Crashing the Party, by Ralph Nader: on Principles & Values

Al Gore: 1997: Refused to meet with Ralph Nader to discuss issues

"They have?" he asked, as if surprised.

I reminded him of a constructive meeting we had in 1993 at his office. "Then can you give me a time when we can get together?"

"Well," he replied, "let's talk now."

"There are several major topics," I said, briefly listing them, "and I doubt whether it is best to discuss these on the telephone. Can't we find a time to meet?" I fully expected him to agree and refer me to his scheduler.

"Well, I'll see," he said and politely ended the conversation.

That was the last I heard from Al Gore, until he began telling crowds in the closing days of his 2000 presidential campaign that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

Jimmy Carter: Preconditions for fair elections not present in 2000 Florida

1. That voters are able to understand the ballot procedures and the ballots themselves.
2. Voters have equal rights to have their votes counted.
3. There is a central commission in the country to resolve election disputes.

John McCain: 2000: Decried "incumbency protection racket" then lost to it

After McCain handily won the N.H. primary, money poured into his campaign-- $1 million in one peak day including matching funds. So why didn't he win the nomination? Because the GOP politicos, along with key Republican governors in key primary states, had already chosen Bush. Republican primary voters were not the representative sample of people to whom McCain's reformist language appealed. They view themselves more as conservatives than reformers.

When someone like McCain cannot upend the pols in his own party, it goes to show how extremely rigid the GOP can be.

Maria Cantwell: Green turnout for Nader had positive effect on her election

Senn lost. She was the Greens' favorite. Cantwell then squeaked by GOP Sen. Slade Gorton by only 2,300 votes. Our Green turnout in Washington of 103,000 votes in November gave Cantwell the seat (there was no Green senatorial candidate), and her election brought the Democrats to 50-50 with the Republicans in the Senate. This set the stage for GOP Senator Jim Jefford's switch to independent and the resultant takeover of the Senate by the Democrats in June 2000. At a meeting a few weeks later, Sen. Harry Reid told me that both he and Sen. Cantwell were "well aware" of the Green voters' impact on her election.

Ralph Nader: Joe Lieberman was unwise VP choice for Gore

Rev. Jesse Jackson: 1995: A third party may be needed for progressives

"Why talk about new political options now? Because it is clear that reelecting Democrats to Congress is not enough. We've done that. We registered people and helped bring out the vote. We delivered--and too often we were then ignored. We don't intend to be exploited anymore."

Rev. Jesse Jackson: Opposed bipartisan conservative majority that ignored him

A bipartisan majority endorsed the supply-side, trickle-down economics of the early 1980s. The rich got richer and working people got stuck with the bill for massive deficits and S&L bailout. A bipartisan conservative majority blocked efforts to change priorities at the end of the Cold War. A bipartisan conservative majority enforced a trade policy that served Wall Street and multinationals, not Main Street and American voters.

Jackson was thinking like this before the shredding of the federal safety net for the poor, set for 2002, by the phony welfare reform legislation championed by Clinton and especially Gore in 1996.

Robert Reich: Democratic Party is dead as a doornail

Tom DeLay: 1995: Page 1 expose in Washington Post about lobbyist money

Like most congressional districts, DeLay's is one-party dominated, and he wins by large majorities with only nominal opposition. This is typical. In about 90% of the 435 congressional districts, there is one-party rule. So choice is effectively denied to a vast majority of voters.

Ralph Nader: Gore & Bush both ignore youth issues in favor of fat cats

For months, a nonpartisan group called Youth in Action tried to have that seat filled in Philadelphia’s Drexel University auditorium. The event was part of the National Youth Conventions, which involved thousands of high school students and other young people contributing to a National Youth Platform.

By demonstrating a serious engagement with the presidential campaign of 2000, as well as their deep stake in America’s future, Youth in Action was hoping that it could lay claim to some personal attention by George W. Bush and Al Gore, just as large campaign donors had done throughout the year. Its schedulers made sure that there were no conflicts with the big events at the two conventions.

It was not to be. Gore matched Bush in declining to appear. The two candidates had more important events to attend--lavish parties with corporate lobbyists and fat cats.

Ralph Nader: 1960s participatory citizens shut out by 1990s corporations

Yet somehow that spirit, little by little, slipped away, and big business stepped in again to seize more influence on our government. Over the course of my work in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans have drawn so close to the monied, corporate interests that the citizens are shut out.

That is why I ran for president.

Ralph Nader: Ran in 2000 to address the "democracy gap"

1. The "democracy gap" had widened & deepened over the past 20 years. Citizen groups mattered less; both political parties were morphing into each other.
2. Solutions to our nation's injustices & needs abounded. They were being applied in a few places but without any engines of diffusion.
3. The major media repeatedly headlined investigative stories about the failings of big business & government, but nothing was happening. This was a telltale sign of a weakening democratic society unable to provide the linkages that bring serious misdeeds toward a more just resolution.
4. Having to spend so much time raising money from interests you don't favor or like has turned away too many good people from running for office in America.
5. People's expectation levels toward politics had reached perilously low levels. Why bother? These words become the mantra of withdrawal.

Ralph Nader: Suffered from "media gap"--little coverage of 3rd parties

We scheduled the announcement of my candidacy for Presidents' Day, Feb. 21, 2000. Because it was a national holiday, the day was almost guaranteed to have little news competition for the announcement. There was not a single sentence about my announcement on any of the three major networks. Was I surprised by this uniform blackout on four networks? Of course. It could be expected that a candidate with a visible 35-year record of consumer, environmental, and worker advocacy would merit at least 15 seconds on the nightly news.

Although there was good coverage throughout the independent media and talk radio, we quickly realized that our "democracy gap" campaign had fallen into a big-time "media gap."

Ralph Nader: Base campaigns on issues, not on ego

A campaign should not be a vehicle for an ego. Rather, it is an opportunity for other articulate voices to be heard. When the Green Party conventioneers in 1996 started chanting "Go, Ralph, go," I immediately changed the phrase to, "Go, we go," and it caught on to a surprised but delighted audience. Social change occurs when "we" come together to create a just and democratic society. It's as simple as that. If you want a society that embraces both visions and revisions, then the motto must be "Together we can make a difference." That leaves little room for "ego tripping" or people who are so egotistically fragile that they can be blistered by moonbeams.

Ralph Nader: News media doesn't cover 3rd parties; only the horse race

I asked the political editor whether the LA Times had any overall newsworthiness criteria for covering significant third-party candidates. He allowed that there were no specific standards, but, "If you do anything with Pat Buchanan, or when you campaign in California, I'd be interested."

I often asked newspaper editorial boards across the country what I had to do to be more newsworthy. The responses were either noncommittal or related to our effect on the Gore-Bush competition. One would think that merely to escape the tedium, the press would declare itself some holidays from the horse-race question.