Nader Picks Matt Gonzales as Running Mate

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:28:56 PM EST
Tags: Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzales (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is pretty funny. Last night I wrote a very positive post on Matt Gonzale's article about why he is not supporting Barack Obama. (Comments now closed on it, so you can continue to address it here.)

I mentioned that he was a former Democrat, public defender and the Green candidate for Mayor in San Francisco in 2003, garnering 47% of the vote against the traditional Democrat, Gavin Newsom.

He's also a change progressive who isn't buyng Obama's change meme. He detailed Obama's legislative record as U.S. Senator to explain why.

Just two days earlier, I wrote an op-ed, Will the Real Ralph Nader Please Stand Up? critical of Ralph Nader's decision to run for office.

And in the "you can't make this stuff up" category, Ralph Nader has just announced he has selected Matt Gonzales as his running mate.

< Periodically, The Media Accuses Hillary Of Mood Swings | National Security or National Nonsense? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Nader Picks Matt Gonzales as Running Mate | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's safe to say (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:37:00 PM EST

that the Green Party candidates, by definition, have to say that any Democrat, either Clinton or Obama, are not real progressives.

He must have known that Nader was considering him when he wrote the earlier piece, so it's hardly shocking that he'd be critical of Obama.

: TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#39)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:53:16 PM EST

******************
Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:
Let's all donate something tonight before we logout, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.
Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.

Everyone has an agenda. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:39:59 PM EST

Shhhhhhh (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM EST

You mean Gonzales? (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:59:46 PM EST

I guess he might....but can being on a ticket that is guaranteed to get all of a dozen votes (probably me, their immediate family, and 3-4 other knuckleheads:) even be considered an agenda?...lol


You can make it 13 votes. I didn't know (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by LatinoVoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:42:50 PM EST

who this guy was but I was just reading his Wiki page and read about his "epiphany" to leave the Democratic Party. It reminded me of my own epiphany watching the Democratic Party and the Obama Party throw Hillary under the bus.

: Matt is awesome (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:28:47 PM EST

And he did he get 47% of the vote for Mayor in 2003 or 119,000 votes. Can he cut into Obama's popularity in San Francisco, one of seven counties that Obama won in the recent California primary, is a fair question. People here in the city were abuzz about it, somewhat surprised. I am still holding out hope for Mrs. Clinton but otherwise I am there. And I hate to admit, but I'll contribute to 527s that attack Obama. I am sorry but I just don't trust him. I don't like McCain but at least I know what he stands for. I have no idea what Obama really believes. I know what he tells people, what they want to hear. I just don't vote for candidates like that. I like candidates who tell me what I need to hear. I'd vote for McCain if it puts over the top in California. If mine were the deciding vote, yup, I'd put McCain in the White House. I am sorry to say that, it is not easy to admit that, but I feel that strongly about Obama and I can't for the life of me believe that just sixty days I was indifferent to him. Slightly negative but now I just think him a Democratic Richard Nixon. I am sorry but I don't like him in the least.

: Welcome aboard.... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST

I had my epiphany as well way back in 2000, relapsed in 2004, back on the right track in 2008....make it 14! Unless Kubby is on my ballot, then I've got some thinking to do
Only a short a few million more epiphanies...

mindfulmission Predicted This (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:54:00 PM EST

In the last thread. Guess he really does know the guy.

Woohoo!!! (none / 0) (#20)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM EST

Nope - I don't know Gonzales, at all.

It just made sense. You have the letter from Nader and Gonzales attacking Clinton. Then you have an article from Gonzales attacking Obama.

Now you have a Nader/Gonzales ticket.

It is nice to have a prediction come right once in a while though.

Gonzales seems like a solid, legitimate progressive. And I like Nader's politics. Hopefully they will be able to be a voice into making sure Obama or Clinton don't move too far to the center/right.

And hopefully they will get about 12 votes. Total.


Which states does he plan to contest? (none / 0) (#24)
by hairspray on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM EST

: I'd imagine (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST

reality is the only one he is seriously contesting.

You gotta love it.... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST

if I had a nickel for every time I heard "I like Nader's politics, but I ain't voting for him", I'd have at least 20 bucks by now.

Think of the flipside of that common statement..."I'm not crazy about Clinton/Obama's politics, but they've got my vote locked up blind!".

It makes no sense, no sense at all. If everybody who liked Nader's politics voted for the guy he'd win the f*ckin' thing.


Or at least (none / 0) (#27)
by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:48:48 PM EST

get 400 votes, by your count.


: Good one AF.... (none / 0) (#30)
by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST

How's the saying go....It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
If politics is sport, and it's more like sport everyday it seems, Nader leads the league in ideological honesty and integrity.
Got another saying that applies as well...lie down with dogs, come up with fleas. Lie with those Democrat dogs if you wish...not me babe.

We desperately need 3rd parties (none / 0) (#31)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:02:19 PM EST

so that the regular candidates have to stop throwing us under the bus (because they know we have no place else to go).

(although my other place to go is that I'll work toward a veto proof congressional majority and forget about presidential politics this time.)


: I agree... (none / 0) (#34)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST

... that we need 3rd parties.
That is why I have previously voted for Nader. And that is why I voted for the GP candidate for Gov. in IL last year.
BUT... with that said, I don't think that a party can be developed at the national election level. A party has to be developed at the local level and then grow.
I don't think that Nader getting his butt kicked, picking less than 1% of the vote, will do anything to help build the Green Party or any other third party possibility.

: I Agree (none / 0) (#38)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:00:25 PM EST

TeresaInSnow2 said:

I'll work toward a veto proof congressional majority and forget about presidential politics this time.
That's my plan exactly if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

I don't like Nader's politics either (none / 0) (#32)
by s5 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:07:43 PM EST

I think it's time progressives not just criticize Nader for his possible role as a spoiler in 2000, but also for his policies and management style.

For one, his global warming platform is all wrong, and well behind the climate plans released by all three major Democratic candidates. I follow climate issues pretty closely, and for him to criticize the Democrats while releasing a platform that falls short of theirs really calls everything else about him into question for me. (Summary: he supports a carbon tax, while both Obama and Clinton are pushing for a far superior cap-and-trade system with a 100% permit auction and an 80% emissions reduction target from 1990 levels.)

Then there was his famous lovefest with Pat Buchanan over immigration, enough to turn the stomach of any progressive.

Then you wrap it all up with his corrupt mismanagement of his own organizations, and you have a deeply flawed politician who I wouldn't even vote for as county dogcatcher. He needs to be kept as far away from elected office as possible.


: If you feel that way about (none / 0) (#42)
by jondee on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:03:44 PM EST

Nader, how on earth did you survive the reign of the current sociopath-in-chief with your sanity (seemingly) intact?

Not a surprise (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:01:28 PM EST

As I pointed out in the other comments section, Gonzalez (in conjunction with Nader) sent out an unnecessary press release attacking Hillary in January. Now with Obama in the lead Gonzalez unloads on him. It's right out of Nader's spoiler play book. And bingo, today Ralph has a new running mate.

With all due respect Jeralyn it really wasn't that hard to see the motives behind Gonzalez's piece from the onset. Yes, some of the points he made may have had some merit. But it was clear he was focusing in on Obama with an ulterior purpose, especially since almost all of his arguments applied to Clinton as well. From your excellent take-down of Nader you should know this m.o., And Gonzalez history with Nader was well documented.

No doubt the press has been viciously unkind to Hillary, but I don't think that should justify grasping on to whatever anti-Obama screed is thrown out there. It's obvious there are many factions out there that are happy to create big divides within the Democratic party, they don't need to be catered to.

: Yes exactly (none / 0) (#33)
by s5 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM EST

Gonzalez has always been a part of the "Democrats are just bad, so don't vote for them" coalition, and his motivations in that op-ed were utterly transparent to anyone familiar with San Francisco politics. Now just one day later, he's running with Nader against Obama without disclosing his intent in the op-ed? How shady can you get.

Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST

It's very good to see you writing this post. It would also be good to see an update to the previous post that includes a link to this one, so that when RW sites cite the Obama takedown piece it will also include the relevant info here.

: Good point, I'll go put an update (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST

and redirect on that one now.

I went to the non-victory party for Matt (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by coigue on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST

when Gavin Newsom won Mayor.

I am very disappointed with him in doing this.

Tim Russert wants to know (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by bob5540 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:27:34 PM EST

On behalf of Tim Russert of MSNBC, I am passing along this question:

"Jeralyn, as you yourself admitted, you have written very positively about Matt Gonzalez. Now we learn that Matt Gonzalez has been selected by Ralph Nader to be his running mate. Before you respond, let me play for you some of the things Nader has said:

[CUE TAPE]

"What's more, Democrats all over this nation believe that Ralph Nader was responsible for throwing the 2000 election to President Bush.

"Tonight, before this Internet audience, will you now reject Matt Gonzalez? Not just denounce him, but reject him?"

I will be glad to forward your response to Mr. Russert.

: that was very funny (none / 0) (#37)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST

good writing!

is the TL time stamp correct? (none / 0) (#2)
by Josey on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST

yes as to my posts (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST

as to comments, readers set their own time zones.


: but I posted at 1:38 in post above (none / 0) (#21)
by Josey on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:19:18 PM EST

A one hour difference.

Thanks Jeralyn but still some ?s (none / 0) (#4)
by Independence33 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST

I appreciate this caveat because I think it is important in the context of the story. I have been critical at times of your views but I will never criticize your integrity. A lot of bloggers would have ran from this. My confusion comes from what you are trying to accomplish by promoting this point of view. Our choices in this election are Clinton, Obama, Nader and McCain. Of these choices who do you believe will be more progressive than Obama. Like I said, I am no Obamaniac or delusional follower but I do believe he is our best hope. Maybe he wont change as much as I or you would like but in my opinion he has the best chance to do so.

I think Obama and Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM EST

are two peas in a pod on issues. I think Hillary has more experience. I don't trust or like the "change" meme. It's not really change, it's amporphous and vague. Obama has two core groups supporting him on his merits and message: African Americans and youth. While he has gotten two big unions, Hillary has gotten a lot of union support as well.

Obama's other core group is white males who hate Hillary. They aren't voting for Obama in my opinion, they are voting against Hillary.

My beef with Obama is he is not the progressive the media is making him out to be. Nor will he really be an agent of change. He will be historical, but I'm not interested in a historical marker, be it the first African American or the first woman in the White House.

I'm advocating for the candidate I think will be the best President, based on their record, their position on issues and how I view their ability to get their agendas through Congress.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I vote for him. He isn't the nominee yet.


: typo (none / 0) (#16)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:07:26 PM EST

amorphous

: white females (none / 0) (#40)
by diogenes on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:45:58 PM EST

How about the white females who are voting for Hillary because she is the first woman, or the blacks who vote for Obama because he is the first black. Seems that white men always do things for evil reasons while others are more commendable or understandable.

A better question is (none / 0) (#5)
by magster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST

who would she support if Clinton doesn't survive?


I think she has said many times... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST

the Democratic nominee.


The anti-Obama rancor has (none / 0) (#15)
by magster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM EST

but her post was so favorable of his opinion about the real Obama, that one more reassurance would help.

The rancor of the Obama v. Clinton battle resulted in this pro-Clinton site (I know, no endorsement and BTD is the worst supporter ever of Obama) endorsing the views of someone who sent out a press release against Obama as a setup for this morning's anouncement. It should be abundantly clear to Clinton supporters as well that Gonzalez' rhetoric would have been directed at Clinton if she was favored to pull this nomination out.

While the rhetoric of Nader/Gonzalez is certainly in line with many of my views, but the process they've chosen is potentially as destructive as what happened in 2000, it's time to denounce and reject Nader/Gonzalez.


: I meant to hit preview, not post (none / 0) (#19)
by magster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST

and see if Jeralyn provided reassurance before I hit post. She did. (I also meant to proofread...)

Timing! (none / 0) (#7)
by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST

It's everything!

Kudos.

Today is the day to buy your lottery ticket...and if your luck holds....

Haha (none / 0) (#10)
by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST

This is really funny. Could he have found a clearer way to discredit himself if he tried?

Oh my good lord (none / 0) (#22)
by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST

true progressives are always shooting themselves in the foot (first with thinking that Obama is a progressive, now this). It's a miracle that some of them can still walk.

And it is because of this bad, bad habit that they will be stuck whining about the Republicans in charge. I can now say that I'm certainly glad that I'm not registered Dem and am registered as an Independent. I'm sad to see that what Republicans say about the Democrats is true.

Just wait, TL - (none / 0) (#29)
by scribe on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST

I predict that tomorrow, Ralph and Matt Gonzales will be giving you and your blog post praising Gonzales the credit for pointing Ralph to his running mate.

I dunno if that's something to be proud of or not.