Gonzalez joins Nader's pursuit of infamy
Our Nov. 19, 2003 cover story
It’s bad enough that Ralph Nader is running for president yet again, but whatever. He’s already ruined his once stellar reputation and nobody was going to take another sequel that seriously. Yet I’m truly saddened by today’s news that Matt Gonzalez has agreed to be Nader’s running mate and angry about Matt’s deceptive, preemptive effort (in a guest editorial in yesterday’s Beyond Chron) to knock Barack Obama down a few notches.
That seems to signal this independent, ego-driven campaign’s desire to once again paint the Democrats and Republicans with the same broad brush, denying the obvious difference between Obama and John McCain, as well as the need to be strategic in running for this high-profile office during such a divisive era. In doing so, they undermine the legitimate and desperately needed feeling of hope that Obama is inspiring, sowing cynicism and giving McCain a chance to win the White House.
Nader has always bristled at the “spoiler” label, saying he has a right to run and force a debate on his issues. That’s true. But when Gonzalez characterizes Obama’s campaign as, “one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances,” it’s clear that they really aren’t aiming much higher than spoiler.
And if they help spoil an ascendant Obama campaign, they will do irreparable harm to the peace movement, the chance for fundamental change, efforts to bring together progressives and communities of color, people’s sense of hope, and to their own reputations.
Let me be clear: I have had great admiration for both Gonzalez and Nader. I covered Gonzalez extensively before and after he ran for mayor in 2003, I’ve socialized with him on many occasions since then, and I was honored when he asked me to be his press secretary to make another run for mayor last year, an offer I couldn’t accept even though I wholeheartedly supported his candidacy and I was disappointed when he decided not to run (I also tried to contact him today and am awaiting a return call).
Similarly, Nader is a legendary consumer advocate and has certainly earned his right to speak on the national stage. I make no apologies for voting for Nader in 2000, a time when the Democratic nominee Al Gore chose his party’s most conservative senator as a running mate (Joe Lieberman, who is supporting McCain this year) and refused to address any of the left’s issues. An insurgent progressive campaign makes sense in that context.
But a great deal has changed since 2000. We learned what a malevolent figure George W. Bush really is. We’re mired in two nasty wars, we’re in willful violation of our own stated belief in human rights and the rule of law, and we’ve become despised around the world. Now is the time to begin the hard work of returning to our principles, which Obama has based his campaign on, not pretending as if attaining the ideal society is even possible in the short run. The work we have to do now could take a generation, or longer if we don’t start now.
But in his editorial, Gonzalez uses that realistic assessment of our situation against Obama, trotting out some of the same op-shop bullshit that the Clinton campaign used unsuccessfully (and shamefully) to try to undermine Obama’s greatest political asset: his early opposition to the war. Matt cites Obama’s 2004 quote on what to do about Iraq: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”
He also uses Obama’s votes for war spending and isolated events and quotes to raise doubts about his commitment to peace. “Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?” Gonzalez questions, incredibly, essentially calling Obama a liar without anything to back it up. But let me answer your question, Matt: because Iraq is fucked up, it’s the invasion that fucked it up, and any politician who was willing to speak honestly to the American people would say that we face an extraordinarily difficult problem in cleaning up this mess. That’s what Obama was saying about Bush, that we’re fucked no matter how you slice it, and that’s why it was so important not to do this in the first place, which Obama said forcefully at the time.
Yet Obama and the other Democratic candidates have all clearly and unequivocally pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. I, too, would like to see firmer commitments to withdraw all troops without even a small base left behind, and for us to commit to something like the George McGovern exit strategy, as I’ve written time and again. But at this point, unlike four years ago with John Kerry, we have Democratic candidates solidly committing themselves to withdrawal, yet Gonzalez is still quibbling about the depth of their commitment.
Similarly, Gonzalez attacks Obama on health care, taking an unrealistic position that ignores the political world in which we live. For the record, I agree with Gonzalez that we need a single payer system that eliminates health insurance companies completely. But what do you think would happen if Obama said that now? We’d spend the rest of the campaign talking about whether Obama is a socialist, playing right into Republican hands, rather than with whether he’s an agent of change.
But Gonzalez is also missing the beauty of Obama’s health care plan, for which he has been unfairly criticized by Clinton and John Edwards because it doesn’t cover everyone. What is Obama’s plan? He has said that he wants to make health care available to everyone who wants it, but not to legally mandate coverage like car insurance, as Clinton’s plan would do. But here’s the brilliant part of Obama’s position: he has said over and over that he wants to have nationally devised hearings on health care, with all the stakeholder groups but no lobbyists, and to craft a national health plan in that setting. That, Matt, is how you educate the people and create a national consensus around single payer. Yet Gonzalez laser-focuses on how Obama would include insurance companies in that debates, quoting Sicko filmmaker Michael Moore: “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.” Such short-sighted thinking is not going to win heartland hearts and minds.
The rest of the Gonzalez critique is standard op-shop stuff – reading grand conclusions into various small votes – and a testament to why legislators (who cast thousands of votes on a variety of contentious issues) always have a tougher time running for president than governors. It’s just impossible to know the complexities of every vote on every amendment, and so not fair to pretend you know what a legislator was thinking (such as on the credit card item, in which Gonzalez slams Obama for voting against a 30 percent interest cap, while Obama has said repeatedly and credibly that he thought that cap was too high).
But I’m sure there are even more votes out there on which to criticize Obama, and I was ready to have them paraded out in TV ads by the Republicans this fall. I just didn’t think that our own Matt Gonzalez would be a part of that mob, and I’m saddened that he’s chosen that path.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (26)
This is just too ridiculous. You were disappointed when Gonzalez agreed to run in the ticket with Nader? Did you not realize that Gonzalez was one of the people who launched Nader's exploratory committee in the first place?
And you say Gonzalez criticizing Obama makes him no better than a spoilter, but both Obama and McCain are criticizing each other, not to mention Obama criticizing Nader. So does that mean the other two are also "aiming no higher than spoiler?"
It just amazes me that you think Obama should be given a free pass and have the nerve to criticize somebody for actually seeking to hold a politician accountable to the people he seeks to represent. You picked out the credit card bill, but as Gonzalez said, Obama's wishy-washy justification after the fact simply didn't make any sense. If he (or his supporters) don't want him to be held accountable for his votes (which affect real people's everyday lives), then he should stay out of the race for President.
Posted by Haden Smith | February 28, 2008 04:27 PM
Scandal!! Schism in the progressive community of San Francisco!
I love it - two white liberals running against a black man and trying to convince everyone they know better. Hilarious.
If you listen I think you can hear the sound of Gonzalez's hopes for future office, in San Francisco or anywhere else, going right down the drain.
Posted by Shane | February 28, 2008 04:44 PM
Steve,
Oh, WAH, WAH, WAH! Are you done with your rambling, frothing, nonsensical pity-party? Oh, you are? Well, allow me to retort: I will PROUDLY and HAPPILY be voting for Nader/Gonzalez in November! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
By the way, Gonzalez isn't making a mistake -- just like he didn't endorse Angela Alioto for mayor.
Posted by expatriate | February 28, 2008 05:06 PM
Thank goodness someone else realizes that the top 4 Presidential candidates are just MORE of the same and do not represent real change. We need a real change. Nader and Gonzalez are sincere and consistent in their talk about change. Do you really think that Obama/McCain/Clinton/Huckabee are really going to change anything? The top 4 candidates talk a good game but we need more than better management and fancy oration. We need different ideas and solutions that address the real problems. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader asking questions and raising issues would BOTH shake things up ...... and goodness knows we need it BADLY. The economy is tanking, we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy both at home and abroad, the Patriot Act is still here with us, the war in the Middle East that is maiming children, immigration is a disgrace , and the Federal Reserve's policies are NOT helping. We need someone to raise the issues that need facing. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader may not win but they will MAKE the Dems and Repubs talk about reality, as well as make detailed and specific proposals. Thank goodness we live in a country that allows for open debates from everyone on ALL the major issues. Our current Congress and President are in my opinion quite clueless. They are caught up in a system controlled by the military/industrial/financial complex that is leading us to ruin. The common man is going to get screwed if we do not wake up soon. Go Paul and Nader!! . I for one would like to see a debate among Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, AND Ralph Nader. I do not care if the top 4 show up. The top 4 say nothing of importance any way, or better said; they say nothing that they will remember after the election!!
Posted by DenisL | February 28, 2008 05:42 PM
Gonzalez characterizes Obama’s campaign as, “one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances".
True!
Obviously, though, tackling the powers that be head on is a strategy that is doomed for defeat.
Gonzales never has heard of incrementalism?
This sucks!!!!
Posted by Sword of Truth | February 28, 2008 05:56 PM
"Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion. (WaPost)
(Shall we think about the oceans of blood too???)
So much for rein in, oppose, and make truly lasting advances?
Your actions have had the precise opposite effect!!
Your doing a heckuva job Ralphy and Matty!!
What are you going to do for an encore?
Cause Bush to become the Supreme Emperor??
Posted by Shamalamadingdong | February 28, 2008 06:17 PM
The thing about democracy that the author of this article, "Gonzalez joins Nader's pursuit of infamy" doesn't realize is that anybody and everybody has a right to run for office. It's when small minds such as this take control there's no telling just how worthless voting can become-- and it's pretty lame right now. It's as if none of the Obamamania gang reads the newspapers. They table at the farmers' markets stating that Obama wants will end the war. When he'll actually increase troop strength and move them where they'll best fight for American interests, including pretty much anywhere. While Matt Gonzalez's article isn't perfect, it goes a long way to gather many of Obama's faults in one article. I sure would never vote for the conservative party. And I suppose if I were forced to vote between Hillary or Barrack, I'd go for Barrack. (I repeat forced to vote.) This is no way to run an election or a country. I am so sick of the he-said-she-said routine that brings up no substantive issues or realities -- no truths. This is one sorry excuse of a thing we call democracy. It's gutts have been torn away. The economy is in ruins.
No wonder the world thinks Americans are idiots -- dangerous idiots -- but democratic. How many more millions of people will we kill as we bring them democracy!
Posted by Paul Divin | February 28, 2008 08:36 PM
Nader's entrance into the race occurs at just the right time - when the progressive "champions" Edwards and Kucinich no longer have a voice.
Gonzales agreement to work with Nader confirms that both are in it - not for ego - for they know the blows that will befall them - but for the principles of democracy and a progressive agenda.
Play the identity politics card or whatever - the facts ramain, both Nader and Gonzales know how much hate may come their way and they will not allow that to deter them from helping our country set a more progressive agenda.
Posted by Rita Silver | February 28, 2008 08:45 PM
Nader's entrance into the race occurs at just the right time - when the progressive "champions" Edwards and Kucinich no longer have a voice.
Gonzales agreement to work with Nader confirms that both are in it - not for ego - for they know the blows that will befall them - but for the principles of democracy and a progressive agenda.
Play the identity politics card or whatever - the facts ramain, both Nader and Gonzales know how much hate may come their way and they will not allow that to deter them from helping our country set a more progressive agenda.
Posted by Rita Silver | February 28, 2008 08:48 PM
Ralph,Keep on fighting to end this insane war and bring our people home. Hold the politicans feet to the fire! 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 www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss, where have the "Talking Heads" been on the war profiters? and their disregard for innocent human life? 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 TAKES WORK, in a Corporate controlled State.
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, has been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. Thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow Countrymen. America will never ever be able to repay you. More power to your ideas. www.votenader.org...All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....
Posted by Seb | February 28, 2008 09:11 PM
Barack Obama has one million people donating money in small to midsize amounts to his campaign and can count on a LOT of volunteers.
Nader/Gonzalez? Nada, Zip. Nothing of consequence. In fact impotent Magical Matt couldn't get it up to run against a troubled Gavin last year, even with public financing. Instead he wasted other people's money and time to ponder a run, then WIMPED OUT.
He had a chance to perhaps bolster progressives locally. Instead, they got their asses seriously kicked in 2007 and now the Mayor's got the time and resources to make beating down local progressives Job 1. Gee thanks Matt.
Hell Ron Paul has more supporters than Ralph nader ever did, and ever will. Maybe that's because Ron's a bit more honest about his positions, unlike union buster Nader and maquila-owning Matt.
Posted by gdewar | February 28, 2008 10:38 PM
i think what happened here is that steve-o got caught with his progressive pants down. you talk "progressive" but you don't act it. obama is as BIG democratic party as they come, as inspiring as he may be. but nader, and now matt gonzo(!) are truly carrying the torch for the "third way," which all of us real progressives are a about. (see guardian editorials from past) damn, steve, we feel bad for you. and btw: name dropping and making note of what matt offered just makes you look like a douche.
Posted by student | February 28, 2008 10:41 PM
Steven T. Jones,
Please explain/defend Obama's support for the death penalty and escalation in Afghanistan, his statements that we need "to keep all options open" in regard to Iraq -- yes voted no for the invasion, but he supported the Iraq appropriations bill--and that he would consider the nuclear option for Iran.
Posted by michael worrall | February 28, 2008 11:50 PM
But... what impact will all this have on Burning Man???
Posted by The Man | February 28, 2008 11:57 PM
"Shane:
Scandal!! Schism in the progressive community of San Francisco!
I love it - two white liberals running against a black man and trying to convince everyone they know better. Hilarious."
First of all, Nader is of Lebanese descent, which would make him an Arab-American. And Gonzalez is an Hispanic. If you're going to make this a racial issue at least get a clue as to what races are involved.
Gonzalez' entry into this race makes it much more interesting and relevant. I have to admit that I was hoping for a McKinney nomination (may still happen), but I think it's a great thing to see Matt Gonzalez step into national politics.
Posted by mark | February 29, 2008 12:24 AM
"i think what happened here is that steve-o got caught with his progressive pants down. you talk "progressive" but you don't act it. obama is as BIG democratic party as they come, as inspiring as he may be. but nader, and now matt gonzo(!) are truly carrying the torch for the "third way," which all of us real progressives are a about. (see guardian editorials from past) damn, steve, we feel bad for you. and btw: name dropping and making note of what matt offered just makes you look like a douche."
^^ lol...nice.
Obama may be the best candidate that progressives could hope to elect to the office of the PotUS, but he still ain't no progressive. Obama is pro-nuclear power, voted *for* the Bush energy plan, and makes Hillary look liberal when it comes to health care.
I would think the vaunted Guardian would care a little about those issues, but apparently it's more important to win in November than to support a candidate who is right on the issues. That's what being a faux-progressive is all about, right Steven? How is Supervisor Rosenthal these days anyway?
Posted by Matt in SF | February 29, 2008 01:54 AM
Rita Silver: Nader and Gonzales know how much hate may come their way and they will not allow that to deter them from helping our country set a more progressive agenda.
With that being so, the inception of a more progressive agenda will then rest on a foundation of hate
Why does hate have to be the basis for change?
Why not make a proper foundation?
Why not co-operate w/o compromising principles?
Why not set up a sort of Trojan Horse?
We do not need martyrs!!
Self-serving!!!
Posted by goodscarrier | February 29, 2008 06:08 AM
My two "sense:"
1) While that former president of the SF Board of Supervisors may have some good ideas, there are other problems with him that render him the wrong candidate to carry the progressive message (sort of like we want a woman president but not Hillary Clinton); and,
2) If Matt Gonzalez and Ralph Nader are really interested in electoral reform and building the multi-party system, they could start by helping the local third parties (in particular the various local branches of the Green Party of the United States, since Gonzalez is reputedly registered Green, and Nader has run for president on the Green Party ticket before) raise money from non-corporate sources, register voters, and in other ways participate in party business. They do not do this. Instead, they are a more like a political party unto themselves -- we must go to them and rally around them (and their super-sized egos) instead of expecting them to be team players.
And may I point out that this political party of two is represented by only one gender?
Posted by sue | February 29, 2008 10:04 AM
I'm going to do a new post based on my interview with Matt this morning and the comments that he and Nader made on forum, but let me address a couple points here first. Personally, I can handle the insults, ad hominem attacks, name calling, and questioning of my values, even if I don't think much of those who do so anonymously and act as if they're making good and courageous points. Nader and Gonzalez are about to face far more blistering attacks, and my concern is whether that campaign and the backlash against it will help or hurt the progressive movement. And if that campaign persists in arguing that there's no difference between Obama and McCain, I fear that would be a huge setback for the cause of creating a new national consensus around progressive values, which is why I'm also playing my role in this democracy in analyzing and criticizing a presidential ticket.
Now, did I argue that Obama was our progressive savior? No. Go back and read what I've written about him ( http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=5037&catid=4 among other pieces) and you'll see I'm nobody's cheerleader, neither Obama's nor Gonzalez's. But his positions are to Hillary Clinton's left, which are to John McCain's left, and just don't think it's fair, accurate, or productive to treat Obama as if he's some kind of hawk or corporate shill.
As for my beliefs: There's little about which I disagree with Nader and Gonzalez on the issues. And if there was a chance of them winning, this would be a whole different discussion. But the question is how to get this country moving in the right direction again, and people of goodwill can have different viewpoints on that vexing problem. And I appreciate everyone for weighing in with their views, keep it up.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | February 29, 2008 12:29 PM
Steven T. Jones: But the question is how to get this country moving in the right direction again, and people of goodwill can have different viewpoints on that vexing problem.
One way is to co-operate.
If the Green Party would co-operate, the GP has far better chance of being inside the buildings in DC instead of being barbarians at the gate.
The GP, for example, could be holding its nose, embracing the Dems (this is politics for crissakes), and aiming for having one of its members put into a cabinet position, such as the EPA.
Without compromising principle, the GP should find a way to co-operate with the Dem nominee.
Essentialism is long dead....time to walk and chew gum at the same time.....
Posted by goodscarrier | February 29, 2008 01:01 PM
I'm pretty sure most people will see Nadar/Gonzalez for what it actually is, collaborationism. In the good old fashioned sense of helping an openly fascist party stay in power. These guys are going to have a sliver of a slice of even the 2000 green vote.
Hey, and it's not only just a matter of being pragmatic, or not being a party essentialist (what a screwy notion that is, of political party registration saying what you 'are'). It's also, is someone really more left just because they say they are? In the end, after 2000, who did more for the environment, Gore or Nadar? Nadar's known mainly for seatbelt legislation, and Matt for quitting. In a Nadar/Gonzalez/Obama contest for District 5 Supervisor, I'd going to want to read all their questionnaires.
Posted by Greg Shaw | February 29, 2008 02:20 PM
Steven: Your statement that "people of goodwill can have different viewpoints on that vexing problem" is light years from the aggressive, abusive language you used throughout your actual posting (e.g. "infamy", "deceptive", "ego-driven", "op-shop bullshit") and your dismissive tone towards Nader himself. I'm sorry to see you following the same line the Guardian has followed for years now of attacking Nader (and anyone who agrees that the way forward is not through the Democrats) at every opportunity; it does none of you any credit. If you and other progressives who agree with Nader on practically every issue would start debating dispassionately instead of slinging accusations and abuse, there might be a possibility for a worthwhile debate.
Personally, I'm happy that Nader is in the race, and also very pleased to see Matt get the tap as his VP candidate. And I agree completely with Matt's analysis of Obama. The "legitimate and desperately needed feeling of hope" you mention is the desperate need of people to feel good about themselves and their country once again, so they can go back to sleep and let the crimes continue (just as there was a resounding silence when Clinton killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and bombed multiple countries). That kind of "hope" is toxic, and it's just what we most need to avoid, not pursue.
Posted by John Caruso | February 29, 2008 02:44 PM
There is one hopeful and important issue that Gonzalez promises to raise that cuts to the heart of Nader's campaign.
If he keeps his promise to focus on this issue, then I believe something constructive might come out of this campaign after all.
Posted by SystemsThinker | February 29, 2008 04:33 PM
To "goodscarrier," who argues that the Green Party should cooperate, I respond that many registered Greens prefer to have no Green Party candidate for president at all and would opt to vote "none of the above" over any Green Party candidate on the ballot if that option existed. Many Greens prefer to be building the party at the local level -- instead of aiming for statewide and national offices, which are unlrealistic goals at the moment.
In addition, Ralph Nader himself has said that he and Matt Gonzalez are running as independents, not as Greens. There is some concern that the Nader/Gonzalez independent ticket could screw up things for Green Party candidates seeking ballot status. I am not an expert in these matters, but Matt Gonzalez, according to an interview in the SF Examiner, says he's running on a platform of "electoral reform," among other things, so Greens hope that he and Nader remain sensitive to this matter.
Posted by Sue | March 1, 2008 12:24 PM
Hi Sue,
So, please, what is your position on the GP pinching its nose and co-operating with The Machine so that it can gradually become part of American politics rather than stay out on the fringe of the fringe?
Do you, for example, have a problem with the GP `backing' (?) a Dem candidate if the Dem candidate has clearly agreed to bring the GP into the government?
Imagine an EPA Secretary from the GP.
Imagine an Energy Secretary from the GP.
Imagine a newly created Peace Secretary with a GP member.
Look at what the Unions do. They have power and influence. The make and break some candidates. Why can the GP not have some level of influence like that?
The way that has been used is not working obviously at the national level at all and is not exactly successful at the local if even SF is not ready for a GP mayor.
Time for a change, for staying the course', or for what I do not know?
"electoral reform": That's saddening. It really is. What a total waste of talent, time, money, focus, and energy. It is somewhat analogous to a suicide bomber targeting the (cold lifeless) heart in the US Embassy in Bagdhad. Like you I bet, I am ready for constructive measures to be taken, but unlike you I see there running as destructive. MG is wasting his time, etc.
I kne/ow they were running as Indep.
Posted by goodscarrier | March 1, 2008 08:21 PM
Of course, I agree that MG is wasting his time. But I do NOT agree that working on electoral reform is a waste of time. If only Matt G were doing that in SF or at the state level in California, or helping the Green Party to register voters, raise money, and assist with party business in other ways.
Posted by Sue | March 2, 2008 04:42 PM