Gonzalez/Nader Hysteria

The Gonzalez run proves that there is another generation of progressives ready to lead us away from the backbiting,self-hatred and rationalizations of the left -sold out by the Democratic Party again,and again and again.Nader's guts and his refusal to water down public policy positions long abandoned by yesterday's liberals makes him a target for abuse.Who will be the next Ralph Nader? Perhaps, Mr. Gonzalez.

Ralph Nader delivered the presidency to George Bush in 2000, then sneered at anyone who dared to point that out. Now this little tin Jesus wants to help out McCain. Well, McCain may win, but it won't be through Ralph's efforts. He got .3 percent of the vote in 2004, and he will get less this time. His Royal Smugness is going nowhere.

TALK ABOUT A SMOKING ANTI-GUN! Friends and supporters of former Green Party mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez use dirty tricks and corporate-style high jinks on Wikipedia to abuse independent artists, advance personal notability and further own political agenda and views. Investigation of edit history and contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?).

This is a comment not a letter to the editor.

Few Greens would argue that a candidacy should be precluded because it might take votes away from another candidacy. Nor would many Greens take issue with Gonzalez' substantive policy criticisms of Obama.

Most concerns about Gonzalez/Nader coming from the Green Party have to do with the unintended consequences related to such a run, a campaign which will not have the resources to make it out of court fighting for ballot access or to mount the kind of media campaign capable of framing the debate in favorable terms. If you want to change ballot access and election law, then the place to do that is in the state legislatures and the way to do that is by electing Greens to such "ground floor" partisan offices. Towards that, Gonzalez would have done better to have run against Ammiano in AD13 than for Vice President with Ralph Nader.

The narcissism here has to do with the fact that two individuals feel that the world desperately needs for them to speak before people on issues that they care about and that they do not feel any need to take personal responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions on others.

My read is that Nader 2000, while it seemed a good idea at the time was a strategic mistake for the Greens. That campaign raised the profile of the Green Party to the extent that it caught the attentions of the dwindling residue of the sectarian left. And as Nader abandoned the field as the election was being stolen, the Democrats and the media successfully framed the Greens as spoilers, a framing which continues to be the accepted history today.

Similar to the statement attributed to Zhou Enlai, who, when asked in the 1950s about the consequences of the French Revolution said "It is too early to tell," the consequences of Nader 2000 have yet to be assessed by the Green Party. And that is not for lack of trying, as the "fundis" in the party who do little or no grassroots organizing erupt in ultra leftist fervor whenever a high profile campaign comes along and deride those not in that fan club as being shills of the Democrats.

At some point, the currency gets devalued when the same candidates run perennially whether they be Ralph Nader or Barry Hermanson. Ralph at this point looks like death warmed over. In a recent KQED interview, Nader admitted that his ideas lack popular support but insisted that they be implemented anyway. How does that square with democratic theory?

To be honest, Matt's 2003 campaign did as well as it did because the internal controls were so poor and the paid staff were generally incompetent to stop people from taking constructive initiatives. The paid staff generally were an impediment to progress (there were some notable exceptions) while the volunteers, thousands of them, were a force unstoppable even by a largely clueless paid staff and campaign leadership.

In the intervening four years, Gonzalez managed to piss away the political capital that thousands invested in him for nothing in return. Last year, Gonzalez tried from spring until the filing deadline to raise an army to challenge Newsom long before Chris Daly's progressive convention. Unable to do so, Gonzalez did what he does so well, turn around and walk away in the middle of a conversation.

As Matt likes to say, Nader's ideas are better (that turns out to be a line lifted from the film "Primary Colors") but if they can't put together the campaign package to convince people of that and get them to the polls, then there is no point in running if all that will come out of it is more preaching to the faithful.

And this year, the Obamamania cannot be ignored by Greens and independents. Whether or not folks are putting all of their hopes into one fragile little basket, an empty vessel who seems to say exactly what you want to hear, there is a tsunami coming our way and we can either stand on the beach transfixed by the wave under the misapprehension that we might stop it or we can get up on the ridge and watch the inundation.

Gonzalez practiced zen politics while in office. Unfortunately, Matt is now all yang and no yin.

-arc

Comment #3 left by user Griot, banned from Wikipedia, subject of "Wikipedia Idiots." Yawn.

How DARE two progressive candidates HONOR the U.S. Constitution and run! Who do they think they ARE? Nader/Gonzolez, as citizens of the U.S., actually believe have a RIGHT, nay, a DUTY to challenge heavyweight Democrat and Republican entities in a supposed people-run democracy? The NERVE!

I think I'll vote for them.

clowns... these guys show up to a knife fight with tennis rackets.
so-called progressives talk & dither about election reform all the while neo-cons run rough over the rest of us & the world.
do us a favor & go back to teaching & let the people affected by McBUSH continue to fight.
get on the bus or get out the way.

FRISCO not portland

Matt Gonzalez is a zero, but the upside is he will now forever be "Former Vice Presidential Candidate" instead of "guy who quit on the city of san francisco when he couldn't beat Gavin Newsom. Way to go Matt!

Both Matt Gonzalez and Ralph Nader have impressed me with their intelligence and dedication. They actually believe in what they are running for, rather than wavering on issues according to the latest poll.

Hysteria is really the right word here. Congratulations to Matt Gonzales for becoming a target of nasty Op-Ed smears. It means: You are now important enough to be attacked by liberal establishment's political know-it-alls. You have become too much of a threat to ignore, you're doing a good job! Keep up the good work and be ready for more and nastier Op-Eds, if the Nader 2008 campaign starts doing well.

The Clinton's probably won't be able to 'Howard Dean' Obama during the primaries. Obama's political corpse won't fit under the Democratic Party house's floorboards. So he'll just have to bleed all over himself through the general elections. That means more hysterical Democrats driving us insane with their fear-mongering, scapegoating, rationalizations, equivocations.

During 2004 Nader campaign, as I collected ballot petition signatures for Nader in New York, listening to hundreds of hysterical liberals berate me for supporting Nader, I braced myself by remembering the historical Orson Wells' "Martian flying saucer invasion" radio (dramatization) broadcast, that convinced tens of thousands of radio listeners (even local cops) that New Jersey was being invaded by space aliens, back in the golden days of radio broadcasting.

American voters tend to be driven insane by the mass media, during election seasons.
New media and technology are helping to escalate the effect further. So, hang in there Matt! Sense check this: If it gets too easy to campaign and the OpEd attacks stop - start getting suspicious.

When former Nader stalwarts such as editor Steven T. Jones of the Bay Guardian and Ross Mirkarimi (co-founder of the California Green Party) call Nader's 2008 run for president "ego-driven" and "deceptive," I say it's about time. Nader's candidacy was ego-driven and deceptive in 2000 -- with horrendous consequences. Medea Benjamin, the Green Party's nominee for Senate in 2000, said, "Maybe it's time for the people who voted for Bush in 2000, the people who didnšt vote at all in 2000, and yes, people like myself who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, to admit our mistakes. I'll say mine -- I had no idea that George Bush would be such a disastrous president. Had I known then what I know now, and had I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for Gore instead of Ralph Nader."

I'm glad to see that Mirkarimi and other Greens have finally learned this lesson -- eight years too late. Let's not repeat this mistake again, eh?
Comment by Danny