By Dave Yanowitz

Nader. The very word can make the blood boil. Democrats sputter over his role as “spoiler” of the 2000 election, and worry he might do it again. Greens feel he should know when to quit, lest he cause trouble for their official candidate, David Cobb. Supporters steam because they see the system as the problem. And of course, Republicans titter gleefully at all the turmoil, delighted at the prospect of a divided left.

The heated race for Oregon’s seven electoral votes has led to some unusual tactics by almost everyone concerned. According to a complaint filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a watchdog organization, two Oregon conservative groups broke campaign finance laws when they called their members and asked them to attend a Nader convention in Portland, hoping to guarantee Nader a spot on the ballot. One of the groups, Citizens for a Sound Economy, may have broken the law by making the phone calls from a prepared script. This could violate campaign finance law because the cost of the script and the calls may constitute in-kind contributions.

Of course, the Bush campaign was quick to officially distance itself from such skullduggery, but still gave tacit approval. Bush campaign spokeswomen Tracey Schmitt said “No Bush-Cheney paid campaign staffers were making calls to encourage Republicans to help Ralph Nader. But the campaign certainly understands that when Republican volunteers see that there are Democratic volunteers trying to restrict the choice and keep Nader off the ballot, that they should work to expand the choice.”

Moses Ross, outgoing communications secretary for the Multnomah County Democratic Party, responded by sending out an email encouraging Democrats to crowd the Nader convention. In the email, Ross said, “we need as many Oregon Democrats as possible to fill that room and to NOT sign that petition.” Ross framed this rather slippery suggestion as a way to “go on the offensive” in response to the prospect of Republicans working to get Nader on the Oregon ballot.

Nader called such suggestions “dirty tricks.” Attorney Greg Kafoury, a Nader campaign spokesman, says Ross’ suggestion was “more than a sleazy, dirty trick, both the letter itself and actions taken in reliance on it may constitute crimes. Those who find amusement in trying to block other people from trying to participate in the democratic process may find that their actions are not only unamusing, but are criminal.” He also feels this represents “the adoption of Florida Republicans’ tactics by Oregon Democrats, and this should disturb thinking people.”

Paul Maresh, active in Multnomah County’s Democratic Party, explains “Moses was speaking for himself and not for the party.” And although “people have spoken to him privately about it,” Maresh would not mind if Ross ends up being “publicly chastised at a Multnomah Democratic Central Committee meeting for speaking inappropriately.”

The method suggested in Ross’ email struck Maresh as especially counterproductive because “it was not necessary to block people. There were empty seats in the hall, and there were not enough Republicans and/or Nader supporters to sign the petitions to put Ralph on the ballot.” Indeed, according to Kafoury, the count from the last Portland Nader Convention ran about fifty verified signatures short of the thousand needed to get him on the ballot, and that means supporters must resort to a petition drive. Nader would need at least 15,000 signatures to secure him a place on the ballot.

But Naderites remain enthused. According to Michael Connor, of the socialist-feminist organization Solidarity, “we need independent political action—independent of the corporations and their two parties. Supporting Nader/Camejo makes sense because they’ve actually broken from the Democrats (unlike the Greens candidate Cobb) and won’t be bullied into backing down because of the Bush boogie-man.”

Connor adds that “if we’re afraid to speak in our own name, and to say what needs to be said (health care for all, bring the troops home now, equal marriage rights for all, etc.) then we’ll be forever captive to the Democrats. The right-ward movement of elites in this country cannot be checked by voting for Kerry.”

But Maresh feels Nader often inadvertently sabotages the left by raising important issues but not addressing them effectively. He “brings up issues that progressives care about and then does a piss poor job of running a campaign. Even though I have several substantive differences with Dean, at least he got out there and showed that the progressive agenda has legs.”

Nader engendered further division between supporters and the rest of the left by calling the Green Party’s leadership a “cabal.” Chuck Fall, Co-Chair of the Portland Metro Pacific Green Party, said that Nader’s comment was a “silly, thoughtless remark. You notice he didn’t name any names. I wonder if Mr. Nader isn’t projecting something of his own organization onto the Greens...a case of the pot calling the kettle black.”
Fall adds the “Democratic Party’s covert tactic” to undermine the convention suggested in Ross’ email “reveals their fears about losing Oregon to Republicans. The Democrats fear Nader more than they fear David Cobb, the Green Party presidential candidate. They want to limit choices for progressive voters.”

Most on the left can agree that Democratic candidate John Kerry is not their ideal candidate, but the similarities often stop there. Among Greens alone, there is intense disagreement about if and when to vote for Kerry. According to Oregon’s election office, Al Gore won the Oregon vote in 2000 by 6,765 votes.

These rifts won’t be resolved soon. Fall spoke with “Nader supporters and Greens who sound pretty adamant about not voting for Kerry under any circumstances.” He’s also talked “with a few Greens who would vote for Kerry, especially if the race appears close. Some find the strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils to be repugnant because it remains a vote for an evil. I personally am more nuanced in my thinking and could persuade myself to vote against Bush, and for Kerry, and rationalize this kind of vote as ‘principled.’ The argument is that getting Bush and his cabal out of the White House is the most principled thing one could try to do with one’s vote.”

Dave Yanowitz is the Alliance News Brief editor.