Hill article on Jill Stein includes supportive comments from Ralph Nader

In a rather lengthy piece on Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and the Occupy Wall Street movement, reporter Kris Kitto obtains this nugget from Ralph Nader on Stein’s candidacy:

Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader says signature collection alone can consume a third-party campaign’s resources.

“By the time you finish, it’s Labor Day, and you’re exhausted, and you don’t have any money,” says Nader, adding that he sees promise in Stein. “She’s an M.D., which is a good advantage, since healthcare is a big issue … She has a good head on her shoulders.”

Nader’s comments certainly cannot be construed as an endorsement of Stein. Nevertheless, they are noteworthy given Nader’s history with the Green Party and its Presidential candidates. After serving as Green Party presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000 — and receiving 2.74% of the national popular vote in 2000 — Nader famously broke with the Green Party in 2004 and refused to seek its endorsement. The GP retaliated by nominating David Cobb for President rather than endorsing Nader’s independent ticket. The presence of an independent Nader candidacy on most state ballots in 2004 and 2008 significantly depressed Green Party presidential vote totals in those elections. Nader previously stated he would not be running again in 2012, but would instead be working to secure Democratic primary challengers for President Obama. However, little came of that effort. Nader’s positive comments about Stein in the Hill article may be his first positive comments about a Green Party presidential candidate since 2004.

Also of note in the article is Stein’s explanation of the origins of her campaign team:

After losing the 2002 race, she mounted losing campaigns in 2004, for the Massachusetts House of Representatives; in 2006, for Massachusetts Commonwealth secretary; and in 2010, again for the governorship. She won races for Lexington Town Meeting representative in 2005 and 2008.

“To my mind, low vote counts are not a reflection of a failed campaign,” she says.

What’s come out of her serial candidacy, Stein says, is an organization that will help her attack the monumental task that third-party candidates confront every presidential cycle: obtaining enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

In other words, Stein’s campaign team is not freshly created for this race; large portions of it have been with her through several campaigns since 2002.

Stein’s opponent for the Green Party nomination is Kent Mesplay. The party will choose its presidential nominee July 13-15, 2012, at its Baltimore convention.

20 thoughts on “Hill article on Jill Stein includes supportive comments from Ralph Nader

  1. Kleptocracy And You

    Yes ballot access rule$ help the kleptocracy maintain their rule as the opposition has NO fund$ left for paid ads which is a major part of defeating the thieves…

    Nadar understands the mtn more than most…

  2. Michael Cavlan RN

    Well-

    This article is filled with so many inaccuracies it is difficult to know where to begin. I contacted the publication and stated so.

  3. Independent Green

    Ralph Nader told me personally – face to face – during an event in front of the White House, he thought Dr. Jill Stein would make a superb Green Party candidate to seek the Greens nomination.

    A veteran candidate, and petition gatherer myself, I thought the article on Dr. Jill Stein was excellent.

  4. A Different Green Party Conservative

    Michael Kavlan is a very secret person. His telling us that there are inacccuracies without telling us what they are, is similar to Bush and Obama telling us about needing to take away our freedoms from the War on Terror, without telling us exactly why. Kavlan will be able to continue this important tradition. Which is why he would be a great presidential candidate for the Green Party Conservative movement; with Wayne Root as his running mate for national unity. They would hire Jeremy Young as Secretary of State and NewFederalist as Attorney General. Ralph Nader told me personally in my dreams that this would be a much better ticket than Jill Stein.

  5. Deran

    And now it looks like Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is about to creaate a new left of center party and run for president. “Justice Party”. That’ll make ballot access more difficult for the GP. not to metion Anderson’s party.

  6. Michael Cavlan RN

    OK Folks

    I have been just a tad busy. Between the wedding, honeymoon, building a US Senate campaign, working in a variety of roles in the Occupy Minnesota movement, being sick as a dog the past few weeks etc etc.

    So first, the fallacies in this article, at least how I see it. Ralph Nader did not “refuse” the Green endorsement in 2004. What happened is that his campaign was warned about how the Green Party endorsing process was rigged, to ensure that the GP Convention would not endorse him. On top of which he sought the nomination of the Greens, as he himself was not a member. However, his VP Peter Camejo (RIP) was. That is how David Cobb obtained it in 2004. I was in the Convention 2004. Which leads to the other fallacy, as I see it.

    The Greens did not “retaliate” and selected David Cobb.

    I was at that Convention 2004, as a Delegate. In fact I worked to get David Cobb the nomination. I had no idea about this corruption. I was to find that out later. No, on the floor one of the political arguments in favor of Cobb was that we needed a replacement of Ralph Nader, to keep the Greens alive after Ralph had moved on. I thought that was accurate. On top of which, David Cobb was saying to us Greens that “The Democratic Party is where progressive politics goes to die.” I had no idea that he was lying and at the same time he was saying that to us, that he was also playing footsie with the Democrats, in a variety of ways.

  7. Michael Cavlan RN

    Now, on to Deran

    You Greens were warned about this. The Greens, by deciding to ALLOW the deliberate disenfranchisement of Nader supporters, by YOUR National Green Party means that countless Nader supporters (and allies like myself) simply voted with our feet. Before we left, we tried to address this in a variety of ways and were summilarily kicked off of groups like Ballot Access and thrown of of list serves, for raising our grievances..

    Which led to a hemmoraging of dedicated volunteers.

    Which then led to the hillarious situation where I see Greens, now get mad at Nader supporters for a. leaving and b. working on and supporting other campaigns. I have seen Greens get mad at Nader supporters leaving and wanting them to return to the GP and just shut up and do the grunt work that the remaining Greens refuse to do.

    Then, top add insult to injury, the Green Party seemed to deliberately sabotage the campaign of Cynthia McKinney. People who wanted to actually work were thrown off of campaigns and replaced with people who had the ears of National, and did nothing.. I speak from personal experience here. Not just me either.

    So, bottom line. You Greens made your bed- so now you get to lie in it. With compost as a bed.

  8. Deran

    #11 hear, hear.

    Although, McKinney had her own problems. in Sept of ’08 she announced she was not running, and then a couple months later did a very lowkey, and not widely distributed, video announcing she was running for pres.

  9. Deran

    And I think until the GP can get out from under the thuimb of John Rensenbrink and the old Green Politics Network cadres, including Brent McMillan – even if he has finally left the national office – the USGP will continue to degenerate.

  10. Michael Cavlan RN

    Deran

    I agree 100%. Thanks for making that clear.

    Dedicated activists voted with their feet. When we did, the people you speak of, actually cheered.

    I kid you not..

  11. history ----- on the current situation(s) .... Lake

    Deran // Dec 1, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    And I think until the GP can get out from under the thuimb of John Rensenbrink and the old Green Politics Network cadres, including Brent McMillan – even if he has finally left the national office – the USGP will continue to degenerate.

    ……… nationally and the same ole same ole on the West Coast. just so sad!

  12. Pingback: Hill article on Jill Stein includes supportive comments from Ralph Nader | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  13. Jill Stein on Military Spending

    Stein calls on Obama to veto Defense Authorization as “expensive, un-American”
    Posted by Jill Stein for President 0pc on December 01, 2011 · Flag
    Jill Stein said today that if she were president she would veto the pending National Defense Authorization Bill as needlessly expensive and because it violates civil liberties by restricting the constitutional right to a fair trial. Stein is running for president as a Green Party candidate.

    “Our constitutional liberties have been under attack over the past decade, a victim of this unending war on terrorism. Congress wants to authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge, and that is wrong – and the very definition of un-American. If elected, I will restore our political and civil liberty protections,” said Stein.

    The National Defense Authorization Act would eliminate protections against the use of the military against our own citizens on American soil, as articulated by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It would also empower the president and our armed forces to detain U.S. citizens and others without trial based on unsubstantiated suspicions that such persons have been involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, or have supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Individuals could also be tried before a military court or transferred “to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

    An amendment by Senator Udall to modify this section was rejected by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.

    Jill Stein also supports major cuts in the “massive, bloated military budget.” The Senate is voting this week on the full $682.5 billion Defense Authorization Bill. Passage of the bill would mean that the amount the U.S. spends on its military would nearly be the same as the rest of the world combined.

    “America needs a peace dividend to invest in jobs, rebuild our nation’s infrastructure, pay off student loans, stop foreclosures on homes, and invest in renewable energy and conservation needed to stop the growing problem of climate change. The military budget needed major cuts ten years ago, and since then Congress has doubled it,” said Dr. Stein.

    Even if Congress permits the 10% automatic defense reductions required in the wake of the deficit reduction super-committee failure, defense spending would actually continue to increase since the reductions are only cuts in reference to the rate of growth.

    Stein pointed out that her views — unlike those of most of the Republican presidential contenders — are similar to traditional conservative beliefs that oppose a large military and the use of our defense forces as the world’s policeman. Stein noted that fifty years ago, President Eisenhower, the commander of the Allied Forces in WWII, warned the American people to be careful of the growing power of the military-industrial-Congress complex. The U.S. did not have a large permanent army or arms industry before then, always scaling the military back after a war.

    “We need to bring our troops home not only from the Middle East but from most of the more than one hundred countries where we have bases. Our massive military budget actually increases the security threat to the American people by undermining economic security at home and distorting our foreign policy. It leads to the use of the military where it is an inappropriate and ineffective response that exacerbates hostilities better addressed by diplomatic means. Right-sizing the military would not only lead to a healthier economy at home but would also move us towards real security around the world.”
    http://www.jillstein.org/stein_calls_on_obama_to_veto_defense_bill

  14. Independent Green

    Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party

    “Even if Congress permits the 10% automatic defense reductions required in the wake of the deficit reduction super-committee failure, defense spending would actually continue to increase since the reductions are only cuts in reference to the rate of growth.”

    Dr. Jill Stein Green Party

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *