 |
Fall 2008 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION ORDER BUNDLES ----- Green Pages Board Business |
 |
| David Cobb, seeking the Green Party nomination for president, fields calls during his two hours on the air on WHJJ in Providence, R.I. |
Cobb, Nader endorsement position, ĪNo Candidateā vie for support
By Stacy Malkan, D.C. Statehood Green Party
Welcome to democracy--messy, maddening, unpredictable. So it will be as several hundred Green Party delegates from across the United States meet on the convention floor to slug it out over which candidate, if any, will top the national ticket for president in 2004.
Greens around the country have voted in primaries, debated at caucuses and conventions, and plotted strategies in attempt to get their way about who, how and whether to run in the presidential race this year.
Heading into the convention, delegates are about evenly split between nominating Green Party activist David Cobb and endorsing Ralph Nader, who has refused to accept the party's nomination but wants Greens to join a coalition of third parties in support of his candidacy.
"It looks like itās going to be pretty close," said Dean Myerson, who has been tracking delegates for the Cobb campaign. The party could also end up with no candidate at all. "There aren't a lot of Greens who favor that but given the process, it could happen," Myerson said.
The decision will be made by a majority vote of delegates present on the convention floor; there are 835 total delegates, with 600-700 expected to attend.
As of press time, Cobb, an attorney who helped found the Green Party of Texas, had the most delegates, just over 200. Nearly as many delegates are allotted to the handful of other candidates in the race who have thrown their support to Nader, including Peter Camejo, the clear favorite in the California primary; though it may not have been clear to all the voters at the time that Camejo wasnāt planning to actually run for president.
It appears unlikely any candidate will get a majority of delegates--and thereby win outright--in the first round. Round two will exclude candidates who receive less than 10 percent of the vote, as well as candidates who have not indicated that they are willing to accept the nomination and be put on state ballots. The option of "no nominee" stays on the ballot throughout the process, regardless of how many votes it receives.
Delegates will cast votes until either a candidate or "no nominee" receives a majority of the votes. If "no nominee" wins, delegates will then have the option to endorse a candidate.
The winner will be listed on Green Party ballot lines in at least 23 states. The stakes are high for the party because national party bylaws require that all affiliated states support the candidate selected at the nominating convention.
Some states might try to get around that rule; New Mexico, for instance, was at press time considering proposing a six-month suspension of the affiliation agreement to give states freedom to choose.
"We think the situation is just so different from state to state," said Carol Miller, another candidate in the race who is supporting Nader.
Various other wildcard possibilities, as well as a large block of undecided delegates, make it impossible to predict what will happen.
"There is absolutely no predicting which way it will go," said Jody Haug of Washington State, who worked on the floor rules committee. "But whatever happens will be the will of the majority of delegates."
Cobb focuses on grassroots strategy
Pitching himself as a homegrown Green with intentions to run a "strategic and nuanced" campaign, David Cobb, 41, of Eureka, Ca., has been campaigning aggressively for the Green nomination and has traveled to at least 40 states to round up delegates.
Cobb claims to be the ćonly candidate in the race articulating a plan which continues building the fastest growing political party in the United States while recognizing the dangers posed by a potential second Bush administration," according to his Web site. He advocates a "smart states" strategy that would allocate resources in non-battleground states, on the theory that those voters are less apt to fear voting for, and media more likely to cover, a third party candidate.
The campaign runs with a committee of a half-dozen volunteers, has no paid staff and is raising enough money to pay its way, according to interim campaign coordinator Holly Hart of Iowa City.
"It's going extremely well, judging from the reception heās gotten everywhere heās gone. David gets people fired up. He has energized locals and gotten more volunteers involved," Hart said.
She said Cobb offers practical advice for local party building, is helping to build momentum and is getting some good press coverage.
"There are a lot of doors that open for you as a presidential candidate," Hart said. "He's getting the Green message out to the general public."
On the down side, Cobb doesn't have the name recognition, political history or access to resources and media that Nader does--though some Greens prefer this "under the radar" approach that focuses on local party building rather than national impact, given the widespread urgency to oust the Bush Administration.
The most controversial aspect of Cobb is that he is viewed by some Greens as divisive because of negative comments he has made about Nader over the past few years. "For those who believe it is important that the Green Party works closely with Ralph Nader, a Cobb presidential candidacy could make that more difficult," wrote Ted Glick, national coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network (and a Cobb supporter).
 |
| Presidential candidate Ralph Nader poses with fifth-grade students at the Byrd Community Academy in Chicago who have advocated for improvements in their dilapidated school. |
Nader campaign goes big
The Nader 2004 campaign is up and running with an estimated 8,000 volunteers, 30 paid staff and three times more money than they had by this time in 2000--about $600,000 as of the last financial report.
"There is also a lot more media attention because everyone recognizes Ralph is a factor in the race," said campaign spokesperson Kevin Zeese.
Nader won't accept the Green Party nomination because "he wants to be an independent candidate. One in three American voters says they are independent. A party label creates a barrier, it closes people"s minds," Zeese said.
But Nader does want the Green Party to endorse him. The campaign envisions a coalition of third parties rallying behind Nader enabling him "to speak more effectively and more loudly against the corporate duopoly," Zeese said. "If Nader comes in as a candidate of multiple third parties and as an Independent, we carry a lot of weight behind us."
Nader has already been endorsed by the Reform Party, which nominated conservative Pat Buchanan in 2000. Zeese says this is proof of Naderās ability to reach across the political spectrum and into Bush's base.
"We don't trust the Democrats to win on their own. We are opening up a second front to attack Bush's base and make Kerry a better candidate," Zeese said.
This focus doesn't sit well with some Greens. "It is unclear what will come out of Naderās independent campaign as far as on-going party building effort," writes Glick. When asked about the campaign's long-term, post-election strategy, Zeese spoke of plans to build "a citizen network to push these issues forward."
Glick also points out that some party activists were "turned off" by aspects of Naderās 2000 campaign, including that "a) it took until 2003 for him to provide the Green Party with the list of 2000 campaign contributors, and b) he didn't provide the information about the large contributors."
This time around, Nader is raising new concerns by petitioning in some states to get on the ballot as a candidate of the self-created "Populist Party."
"By establishing new political parties, Nader has revealed his intentions not to support the Green Party," charges Adam Eidinger of the D.C. Statehood Green Party, who worked for Nader in 2000 but is now supporting Cobb.
"We need to nominate a candidate who is committed to the Green Party ... We can't be dependent on Ralph Nader for our party to grow."
As many Greens as there are who say it's time for the Greens to part ways with Nader, there seem to be just as many proclaiming the opposite with just as much passion. "I personally think that participating in a coalition that the Nader campaign represents is the most powerful way the Green Party can play a role in this election," said Linda Schade, a Maryland delegate who worked briefly for the campaign.
"Ralph's vision is to bring together all political parties across the spectrum who agree that the corporate duopoly is the problem."
Schade came close to winning a seat for the Greens as a Maryland state representative last year. "I'm highly interested in this party, but I'm most interested in political power," she said. "This is serious stuff, it's about social and economic justice, as well as possible survival for the people of the planet."
At the heart of it, that's probably the thing on which all Greens agree, whether they support the high-visibility, high-stakes approach of Nader, or the back-to-basics, party-building focus of Cobb.
There are also those who believe that the outcome of the convention isn't going to matter that much one way or the other.
"I think the stakes for the Green Party in the presidential race are not especially high this year. The Green ticket, however it shapes up, does not have the potential to have a lot of impact on the race," said Mike Livingston.
"The value of running is mainly to protect ballot lines and organize locals where there aren't any. State and local races are where it's at for us given the political landscape." He also pointed out, "the one thing we really need is party discipline and unity, which is the one thing we're least likely to get out of this [convention]."
Life after Milwaukee
Whatever happens on the convention floor, the party's strong foundation makes it likely to weather the storm.
"The real strength of the party is the grassroots. This fight is the national party. The split is not that broadly felt among grassroots Greens," said former political director Myerson, who now runs the Green Institute, the first Green think tank in the US.
"There's a sort of immunity when you're a grassroots organization. There is a reserve of strength in that, no matter what happens at the national level, the local parties are still strong."
Glick says it's a time of testing for the Greens.
"I fervently hope that all Green delegates to Milwaukee, whatever their position on the presidential question, travel there in a frame of mind which appreciates the importance of what has been built," Glick wrote.
"I hope that the debates that happen are conducted in a way that models the new, respectful way of doing politics that is essential for the entire independent progressive movement if we are ever to win a society of justice, peace and human solidarity."
All content © Green Pages | Site design by Greg Everett
Green Pages is the newspaper of the Green Party of the United States.