Both the New York Times and Slate Mangle Green Party History

The print edition of the New York Times has this fairly long article on Jill Stein and the Green Party. It says that Stein is the first Green Party “candidate” to qualify for primary season matching funds. Actually, Ralph Nader received $667,000 in primary season matching funds when he was the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2000.

Slate has this article commenting on the New York Times article, written by David Weigel. He originally wrote that Cynthia McKinney received primary matching funds in 2008, when she was the Green Party’s presidential candidate. But then he found out that wasn’t correct, and he re-wrote his story, but never pointed out that Nader did receive primary season matching funds as the Green Party candidate in 2000.

Both the New York Times article, and the Slate article, are unfair to Ralph Nader. The New York Times story says Nader in 2000 “only” received 3% of the vote. But Nader’s showing in 2000 was the highest percentage of the vote that a party to the left of the Democrats had polled since 1924. Henry Wallace in 1948, and Norman Thomas in 1932, each ran historic races, but each only got 2% of the vote. The Slate article claims that Nader “undermined” the Green Party in 2004, but carries no specifics. Nader in 2004, if he were so inclined, could have challenged the Green Party petition in Pennsylvania. The 2004 Green Party petition in Pennsylvania only had a few hundred more signatures than the legal requirement, but neither Nader nor anyone else challenged it.

5 comments

  1. Two things:

    The liberals at the Times, Slate, the media generally love to trash Ralph Nader, even indirectly.

    It’s also interesting that the GP still has not come to terms with it’s relation to its own history (specifically Ralph Nader).

    I do imagine the Stein/Honkala campaign with garner more votes than McKinney or Cobb did, but no where near Nader’s 3%.

  2. Demo Rep · · Reply

    WIKI rules — the regular brain dead media is now USELESS about history stuff — like looking at some media stuff from 4000 B.C. on some clay tablets.

  3. Larry Allred · · Reply

    Mainstream outlets are incapable of fair reporting along the boundary of major and minor/independent/alternative parties. This is true in the extreme when it come to historical reporting, most especially recent history. Fair reporting would be a forfieture of their mainstream status, a loss of credibilty among narrators of the dominant political class/establishment.

    The real fight is only rhetorically about the future, it is genuninely always about what is un understood and misunderstood about the past.

    If a person wanted to launch an objective inquiry into alternative candidacies have typically done and not done, there are those who know a lot. Ask them. Maybe Darcy Richardson.

  4. Phil Sawyer · · Reply

    To Larry Allred (#3., above):

    Yes, Darcy G. Richardson, Esq. is certainly one of the very best historians about these matters. In addition, Dr. J. David Gillespie and this website’s Mr. Richard Winger are two more that we should add to the list.

  5. I am and admirer of both Dr. Jill Stein, her campaign manager Manski, and always optimistic.

    The Green Party would be smart, Ben are you listening?

    Stop this silliness about first matching funds etc… let it go.

    Focus on the Green New Deal. The future. The Greens are the future.

    Let those old Nader intra Green fights go, brother…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: