Jeff Cohen (jeffco@ulster.net) founded the media watch group FAIR and was communications director of Kucinich for President. The views expressed here are his own.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-15.htm

Published on Friday, May 7, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
A Progressive Response to the Nader Campaign
by Jeff Cohen

I am ideologically aligned with Ralph Nader, not John Kerry. I agree with Nader on virtually every issue, while agreeing with only about half of Kerry's positions (or what can be deciphered as Kerry's positions). Like other peace and justice activists, I am distressed that Kerry -- who spoke so eloquently decades ago against a war based on racism and lies -- has given support to the current war that is based on racism and lies.

But I'm also distressed by the deception coming from the Nader campaign. We keep being told that Nader will draw votes away from the Evildoer-in-Chief, George W. Bush; yet poll after poll shows the Nader vote depleting Kerry and helping Bush, and tipping swing states and their electoral votes to Bush.

In my view, Kerry vs. Bush is not Coke vs. Pepsi. It's more like Coke vs. Arsenic (quite literally, in the environmental sense). The Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft regime is far more dangerous than the regimes of Nixon/Kissinger/Mitchell or Reagan/Weinberger/Meese.

There can be no greater imperative for progressives this year than to Vote Bush Out. In the 17 or so competitive states, that means building the Kerry vote to defeat Bush.

-more-

"...It's more like Coke vs. Arsenic (quite literally, in the environmental sense). ..."

Right on! :thumbsup:

I can see myself voting for Kerry on November 2, raising a glass of champaign to his inaguration on January 20 and demonstrating against his policies on January 21.

However, he will respect my right to dissent. That is something Bush does not. That is one of the reasons why Kerry gets my vote and my active support in spite of himself.

Q: Are you advising the Greens to run someone for President?

Hightower: I hope they don't. I think the Greens probably will, but the question is will they run someone of the stature of Nader. I hope not because I think it is detrimental to their cause, to building a progressive party for the future.


Q: In the happy event that Bush loses, what is our next task?

Hightower: We will continue to have to build at the grassroots level. If we elect a John Kerry or someone like that, we'll be back to a Clintonesque style of government. No longer can we be fooled that that's any progress. So we've got to then redouble our efforts. But at least we will not be having to fight all the negative battles that we now do with Bush. We can be back to building that organized base, electing people, and moving toward that progressive future that I think is ahead of us.

From The Progressve
http://www.progressive.org/nov03/intv1103.html

So Hightower understands the need for pragmatic electoral politics if we want to further a progressive agenda...why don't the anonymous "progressives" on this board understand that?

My name is Michael Camann. I post under the DU moniker mike_c-- not terribly anonymous, but just to be certain that you don't think I'm hiding my progressive politics behind a screen of anonymity, I live in Blue Lake, California and work as an ecologist and professor at Humboldt State University.

So much for anonymity. I'm proud to be a progressive liberal.

What does Mr. Hightower say now that Mr. Kerry has been anointed?

Just curious?

In large measure this argument is why the Green Party USA exists. In 2008 we'll doubtless be asked to set aside progressive objectives just one more time because that's the only way to keep some other repig monster out of office. I'm so tired of this. The Democratic party leaves us behind time after time, but always asks us to help defeat their republican adversaries.

So these republicans are not your adversary? I think you exposed yourself mike_c.

Whether I vote for a Democratic candidate, a Green candidate, or an Independent candidate, I'm always casting my vote against the repigs. Perhaps we should discuss issues rather than semantics.

That would include his anti-environmental agenda. Posting anti-Kerry tirades is a rather counter-intuitive way to this end. When this country frames the choice between moderate Democrats and far-Left Democrats, I'll be quite happy to join you.

I see many posts that indicate a belief that the only platform behind the green party is a strong environmental conservation and protection system. There's much more.. Specifically, from their website (http://www.gp.org):

Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, Non-violence, Decentralization, Community-Based, Economics, Feminism, Diversity, Responsibility, Future Focus

If these are beliefs you can stand behind, the green party represents you. You can do what I did after 2000 and the Republlican-Lite platform of Gore: register Green. Yeah, I'll vote for Kerry in the fall, but I recognize that it's strictly a limitation of the plurality voting mechanism we use in the country that requires that I do so, without necessarily voting for the candidate I'd most like to win office.

What I'd like to see is instant runoff voting, so I could vote for a real change, without necessarily helping a candidate I have no interest in winning via the dark horse route. I now see that it should be possible to motivate Democrats to assist in the institutionalizing of IRV, at least this year, by pointing out the "threat" from Nader is practically eliminated if we get to make a second, third, etc, choice as well. Then, we all can truly vote for our preferences, without risking throwing the election to undeserving contestants, whose platform is not endorsed by a majority of constituents.

Yes, that would be good. I'd like to have a 40' O'Day sailboat with a river-front house and pier to park it at, too. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Everything you say, I agree with, except that I think Kerry will be an exceptionally great President. And until we see the break-up of today's monolythic Republican Party, fragmenting the only viable opposition is political suicide.

No doubt Kerry can't do it alone, it will take a Congressional majority coaltion of Democrats/Greens/Independents who can push his agenda and expand on it. That's where the anti-Kerry progressives ought to be focusing their firepower.

At some time, the Democratic Party needs to realize that they are sacrificing their own to get elected and that one day that support just might disappear.

I guess Kerry's 30 year record of supporting progressive politcal positions is going to make Democrats disappear. Good point.

What campaign? You can't vote loser if it isn't on the ballot.

Ralph is such a con artist. He talks and talks collecting big fees.

He gives those that want something for nothing,nothing for somethimg.
The suckers love it. Thats how Ralph got rich.

I will admit, issue by issue, Nader might reflect my politics more closely than does Kerry. I share the concern of the problems of our country that has affected BOTH political parties.

But you know what? That matters little on this Election Day. This is an election where short-term concerns must trump the long-term ones. I like Kerry much and I want Bush out even more. Every political instinct in my body tells me that Nader has only an infinitesimal shot at winning the Oval Office, while Kerry I'd say has about a 50-50 shot right now. I am going with Kerry, and I think you should, too.

and Nader is being an egotistical asshole by running in this election. Kerry needs to offer the man a position in the WH to appease him and get the jerk off the ticket. Offer him ANYTHING...just not VP, that's reserved for the the best of the best....Wesley Kanne Clark! :)

Progressives need to understand that Franklin Roosevelt was elected president in 1932 on a wishy-washy platform no bolder than the Kerry platform. But powerful social movements, especially militant unions, propelled the New Deal agenda and pushed FDR to being the most progressive president of the last century.

2004 is a crucial juncture in our country's history, with millions of people in our evenly divided country -- especially people of color, labor, feminists, enviros -- yearning for a path to end the national nightmare of George Bush. Progressives need to be a bridge forward, not an obstruction. Noam Chomsky has described the choice we face: "Help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-15.htm

Boy, oh boy, makes me want to vote for Kerry!

;-)