Contacts:
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator
207-326-4576, nallen@acadia.net
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator
202-518-5624, scottmclarty@yahoo.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Democratic Party and the Al Gore campaign have publicly downplayed their fears that votes they usually take for granted will go to Green candidate Ralph Nader, and that Mr. Nader will further threaten Vice President Gore's numbers by drawing many independent, first-time, and hitherto alienated voters.

The Gore camp has taken several steps to diffuse the Nader threat:

* Gore chose Sen. Joe Lieberman for his running mate.  Sen. Lieberman represents Mr. Nader's home state of Connecticut, and displays some of the independence and integrity that Mr. Gore himself lacks, with his questionable fundraising practices and reliance on corporate money.  Sen. Lieberman's conservative voting record, however, places him squarely in Mr. Gore's own pro-corporate camp.

* Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank has emerged as the Democratic Party liberal wing's attack dog against Mr. Nader.  In an "open letter" to Mr. Nader dated July 21, Rep. Frank suggests that Mr. Nader's strong stands on gay rights and abortion are insincere and expedient, since Mr. Nader declined to speak out on them before 2000, although he has a strong record of articles, testimony, and statements on some other human rights issues. 

In his 2000 campaign, Mr. Nader has embraced a wide array of issues, attempting to unite many progressive and populist movements.  Rep. Frank thus criticizes Mr. Nader for what he has done to make himself a strong candidate in 2000. 

As for expediency, Rep. Frank would do better to consider the history of Clinton-Gore "triangulation" (takeover of Republican issues and policies), especially the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a blow against same-sex marriage rights.  Rep. Frank's blasts against Mr. Nader admit nothing about his own party's retreat from core liberal values.

* Some Democrats, including Gore spokesman Chris Lehane, have called a vote for Ralph Nader "wasted," insisting that he can't win.  The "wasted vote" charge insinuates that voters should vote for designated winners instead of candidates who represent their interests and views.  It insults Americans who might vote for Mr. Nader for other reasons besides winnability, such as registering protest against Bush and Gore or helping their state's Green Party gain ballot status.

If Ralph Nader gets into the Presidential Debates, all bets, predictions, and estimations of winnability will be overturned.  A strong debater, Mr. Nader will raise the kind of kitchen sink issues affecting most Americans that the major party candidates obfuscate or avoid, or on which they've converged: winning quality health care for all Americans, maintenance of our public services and resources, ending taxpayer-funded hand-outs to wealthy corporations, labor rights and the livable wage, etc. 

Whether Mr. Nader's run will contribute to a Republican victory is uncertain, since both Mr. Nader and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan will pull votes from Gov. George W. Bush. Furthermore, Mr. Gore was trailing Mr. Bush months before Nader entered the race. 

The real "spoiling" issue is how the Commission on the Presidential Debates, run by Democratic and Republican operatives, wants to spoil fair elections and the right of voters to be informed.    Millions of Americans have a right to know whether Ralph Nader, a name that will be on most state ballots, represents their issues and aspirations.  If Mr. Nader represents them, they have a right to hear their issues and aspirations argued.

For more information:
* Green Party platform: http://www.gp.org
* Nader 2000 Campaign: http://www.votenader.org
* Association of State Green Parties:
http://www.greenparties.org

search: elct

Home | Press