum wage in the country, which had the added benefit of adjusting annually for inflation. He sponsored a successful instant-runoff voting measure, restricted chain stores from overtaking neighborhoods, and initiated the first biodiesel fuel study in city vehicles. He also developed a reputation as a champion of the arts, even holding regular art shows in his City Hall office. In 2003, his colleagues elected him board president. Even though Gonzalez lost the 2003 mayor's race, he became the unofficial leader of the city's progressive factions, many of whom were disappointed when he did not seek a second term and opted to start a law firm with fellow Stanford grad Whitney Leigh.

When Gonzalez announced he would be Nader's running mate, many supporters and allies turned on him. The local media response reached an almost hysterical pitch. Former Gonzalez enthusiast Steven T. Jones, city editor for the Bay Guardian (which endorsed Nader in 2000), called the Nader/Gonzalez ticket "deceptive," "ego-driven," and "ridiculous," and suggested it would tear asunder the fragile unity between progressives and people of color.

Even some of Gonzalez' closest political allies, such as supervisors Chris Daly and Ross Mirkarimi, publicly criticized his decision. Mirkarimi describes himself as a "loving critic," but he is nonetheless a potent one. Mirkarimi was a legal intern to Nader in Washington in the mid-1980s, and later cofounded the California chapter of the Green Party. He ran Nader's California presidential campaign in 2000, and was Gonzalez' press secretary in 2003. He was also backed by Gonzalez to succeed him to represent District 5 on the Board of Supervisors.

Mirkarimi, who is up for re-election this year, says there was an upsurge of grassroots interest in the Green Party in 2000 that ultimately proved insufficient to reach the 5 percent mark, which he called the "holy grail" for recognition as a valid third party that would have qualified the party for millions in federal matching funds in 2004. Mirkarimi now says the Green Party and other progressives should focus on building local infrastructure by running for school boards and city councils, rather than relying on Nader's shopworn attempts to energize the progressive base. Mirkarimi said he could not support Gonzalez, who was instrumental in getting him elected to the Board of Supervisors.

"There is any number of options Matt could pursue and pursue successfully," Mirkarimi says, "but I really don't think this will hurt his career, though I'm not sure if he knows what that career is."

Gonzalez says he thought a long time about making the commitment to a grueling presidential campaign, but finally decided there are too many critical issues being omitted from the national debate. "One of the key things I will be talking about is voter reform, which is something I've had experience in as a San Francisco supervisor," he says. "And the war in Iraq is another. I think it's incredible that Senator John McCain is putting out the idea of perpetual war, but what's disconcerting is that Senator Obama refused to commit to getting American troops out of Iraq by 2013."

But despite Gonzalez' criticisms of other candidates' views on the war in Iraq, few antiwar protesters in the Bay Area seem sympathetic to another Nader candidacy.

In March, during an antiwar protest outside state Senator Dianne Feinstein's office near Market and Montgomery streets, the crowd swelled off the sidewalks and into the busy street. A group of protesters overtook the middle of the intersection, bringing traffic on the city's main commercial artery to a screeching halt. They were quickly surrounded by a phalanx of police officers sporting powder-blue helmets and riot batons, who moved in to arrest them.

A speaker whipped up the crowd of about 500 by ratcheting up the intensity of his rhetoric. "This war is illegal," he shrieked into the tinny public address system. "George Bush and Dick Cheney are criminals, and it's time to get them out of the White House. And fuck you, Ralph Nader, if you run for president! Ralph Nader, fuck you!"

The source of the resentment toward Nader in the left's spiritual homeland is the 2000 presidential election. Democrats have been effective in blaming former Vice President Al Gore's loss on Nader's Green Party candidacy in 2000, even though there are serious problems with the theory.

The election was extremely close in all the battleground states; election night finally boiled down to Florida, where Gore ended up losing by a mere 537 votes. The results gave Bush enough electoral votes to take the presidency. Because Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida, Democrats have argued vociferously that those votes would have otherwise gone to Gore. Some even go as far as to blame Nader indirectly for the war in Iraq.

"People are still feeling burnt by what happened in 2000," says Scott Wiener, president of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee. "When you have Nader take nearly 100,000 votes in Florida and close margins in other states like New Mexico and Oregon, there's no question that Nader had a role in Gore losing, but I'm not going to say for a second that Nader was the sole cause."

In fact, the Gore campaign had deep-rooted problems. Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee, or President Clinton's state of Arkansas. In addition, there were so many problems in Florida that many believed Gore should have been more aggressive accusing his opponents of voter fraud. Problems included confusing butterfly ballots, missing overseas ballots, and a so-called "scrub list" that wrongly disqualified thousands of African-American voters because their names were similar to those of convicted felons. A month after the election, a national Harris poll showed 49 percent of Americans believed Gore had won the election, compared to 40 percent who thought Bush did.

Gonzalez dismisses claims that Nader was responsible for the outcome of the 2000 election, and says the idea that he is indirectly responsible for the war in Iraq is outrageous and hypocritical, given the Democrats' enthusiastic support for the war. He points out that Democrats are quick to blame third parties for their own failures, but fall silent when they benefit from third-party candidates. In fact, Gonzalez says, Democrats owe their current Senate majority to three-way elections: Maria Cantwell, Tim Johnson, and Jon Tester all won their seats because Libertarian Party candidates drew votes away from Republicans. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada owes his 428-vote victory in 1998 over Republican John Ensign to Libertarian Michael Cloud, who took 8,044 votes.

"Before you criticize Nader for entering a political race, ask yourself: If Congress approved the war in Iraq, all war appropriations, and the PATRIOT Act, then who is really spoiling this country?" Gonzalez wrote in a recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Despite their losses to Libertarian campaigns, Republicans are less hostile toward third parties. Mark McKinnon, who was advertising adviser to the Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004 and who is currently working for John McCain, says third parties are part of the landscape in a democracy. "First, it should be in the constitution that if you can't win your home state, you can't be president," he says. "That said, in a race won by 500 votes, there is no question that Ralph Nader cost the Democrats the presidency. Bottom line, this is a democracy, and you don't get to pick your opponents. The voters do."

It's a windy Saturday evening, and people are jamming into Soap Gallery, a small storefront art space on Mission Street, to see Matt Gonzalez' art. There are about 15 of his small collages on the wall, two of which are marked as gifts for the gallery's owners. Gonzalez sips from a bottle of beer while talking with guests. The collages are made of cutouts of colored paper and cardboard Gonzalez culls from the mail or finds in the street. "Matt is great to have a show for," gallery co-owner Eve Mendelson says. "Artists can be a bit difficult and disorganized, but Matt had his work ready right on time and knew how he wanted to hang it. He's a little more disciplined than what we're used to."

Gonzalez lives simply in a small Western Addition apartment with his girlfriend, Robin Savinar. The apartment walls are covered with paintings, mostly from the Bay Area Figurative Movement, which is characterized by warm colors and figures distinquished by "gloppy" lines. Other than the paintings, the apartment is decorated so sparsely that when it was burgled recently, the only thing taken was Savinar's laptop. "There's nothing here that's worth much," Gonzalez says with a hint of pride.

Gonzalez doesn't own a car or a television, and likes to relax in the evenings by discussing, reading about, or making art. He even organizes books in his two bookcases according to color rather than subject.

But beneath the easygoing bohemian style is a talented and serious politician. In fact, Gonzalez goes so far as to say a Nader/Gonzalez win isn't out of the question. In an election with multiple candidates, it's possible to win with less than 40 percent of the vote, and Gonzalez says those numbers are not out of reach.

"I wonder if our support would grow if we were allowed into the debates," he says. "Would it grow from 5 percent to 10 percent, 5 percent to 15 percent? What if we were at those numbers? Wouldn't it be a different dynamic?"

Newsom, a former opponent who learned not to take Gonzalez lightly, wrote a piece that was published on the Daily Kos Web site to remind voters of the threat posed by a Nader/Gonzalez ticket. "If I had to make an educated guess, I would bet that Matt Gonzalez' name ID outside San Francisco is somewhere south of zero," the mayor wrote. "But the fact is, Matt Gonzalez is a dynamic and accomplished politician who will bring both a charming charisma and steely discipline to the Nader effort."

Still, despite Gonzalez' optimism and Newsom's praise, it is all but certain Ralph Nader won't be sworn in as president in January.

As independents, it will be tough for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket to get on the ballot nationwide. Each state has different qualification requirements. But Nader has been aggressively campaigning in the East, and Gonzalez has begun to make radio appearances. He has traveled to Texas, and will soon visit Oregon and Washington. The two will campaign together in California in May, and Nader is scheduled to appear on the popular online forum Candidates@Google, which has hosted Obama, Clinton, and McCain.

So far Nader and Gonzalez have submitted enough signatures to get on the ballot in Hawaii and New Mexico, and have recently launched signature-gathering campaigns in Kansas and Arizona. They hope to avoid the expense of gathering signatures in California by seeking the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party, which is one of the state's six qualified political parties. It has relatively few registered members, but has been a voice for racial equality, feminism, and ecology since 1967. Nader also insists he will get on the ballot in battleground states such as Arkansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

In 2004, Democrats filed 24 lawsuits in 17 states in what Nader has described as a coordinated attempt to keep him off the ballot. Attorney Oliver Hall has filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia claiming Democrats brought the suits, most of which were dismissed as unfounded, simply to obstruct Nader's access. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Senator John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee, and the law firm of Reed Smith. "The whole purpose was to drain us," Nader says. "This is an attack on our First Amendment rights, our right to free speech. The corporate Democrats are sending a message that if you think you're going to get any kind of votes, it will cost you millions, so don't bother forming a third column because you will be punished."

But Nader says he is prepared for 2008. He has assembled a team of attorneys who are ready to file countersuits if the Democrats try to block him from getting on the ballot. "Because we have filed a complaint already in the District of Columbia, much of the work has been done already," Hall says. "We might have to make some slight adjustments depending on state laws, but we're ready this time."

Nader adamantly insists he will not broker deals with Democrats or any other political parties to bypass critical swing states such as Florida and Ohio, each of which played a deciding factor in the last two elections. "The public is tired of brokering and stealing and thieving and cheating," he says. "There will be no brokering, because it's the only way the voters can really trust you."

But Nader wasn't above taking money from major Republican Party donors four years ago. In July 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that nearly one in ten of Nader's major contributors — those giving $1,000 or more — were Republican, and suggested the purpose was to hurt John Kerry's campaign. At the time, Nader defended the $23,000 in contributions as relatively small and mostly from Republicans he had worked with on a number of issues.

Gonzalez' senior adviser Hansu Kim says raising the issue of individual donations from Republicans was ludicrous. "Republican executives for oil, pharmaceutical, energy, and finance industries are lavishing millions on Senator Barack Obama," Kim says. "I wonder if the San Francisco Chronicle will ask Obama to give that money back."

But no matter who contributes to Nader's campaign, state Democrats say they aren't worried. California Democratic Party chairman Art Torres is dismissive of Nader's chances of getting on the California ballot. "Ralph Nader belongs in a wax museum; he's old news," he says. "Let him run for president. In fact, I want Ralph on the ballot; it's important for the people to have a choice. I would never, never block him from getting on the ballot."

While Torres is dismissive of Nader, the Nader/Gonzalez platform appears to be resonating with voters even though their campaign only recently kicked off. A March Zogby poll showed Nader taking 5 percent of the vote in a three-way race with McCain and Obama. Swap Clinton for Obama, and Nader takes 6 percent. A FOX News/Opinion poll the same month showed one in seven voters would "seriously consider" voting for Nader. Another poll has him winning 10 percent of the vote in Michigan.

While those numbers are considered preliminary, or "soft," they are an indication the Nader/Gonzalez ticket could win enough votes in November to have an impact on the Democrats' chances. But political pundits and California party officials (neither the Obama or Clinton campaigns returned calls from SF Weekly) are dismissive of the threat.

UC Berkeley political science professor Bruce Cain says Nader will win only the votes of hard-core supporters in battleground states, and maybe some Democrat votes in solid blue states where a Nader vote is unlikely to affect the election's outcome. "The other scenario is Hillary wins the nomination in a brokered convention," he says. "Then you would have a lot of disillusioned younger voters who are particularly antiwar and more progressive than Clinton. That's a setting in which Nader, and particularly Gonzalez, who has a proven ability to energize young voters, could have an impact."

On a recent Sunday afternoon, Gonzalez is relaxing in the sunlit living room of his small apartment. He's slumped into the couch and complains of a headache. It has been a long week of campaign meetings and public appearances in addition to his responsibilities at the law firm, and there is still another media interview to do.

Gonzalez ignores a specific question about the date when Nader first asked him to join the Independent ticket, and answers philosophically. "For me, it wasn't whether or not to join Nader," he says. "We're both trying to do the same thing. I didn't have any doubt that it was the right thing. There needs to be reform, and I don't have any animosity toward people who disagree with me about how to achieve it."

Gonzalez puts his hands over his eyes. Then he sits forward and his voice quickens. "Hey, let me change the subject ..."

A moment later he is showcasing 67 Poems for Downtrodden Saints, the book he published for San Francisco street poet Jack Micheline, saying it was Micheline who first gave him "the courage to buy art."

Then he produces a large portfolio filled with charcoal drawings and sketches by Jack Freeman, a talented and prolific local painter. "I have so many people coming through here, it gives me an opportunity to show people his work," he says.

By nature, Gonzalez is at opposition with the status quo. That nature has characterized his career in law and politics. But in politics, change comes in small, hard-fought increments, and each inch gained is mined with compromise, expediency, and betrayal. The world of art, on the other hand, is in a state of constant insurgency. Axial changes in genre, design, color, and form are embraced and celebrated.

The interviewer makes an awkward attempt to shift attention back to a long list of prepared questions. "Ah, man, I thought we were done with that," Gonzalez says. "C'mon, I want to show you some collages."

Write Your Comment show comments (46)

  1. I really appreciate this piece. It actually does less injustice to Matt and Ralph than any other "journalistic" propaganda sponsored by the fascists running both parties. If the media's coverage of Rev. Wright doesn't indicate to people how out-of-touch with reality the Democrats are, then I don't really know what else to say/do except punch my ballot for Ralph and Matt in November! Stay strong Matt!

    Comment by David Reznik — April 30, 2008 @ 05:34AM

  2. Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say Bush starts ramping up a war with Iran. Then Clinton, who has promised to obliterate Iran, and Obama who has said he would keep the facilitator of that policy, David Petraeus, in command, both feel the pressure, in the run-up to the election, to mollify the hawkish spirit in the American character and both say they support bombing Iran but would just do it differently than Bush.

    Will anti-war progressives then be happy that they have an alternative in the race to turn to? Or will they be content to stick with two pro-bombing candidates and just bite their tongues? Any thoughts, progressives?

    Comment by Doug Rogers — April 30, 2008 @ 06:42AM

  3. To see how "progressives" act when they have to contend with debate has really helped me understand how an intellectually hollow Nazi ideology swept Germany in a time of crisis. Obama wants to make us believe we can get something for nothing if we'll all just hold hands and dream, McCain is a caricature of patriotism, and Clinton is a 2nd-rate BS artist. Nader and Ron Paul are the only candidates left with the brains and guts to stand up for true "liberalism" and against corporate fascism. I'm not surprised a half-educated college student would say "F.U. Ralph Nader". The fact that many green party members, the media, and our elected representatives are essentially doing the same shows either a tremendous moral and intellectual deficit, or intolerable cowardice.

    Comment by Kyle — April 30, 2008 @ 07:05AM

  4. The single most absurd thing about the "we wouldn't be in this war" charge is that the Democratic electorate APPROVED of George W. Bush early on! Remember when his approval rating was 93%, the highest approval rating of any President in the history of the office? In May of 2003 polls showed that 79% of Americans were in favor of the Iraq War whether or not there turned out to be weapons of mass destruction.

    Those numbers required DEMOCRATIC support, as did the war itself. George W. Bush was not elected king, folks. We have many constitutional safeguards to save us from an illegal war of choice. But we need an educated, active, electorate, an electorate that understands what it means to be a signatory to international treaties, an electorate that understands what the Clinton/Gore and previous administrations did to CAUSE 9/11. An electorate who will fight and take to the streets and demand accountability. An electorate who will demand that Congress exercise its Constitutional duties. While the majority of Democrats were giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, Nader's supporters were overwhelmingly doing our civic duties to prevent 9/11 before it happened! Unlike most Democrats, Nader's supporters were not astonished by 9/11. After 9/11 did happen, war was not inevitable. If Democrats had joined Nader supporters on the streets in equal proportion to their numbers, if Democrats had joined Nader supporters, who were writing and calling our representatives at the time, in equal proportion to our numbers, the war would never have been waged. While we consistently, ACTIVELY opposed everything government was standing for, Democrats, even those who opposed the war, were largely "politely" silent. It was the astonishing lack of political education/involvement of this country, among Democrats and Republicans alike, that produced this madness. Congress's supine behavior in the face of these crimes should only confirm to thinking progressives that Ralph was exactly right all along.

    The only way this will change is if a significant number of us promise to consistently withhold our vote from those who have not earned it. If that leaves us with McCain in November, well maybe that will stimulate ordinary people to take a more active role in this country. Maybe it would even mean Democratic Party reform in time for the race in 2012.

    Comment by Karin — April 30, 2008 @ 02:27PM

  5. post, not letter to the editor.

    Funny to read the Nader acolytes asserting that had everyone just agreed with them, that all would be perfect and fine now and that everyone else is at fault for not agreeing with them.

    Little do they learn that it takes work to get people to agree with them, that they cannot just show up with good ideas and expect to win, but that a campaign commensurate with the scale of the office they seek is required, not optional.

    The media is set up to make people like Nader and Gonzalez invisible. Read Herman/Chomsky Manufacturing Consent (1988) for a detailed analysis of how the media filters news to ratify corporate rule.

    Either you roll your own media capable of reaching voters through direct mail, hitting the internet viral jackpot and such, or your message and you don't get through. Gonzalez knows this, but I think he just prefers to talk to small groups and bask in their glow.

    We're dealt a crappy hand. We can either whine about how crappy it is, whine about the biased dealer, or we can do what it takes to start dealing hands of our own. Since the federal and state card tables are locked down, and absent a media strategy that can break through the filters and handle a the media blowback of a potential spoiling, all that is left is to build progressive power from the grassroots up in local communities.

    Recent history has shown, Camejo and Nader, that campaigns for impossibly high office cannot do that, but as Gonzalez demonstrated in 2003, it can happen locally.

    Only then, after progressives run credible campaigns and win state legislative office can we change the election rules such that those qualified candidates will not be hobbled by restrictive access laws.

    Until then, the only positive things that these campaigns accomplish is for those involved to believe that they are doing something to stop injustice, notwithstanding the fact that these actions are wholly ineffective and inconsequential.

    Thus, the progressive echo chamber reratifies itself and accomplishes nothing else of significance other than risking alienating potential allies by being framed as a spoiler by a hostile press.

    I find that Kenny Rogers' wisdom is appropriate here:

    You've gotta know when to hold 'em
    Know when to fold 'em
    Know when to walk away
    Know when to run

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — April 30, 2008 @ 02:46PM

  6. "The only way this will change is if a significant number of us promise to consistently withhold our vote from those who have not earned it. If that leaves us with McCain in November, well maybe that will stimulate ordinary people to take a more active role in this country. Maybe it would even mean Democratic Party reform in time for the race in 2012."

    Yes, and the flying spaghetti monster will swoop down and provide vegan meatballs for all!

    Seriously, folks, this is where political religion replaces political science.

    Let's just close our eyes, click our heels three times and say "there's nothing like the democrats imploding on their own contradictions, there's nothing like the democrats imploding on their own contradictions, there's nothing like the democrats imploding on their own contradictions!"

    There, don't you feel better now?

    Let's go march in ritualized protest so that the state can ignore us.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — April 30, 2008 @ 02:51PM

  7. What a joke. Nader is to the presidential race as Gary Coleman was to the gubenatorial race. Gonzalez is running so he can forever be referred to as "former Vice Presidential Candidate" when he is asked to comment in the future on FOX news. Nader and Gonzalez are similar in the fact that they both have quit the Green Party.

    It is unfortunate that there were so many voters in 2000 who believed there was no difference between Bush and Gore. How wrong these people were. How many who voted for Nader in 2000 would vote for Gore if they had a chance? Gonzalez believes there isn't a difference between Obama and McCain. Go back to working the art gallery crowd, Matt.

    Comment by Richmond Man — April 30, 2008 @ 03:44PM

  8. Marc,

    Apparently you're not familiar with Obama's Hopefund Pac, money which he has consistently doled out to the candidacies of his corporate cronies and establishment Democrats, in lieu of the grassroots progressives they were running against. (Check out the Duckworth/Cegelis race in Illinois). Most of the Congress establishes these corporate Pac funds, which they give out to each other, knowing that the money will be tossed right back at them when they are up for reelection. Obama is just one example of a candidate knowing how to play the game, which involves supporting the DNC candidate regardless of platform or ideology. He and others threw money at Hillary when she was up in New York, running against an anti-war progressive who begged (to no avail) for even one debate. When you're a grassroots candidate, with the cash trickling at $10 a shot, and your opponent is raking it in from people who don't even respect her, you have virtually no shot. That is not democracy, not even close.

    The only hope that we have for reform is for the electorate to fully understand the magnitude of the problem. That is one reason why these third party candidates are so essential: They are often the only people in public life who EVER speak the truth.

    Comment by Karin — April 30, 2008 @ 03:45PM

  9. www.poeticmotherlover.com

    Comment by M.M. — April 30, 2008 @ 04:50PM

  10. Both Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez represent largely held yet largeley ignored views by the 24 hour corporatist media propoganda. The big question is not are Ralph and Matt right on the nation's critical issues-they are and have shown great courage- rather, will the truth be smothered again beneath the weight of the lies and propoganda of the Murdochian media machine and the two entrenched parties.
    According to PollingReport.com most voters already believe:
    *That our nation is way off course on the wrong track in numerous ways
    *That Corporations hold far too much sway and power in Washington at public expense
    *That NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO are undemocratic and secretive trade agreements that strengthen Internataionl business interests, destroy US sovereignty and are dismantling and deporting American jobs and pulling the rug out from underneath families
    *That the Iraq War/Occupation/Holocaust is a dreadful blunder and should be neded ASAP to get all of our troops
    *That corporate welfare such as the recent payout to Bear/Stearns constitutes corporate socialism, relinquishes corporate responsibility and creates a breeding ground for future systemic moral hazards for investors and taxpayers
    *That single payer universal health care is the intelligent alternative to the messy and beaureaucratic system that plagues our current medical system
    *That the our nation needs more voices and more choices in the politicial arena and that a third party enjoys more than 50% support,

    Given the proven record of both Ralph and Matt, and their rhetorical/actional consistency, makes the other candidates look like dancing puppets on long corporate strings. Why should voters settle for the 2nd and 3rd rate candidates from both parties when the genuine articles of Ralph and Matt are available?

    Comment by Independent American — April 30, 2008 @ 10:51PM

  11. Marc,

    Look at other issue movements that have a disproportionate sway over policy as examples. The Israel lobby, Miami Cubans, Pro-life groups, the NRA- they all do one thing. They make it crystal clear that if they don't get concessions then they won't give their votes. It works. Why shouldn't progressives be an identifiable voting block in exactly the same way?

    What was clear after Florida 2000 is that the Democrats need these Nader progressives to win. But rather than make even a token concession they've pursued a more effective strategy. Since progressives have a low threshold for feeling guilt, they shame them into getting in line and not making waves. The politicians are disciplining the voters. But I think it should be the other way around. The voters should discipline the politicians. Rather than being defined by our guilt let's be defined by our willingness to fight and make things uncomfortable for those in power.

    By the way, I couldn't agree more about building grassroots power.

    Comment by Doug Rogers — May 1, 2008 @ 06:42AM

  12. Marc,

    Look at other issue movements that have a disproportionate sway over policy as examples. The Israel lobby, Miami Cubans, Pro-life groups, the NRA- they all do one thing. They make it crystal clear that if they don't get concessions then they won't give their votes. It works. Why shouldn't progressives be an identifiable voting block in exactly the same way?

    What was clear after Florida 2000 is that the Democrats need these Nader progressives to win. But rather than make even a token concession they've pursued a more effective strategy. Since progressives have a low threshold for feeling guilt, they shame them into getting in line and not making waves. The politicians are disciplining the voters. But I think it should be the other way around. The voters should discipline the politicians. Rather than being defined by our guilt let's be defined by our willingness to fight and make things uncomfortable for those in power.

    By the way, I couldn't agree more about building grassroots power.

    Comment by Doug Rogers — May 1, 2008 @ 06:42AM

  13. I'm not voting for Obama for president, probably not voting for president this year because there are no good choices.

    It is one thing to describe how bad things are and quite another to prescribe viable solutions. Nader has no viable solutions, as he's not solved any problems for the past 25 years. Likewise, Gonzalez was unable to do much to stop the waves of gentrification that have washed over San Francisco and are taking our culture back out with them.

    It is axiomatic that if there are no volunteers coming out for Nader/Gonzalez as they did for Matt in 2003, that the campaign contributions are not rolling in, that all this campaign adds up to is a few individuals salving their need to resist through grand but empty gestures.

    Unless you all can learn from what happened after Nader disappeared from the scene and allowed the Green Party to be whipped by the media as spoiling the election in 2000 and figure out a way to control the media frame when something goes wrong, when the media trips you up and uses that to discredit all progressive ideas, candidates and initiatives, then you all are engaging in intentionally reckless conduct that will screw other people as well as you.

    We need to look to the right wing for instruction here, in how they began to run for office at the lowest levels to create a base that eventually allowed them to take power. And we should learn from the over reaching that has kneecapped their movement should we ever convince folks that our ideas are better and to elect us.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 1, 2008 @ 06:50AM

  14. Marc Solomon obviously cares about being practical and effective. That's good. But he is wrong to think that "progressives" like Nader, Gonzalez or anyone else should just give up on the national stage and focus exclusively on grass roots organizing, on the theory that we can only do harm at the national level. First, we should always be suspicious when someone suggests that we curtail the free exercise of our constitutional rights. (When, exactly, will it be "safe" or "appropriate" to exercise those rights?) Second, participation in national elections is not mutually exclusive with local, grassroots organizing. Rather, as Nader himself exemplifies, engagement on both levels is mutually reinforcing, and absolutely necessary if progressives hope to build a successful movement of any kind. By contrast, consider the Green Party, which, under the leadership of people like David Cobb and Medea Benjamin, voluntarily campaigned only in so-called "safe" states during the 2004 presidential election. Does anybody take the Green Party seriously anymore? No, because they don't have to. Progressives should have the courage of their convictions and recognize that they not only have an equal right, but also a duty to participate in national elections and in the political discourse generally. This means they must not stand by quietly (or actively encourage, a la Cobb and Benjamin) while the Democrats vote for the war, for the surge, for the Patriot Act, for Scalia, for Alito, and on and on and on. As a third and final point, therefore, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez perform a vital service to those of us who were never that enamored with the Democrats in the first place, but who have nevertheless been sorely disappointed by this total failure of a so-called opposition party. Nader and Gonzalez are speaking the truth - not only when it's safe, but when it counts - and they are showing the rest of us how to organize ourselves, to demand that our voices be heard, and thus, to exercise some influence over the direction of this country. Those who suggest that progressives should compromise, capitulate, postpone and do whatever else it takes to support a Democratic Party that OPPOSES our goals and ideals, are really advocating that we relegate ourselves to the role of second class citizens. As the Greens proved in 2004, this is a recipe for disaster. Ralph and Matt should run, and if you support their agenda, you should support them.

    Comment by Tom Jeff — May 1, 2008 @ 08:22AM

  15. What would make you all think that you all had any sort of claim on the national stage? You are a water pistol and they are a firehose. When you all in the echo chamber claim that you are being effective on the national stage, you all are only congratulating yourselves for your simulacra of real politics. Indeed, your attention is being drawn by the media and its spectacles in precisely the direction where you will accomplish the least with the risk of doing the most harm.



    First, we should always be suspicious when someone suggests that we curtail the free exercise of our constitutional rights. (When, exactly, will it be "safe" or "appropriate" to exercise those rights?)

    Politics is not about the politicians and their ability to exercise their rights. That has to be the most narcissistic view of politics imaginable. Politics is about empowering folks to take control of our daily lives and to democratically participate in governance. Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez is not about any of that, rather about putting men on stages before microphones and adoring crowds.

    Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez has the right to run, and I'd not deny that. However a Green value is personal and global responsibility, and a reckless pursuit of individual rights to speech over the will of the grassroots base--few enough are giving their time and money to indicate there is no support for this candiacy--does not relieve actors from the consequences of their actions.

    Ralph Nader has accomplished nothing positive, substantial and tangible since the 1970s and his 2000 run has poisoned the well for local progressive and Green campaigns by alienating our potential base.

    Here in SF corporate interests spend like drunken sailors to contain the Green Party and our progressive allies from moving our agenda. This is because, with the help of people like Gonzalez and countless others, we've established a record of progressive governance. Greens, like progressives who have not done the requisite organizing work, are irrelevant in state and national elections.

    When there is no difference between standing aside and launching oneself in a trebuchet at power, the distinction becomes meaningless. The way to challenge power, as we've learned in SF, is to marshall the resources to win at the ballot box. Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are doing nothing of the sort. Thus, all that is left is the salving of egos and the enabling of microphonosexuals to practice their preferences.

    The way to win is to win. So many of the left are afraid to walk in power, are permanently wedded to being the opposition, the alternative, the left. Didn't Marx say that the point of politics and philosophy is to change the world? You all are stuck jousting at windmills rather than getting your hands dirty in doing organizing that counts.

    As a third and final point, therefore, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez perform a vital service to those of us who were never that enamored with the Democrats in the first place, but who have nevertheless been sorely disappointed by this total failure of a so-called opposition party.

    Nader are performing a service to that class of nonproductive progressive hangers on who get paid to work on campaigns every 4 years and tell the requisite celebrity how cool they are. How deluded can you all be when you see a significant distinction between not voting and voting for nothing significant?

    Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are not organizing. In none of Nader, Camejo OR Gonzalez' campaigns has anything tangible and sustainable been a product. In fact, Gonzalez nixed consolidating the organizing successes of 2003 because he didn't want to create a base he'd have to fight.

    Capitulation only happens when one has joined the battle. A line from Monty Python comes to mind: "what are you going to do, BLEED on me?"

    Newsflash: power already knows the truth. Many folks know the truth about power. They don't see Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez as a viable choice. They are only speaking truth when its safe--when they've been filtered out by the media and can make no positive difference.

    Any of the choices facing the Greens in 2004 would have ended up the same, an asterisk in the final tally, and that's where Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez will end up, asterisk land.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 1, 2008 @ 08:52AM

  16. Nader-Gonzalez choose to stand up for an alternative, and to do so - heaven forbid - in a national election. Marc Solomon not only opposes their choice, but finds that choice to be dangerous. In support of this point of view, which is official doctrine among corporate Democrats, Solomon claims that politics has nothing to do with the exercise of constitutional rights, and that Nader-Gonzalez are narcissists because they presume to speak on a national stage. What's really dangerous, though, is that so many people who call themselves progressives subscribe to this point of view. But it is not "progressive" to attack others for participating in a supposedly free and democratic election - no matter what your motives are. Don't speak; don't participate; don't challenge the status quo. That's your message and, as Nader says, it is political bigotry.

    Comment by Tom Jeff — May 1, 2008 @ 12:10PM

  17. You all are not standing up. You don't have any substance above the ankles if you're going to use that analogy. Such a misjudgement of your position is astounding. Voters don't vote for people who seriously misconceive of their own relative power.

    Marc Solomon not only opposes their choice, but finds that choice to be dangerous.

    I find the potential for negative outcomes in this sort of thing to be substantiated historically. If you all can't learn from history, how Nader was used to batter progressives and Greens amongst our likely base, then people are going to see that you all are too brittle, too unable to adapt to changing circumstances, to be trusted with governance.

    I voted for Nader in 2000 and have no regrets. I do see, however, that Nader 2000 has probably, in my opinion, cost Greens and progressives over the long term, full lifecycle analysis precisely because the corporate Democrat message prevailed. Either you learn to overcome that negative framing or you invite similar negative outcomes.

    "What's really dangerous, though, is that so many people who call themselves progressives subscribe to this point of view."

    What's dangerous is ignoring where your likely base of support is at politically and going against that and blaming them for being wrong when they disagree with you. The fact is that there are many people who agree that capitalism is bad but they don't see Nader/Gonzalez/Camejo as presenting any viable program that they have confidence in.

    Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are running for office. If they can't handle criticism, from the left, right or center without whining, they have no business running for office.

    We are challenging the status quo in SF, Greens, prog dems and independents, and we are making a difference. Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are not challenging anything because they don't have the resources, financial, political or people power to do so. The best they can hope for is to do no harm. The worst we can hope for is that they fuck it up again and abandon us to clean up their mess.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 1, 2008 @ 12:45PM

  18. Come on Solomon. You advocate total abdication at the national level and criticize anyone who disagrees as a narcissist. That doesn't sound very wise. You don't even plan to vote for president, even though Nader-Gonzalez are out there fighting for everything you supposedly believe in. That doesn't sound very wise either. Finally, your comments are laced with bizarre personal attacks on the candidates and their supporters simply because they want to participate in the political process when you think it dangerous. That, too, doesn't seem very wise. We're perfectly capable of handling your criticism. It's your hypocrisy and bigotry we can't stand. Signing off now so this doesn't become a firefight.

    Comment by Tom Jeff — May 1, 2008 @ 01:14PM

  19. One must be a monarch before one can abdicate. I'm talking about allocating our scarce resources conservatively, focusing on where they'll do the most good.

    Supporters of Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez, such as yourself in earlier posts, argue their position on several grounds, all narcissistic:

    1. They have a right to run
    2. Their supporters have a right to vote their conscience
    3. If they don't run, they abdicate.

    Nowhere here do I see an 'other centered' statement, where consideration is given to the other 99.9% of folks. You're trying to switch arguments once cornered.

    What is wise is conserving our powder for where it can deliver the most good.

    Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are up on stage talking. They're not fighting for anything because they're not significantly engaging in the campaign. Going through the motions is not fighting.

    Nader wants to lower the price of gas, claiming that the big bad corporations are driving the price up. And Nader thinks that the war is the cause of the current economic crisis. To me, that indicates a significant cluelessness on economics and energy policy, two of the most critical issues facing us, not something I even remotely agree with. That's just pandering crap

    You can't switch arguments in the middle on us again. Gonzalez has a political record. It is in play when he seeks office. Nader has one as well, and that is also fair game. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but neither is it irrelevant.

    The case for Gonzalez/Camejo/Nader in 2008 is faulty and I've pretty much drilled holes in each and every one of its justifications. The reasons why the left can't gain traction are enumerated in these comments, a complete disconnect from political reality, utter self-centeredness, sense of self as enlightened vanguard with everyone else clueless and in need of leadership.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 1, 2008 @ 01:59PM

  20. I believe that most of the commentators have so far neglected a matter that the author has not yet addressed either -- character. Matt Gonzalez may talk a good line, but when examimed closely, will he pass the character test?

    Comment by Steven Even — May 1, 2008 @ 02:02PM

  21. How's this for the politesse of diplomacy, Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are so far from viable that the issue of character, Matt's or Ralph's, will not be something that will be taken up by the mainstream press.

    As far as the loser lefties who thrive on fighting to be king of the left, I'm sure that in their publications, we'll see a major spread on the character faults of both Matt Gonzalez and Gloria LaRiva and a sober analysis of which is least conflicted, deviates less from the party line.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 1, 2008 @ 02:21PM

  22. Um, you don't have to be a monarch to abdicate. You just have to give up. Like you. Anyway, thanks for enlightening this board with your civics (and vocabulary) lesson. I'm sure next time anyone here gets the urge to vote for a candidate who represents their ideals, they'll remember that they're just being egotists, because what they should really be doing is conserving resources and thinking 'other centered' thoughts. By the way, is voting a renewable or a nonrenewable resource (if you're going to use that analogy)?

    Comment by Noah Webster — May 1, 2008 @ 03:55PM

  23. "The case for Gonzalez/Camejo/Nader in 2008 is faulty and I've pretty much drilled holes in each and every one of its justifications."

    Anyone sense a touch of narcissism in this statement?

    Comment by Doug Rogers — May 1, 2008 @ 05:14PM

  24. Either we use words and take responsibility for their semantics, or we might as well not be having a conversation using words.

    I'm not "giving up," "capitulating" or "abdicating" although I am not seeking reelection to the SFGP County Council this year. Political contests exist at all levels, not just state or federal.

    It makes sense to engage the enemy on your terms, not to have the terms dictated by your opponent, and I believe that we should engage where our comparative advantage is greatest. In fact, we've observed that when we do it your way, we generally lose worse each time out and piss off more likely allies. Such is the cost of a narcissistic politics.

    We have a clear example with multiple hard data points right here in California that your strategy is bogus. Camejo has earned fewer votes each time before the California electorate, even when he was in the debates. Nader's vote totals dropped significantly in 2004, and there was no groundswell to put him on the ballot and fund his campaign.

    Why would you think that was?

    Gonzalez could have taken on and beaten Dennis Herrera for SF City Attorney in 2005 but he did not engage. He "abdicated," "capitulated" and "gave in" to corporate power in a contest where he would have won, and did not give people the opportunity to vote for a person who represented their views. Funny how different standards get applied when convenient. The consequences of Herrera's reelection were and continue to be detrimental to the most vulnerable San Franciscans.

    The difference between you all and us is that we engage meaningfully, and if we try hard we win, you all don't engage to speak of, you all touch a few of the bases required to run a meaningful campaign, and you all lose.

    Voting is situationally valuable under the US political context.

    If we're going to have a debate over an issue and one contestant does not engage substantively when cogent arguments are made against their position, then their position is considered demolished, nothing narcissistic about it.

    What we've got going on here is the marriage between the Nader worshippers and sectarian leftists. When you mix starry eyed celebrity worshippers with Trotskyites, you end up with a lot of babble and a lot of yelling.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 1, 2008 @ 06:22PM

  25. Ralph, More power to your ideas. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the "Talking Heads" been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the easy route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on in a Corporate controlled State takes work. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the People of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionally bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Clinton and that phony Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapegoating myth. thank you for your great service to this Country. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org..... all the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....... Other Great websites about Nader; Click o play at http://thewomandirector.com./ AND after that go to http://www.dianeszoo.com/ralphnader.htm to vote and comment

    Comment by Seb — May 2, 2008 @ 12:03AM

  26. "The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss?"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

    Herman and Chomsky tell us exactly where the media is not when it comes to covering ideas that threaten corporations.

    Until you all have a plan on how to get around the media filters, you all are going to simply repeat the failures of the past eight years over and again. The rest of us who, by one definition are sane, that is, prefer to not do the same thing time and again expecting a different result each time, have to clean up after you all, as most of you all don't do anything between elections but wait until the next election to rampage your egos through the Green Party.

    Like Gonzalez said, the time to convince people to vote for you is before, not during elections.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 2, 2008 @ 06:22AM

  27. Marc,

    The reason I object to this becoming an argument about who is most active, politically aware, whatever, is that you never addressed my two main points.

    First, in the context of a build-up to a war with Iran, with two pro-war candidates from the main parties, is it wise for anti-war voters to simply disappear. In 2004 deciding to back John Kerry irregardless of his position on the war destroyed the anti-war movement in America. I would assume that a new war will give some new life to that movement and I don't think we should make the same mistake.

    Second, especially in light of what happened in 2000, will the professionals running the Democratic campaign have to factor dissent on the left into their calculations for winning. Certainly if Nader supporters become jaded and join the throngs of the unvoters they won't. Their main tactic so far is to intimidate. So a central question is will we be intimidated.

    I thought a lot about your analysis and criticisms. I remember an interview with a Serbian activist who helped overthrow Milosevic and he said that they always concentrated on goals they could achieve because then people started seeing them as winners and started moving to their side. This is a point well taken.

    Nonetheless, I can't go along with not engaging on a national level. Perhaps we need more thought about where that achievable goal is. The first concern should be how do we create leverage. And that should center around getting like-minded people all on the same page.

    Comment by Doug Rogers — May 2, 2008 @ 06:56AM

  28. Marc,

    The reason I object to this becoming an argument about who is most active, politically aware, whatever, is that you never addressed my two main points.

    First, in the context of a build-up to a war with Iran, with two pro-war candidates from the main parties, is it wise for anti-war voters to simply disappear. In 2004 deciding to back John Kerry irregardless of his position on the war destroyed the anti-war movement in America. I would assume that a new war will give some new life to that movement and I don't think we should make the same mistake.

    Second, especially in light of what happened in 2000, will the professionals running the Democratic campaign have to factor dissent on the left into their calculations for winning. Certainly if Nader supporters become jaded and join the throngs of the unvoters they won't. Their main tactic so far is to intimidate. So a central question is will we be intimidated.

    I thought a lot about your analysis and criticisms. I remember an interview with a Serbian activist who helped overthrow Milosevic and he said that they always concentrated on goals they could achieve because then people started seeing them as winners and started moving to their side. This is a point well taken.

    Nonetheless, I can't go along with not engaging on a national level. Perhaps we need more thought about where that achievable goal is. The first concern should be how do we create leverage. And that should center around getting like-minded people all on the same page.

    Comment by Doug Rogers — May 2, 2008 @ 06:56AM

  29. Doug, if the relatively homogeneous Green Party cannot be united under banners like this, then the chances of reaching out to a broader progressive community and beyond are diminished if not impossible.

    Instead of trying to force everyone on the same page and attacking them if they don't, as so many of the trotskyites supporting Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez have done for the past few years, we need to build on the wide variety of issues we all agree on. But with the trots in the house, the game is to always find the most divisive issues and push them to the forefront so that the ultra leftists can prove themselves most left. This is why the sectarian left has a trail of broken and divided organizations behind it; they may have fatally wounded the Green Party as they've tried to force us all onto the same page.

    The only way we can engage at the national level, either on issue advocacy or electoral campaigns is to have a grassroots network capable of providing that national infrastructure to make up for the money we don't have. Unfortunately, Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez supporers have trashed the Green Party which is/was a nascent national network because too many of us were "demogreens" for not supporting these quixotic campaigns that are providing diminishing returns each time out.

    Have these quixotic campaigns ever created leverage? Have they ever pressured the Democrats? Do you have any sort of historical examples from recent times that justify your extreme position that we expend scarce resources on a project that cannot win or make a positive difference? No, you all are praying to the flying spaghetti monster to dispense vegan meatballs to us as a substitute for reasoned political calculus. Add in a healthy dose of male egos semi-professional paid campaign staff leeches and a full dollop of middle class entitlement, and we're in narcissism land.

    Don't you think that if the Greens or Nader were viewed as capable of ending the war and governing that folks would support either? Why would you imagine that the dollars and bodies are not forthcoming for these campaigns?

    Instead of attacking all who don't get on YOUR same page, you all should take a moment for introspection to determine why this is the case, holding off on criticizing rank and file voters for not agreeing with you. Folks don't like to come home from a day at work, take time from their families to attend a political meeting, only to be ridiculed by fanatics who have no experience winning power and changing things.

    It frustrates me to no end that we can't stop the war, that we can't stop them from invading Iran, but as the system has developed a media filter framework to keep the discourse acceptable to it, the system has developed an immune response against protest. And it is clearly capable of ignoring or negating a presidential challenge.

    The common flatworm is capable of determining that its hit a wall and needs to try another direction. What's the problem with Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez supporters that they cannot demonstrate the adaptability to circumstance that a flatworm can?

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 2, 2008 @ 07:19AM

  30. What a great choice Gonzalez is for Nader's running mate. The guy is accomplished, serious and speaks intelligently about the issues. Plus he is focusing on the need for electoral reform while he actually participates in the process, insofar as that is possible in our rigged system, which raises awareness of the issue even while the Nader-Gonzalez ticket challenges the system. I think it's a great strategy. It reminds me of those courageous African-Americans a generation ago who sat down at a Woolworth's lunch counter and demanded to be served. Why was it so important - and effective - when they did that? Because they had the right to be there, and the way you gain and protect your rights is by exercising them. These days people say Ralph and Matt shouldn't run. Even people who agree with them on the issues say don't run, because people will blame us for George W., or Iraq, or whatever. I just don't buy it. I mean, people said the same thing to those who challenged the Jim Crow system, and that is what we really have today in the electoral arena, a discriminatory system in which one set of laws applies to the major parties and another set of laws applies to everyone else. Matt Gonzalez gets this, and by running for office he is challenging the Jim Crow electoral system in both word and deed. More power to him! As for his running mate, if anyone has proved you can win against long odds, time and time again, it's Ralph Nader. So more power to him, too! I think their slogan ought to be: Nader-Gonzalez 2008: Now More Than Ever.

    Comment by NG2008! — May 2, 2008 @ 09:18AM

  31. The civil rights movement was a broad based mass movement that had buy in and support of myriad communities.

    Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez is a gang of self appointed dilettantes.

    That comparison is invalid.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 2, 2008 @ 09:32AM

  32. Man, you are like Oscar the Grouch. Not only do you want to live in a trash can, but you're also pissed off that no one wants to join you there. What happened to you? Oh right, Ralph Nader ran for office and caused you eternal misery. What a victim!

    PS: What does "abdicate" mean? As a follow-up, what do you think Chomsky would say about people who improperly use words like "semantics" instead of "meaning," and then try to correct others for properly using common words like "abdicate"?

    Comment by NG2008! — May 2, 2008 @ 09:52AM

  33. Marc,

    I am that rank and file voter you're talking about. I'm not in the Green party. I'm a single parent in Buffalo NY and frankly I'm not always keeping it together. Issues like health insurance and childcare are very immediate for me. With two boys 8 and 10 the issue of perpetual war is also very acute. Debating on the internet while I'm trying to get dinner together does take up valuable time. I have plenty of character flaws but I don't really appreciate the narcissism rap.

    What you're characterizing as unadapting insanity could also be seen as persistence in a different light. Forget the flatworm analogy, he's not going to knock down any walls anyway. Think of a root system. It hits the wall again and again and again but as long as it has one end in the sunlight that dumb vegetable will find a chink and eventually he will bring it down.

    So I have no problem with hammering away at insurmountable odds. I've also learned from some of the local fights I've been in that sometimes it pays to pretend you have more cards in your hand than you really do. Because it keeps things up in the air until maybe a better solution comes along.

    So just arguing very persuasively (as you do) that we're screwed isn't necessarily very helpful. You might be surprised at how many rank and file voters see that the situation has reached a crisis point. Don't assume that this isn't the year that a rebellion could take place. They might not be moved by the Green-Party types that you describe but a lot of people are moved by Ralph Nader because they know just where he stands and what he's done. If you don't like him that's fine, work on another angle. Be for Obama. There's nothing wrong with that. But let's keep a game face on this and let's hang on to the common ground that we obviously have.

    Comment by Doug Rogers — May 2, 2008 @ 10:04AM

  34. Marc,
    You come across like a grumpy old man, only he who does, have the right to complain. Nader has done over and over again, America is a far greater place by the deeds of Ralph Nader. What have you ever done to improve our lot in life?

    Comment by GoGreen — May 2, 2008 @ 10:04AM

  35. I tend to agree with Marc. I would hesitate to compare what Nader and Gonzalez are doing to the Civil Rights Movement as there is no mass movement behind them. It is doubtful they will be able to coopt any of the disparate anti-war coalitions of the left and get closer to the spotlight because of flaws of character of both these candidates, especially when the ever-offensive Peter Camejo is brought into complete the triangle.

    Comment by Steven Even — May 2, 2008 @ 10:37AM

  36. The narcissism rap is meant for the principles more so than the supporters. When we see half a million people vote for Nader/Camejo and a handful more for Cobb, that says to me that we're having a problem connecting with the voters in a presidential contest. Either we learn from that or we repeat the same errors. If those errors caused no other harm, then I'd have no problem with you all playing your presidential games. But those games cause harm to your allies and that is neither respectful nor cool.

    Some of us were active in the radical protest movement a few decades ago. Earth First! got the notion of old growth and biodiversity into the lexicon and ACT/UP got life saving drugs into people's bodies. Once that ceased to function, once the machine learned to adapt, many of us did as well and no longer do we protest, we work to take power and change the rules. We're persistent without disconnecting from reality. The flatworm is going to go around the obstruction rather than banging its head(s) against the wall(s).

    The only problem with bluffing is that once your bluff has been called, and it is revealed that you're not playing with a full deck, as it were, you can't bluff any more.

    My arguments are that these flatworms have found a path around obstruction and we've been able to bring progressive values to bear on local government. If that were done nationwide, then there would be a network of local organizations that could serve as a base for more ambitious political assaults on the system.

    Voters see a crisis, but they're not going to see Nader/Gonzalez/Camejo as viable, given their lack of wisdom on so many issues, namely the economy. As I've been saying, there is a difference between voters agreeing with you and their voting for you. It is known how to surmount that, but Nader/Gonzalez/Camejo are not going that route, just running a placeholder campaign that portends significant downside outcomes for people who share the values of N/G/C.

    "Don't assume that this isn't the year that a rebellion could take place."

    With a forceful statement like that, I guess its time to stock up on firearms and food and buy my tickets for Nader's inauguration.

    But seriously, Nader's appeal has diminished over time and there is no evidence that people are going to vote for a grumpy old man who has no energy or economics policy when he's stale product.

    I'm not playing that game and will not keep a game face for a farce. The fact is that the Green Party has been the only beacon of hope for progressives electorally in my lifetime while the sectarian lefties and nader worshippers have not.

    "You come across like a grumpy old man, only he who does, have the right to complain. Nader has done over and over again, America is a far greater place by the deeds of Ralph Nader. What have you ever done to improve our lot in life?"

    Please, flattery will get you nowhere.

    What have I done? A shitload here in SF on issues involving sane equitable and just urban planning, housing, land use transportation, ethics and campaign finance reform and police reform for starters. A charter amendment that I helped craft is on the November ballot here in SF that would set aside $30m for affordable housing.

    Let's just say that as a volunteer with FT job, I've accomplished as much as any local paid advocate has. Here we pass laws and have to do what it takes to get a majority to agree with us and most of you all spend your time wishing on a star and blaming people for not agreeing with you. It is humbling to see your best ideas ripped to shreds by the market place of ideas, but rewarding to see an idea attract many supporters and see the light of day.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — May 2, 2008 @ 10:38AM

  37. I guess I just don't understand the animosity for these guys. The idea that Nader is somehow responsible for Democrats losing is nonsense. Just because Democrats say it over and over again, and the media repeats it uncritically, doesn't mean it's true. But now lots of Greens even believe it and, as these posts show, they are among the loudest opponents when Nader dares to run for office. The rationale for their opposition is that Democrats blame the Greens for Gore's loss in 2000, and they'll blame us again if the Democrats lose again. But everyone here knows the Dems are full of BS - at least on this point. So what else can you call it but surrender (abdication?), when Greens argue that we shouldn't participate in national politics because of what Democrats might say if we do? I wish these Greens would use that energy to oppose Democrats who try to suppress our participation, rather than arguing their side for them. The Democrats sued Nader-Camejo 24 times nationwide in a deliberate attempt to win the 2004 presidential election by denying voters a free choice of candidates, and they were pretty successful. (No one ever mentions this when they say support for Nader dropped in 04.) So yes it is a civil rights issue. And by the way, the "Civil Rights Movement" didn't spring to life one day with a groundswell of grassroots support already behind it. It took the leadership and initiative of a small number of individuals who were willing to stake their lives and reputations on the radical proposition that separate is not e