Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04

As the Green Party hashes out its plans for next year's presidential election, some of its activists are urging the party to forgo the race and, instead, throw its support behind one of the Democratic candidates -- all in the hopes of unseating President Bush.

It isn't an especially popular idea, but it is being seriously considered.

"At the moment, everything is on the table and everything is being discussed," said John Strawn, co-chairman of the group's presidential exploratory committee.

The committee began the process of finding a candidate months ago, soliciting recommendations from its state party representatives across the country. It compiled and picked over that list, contacting about 40 people it believed might make suitable candidates -- those who could help build the party, while upholding its leftist commitments to nonviolence, anti-corporatism and diversity.

The party declined to identify who is on its list or who has responded to its inquiries. But officials confirmed media reports that they have been conferring with two-time candidate Ralph Nader, former representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), party consul David Cobb and New York activist Paul Glover. All are considering running.

That the Green Party is also considering not running a candidate would probably surprise some. Nader brought the party to new heights during the 2000 election, winning nearly 3 million votes -- more than four times as many as he received in 1996, when he first ran for president. It wasn't enough to qualify for federal election financing, but, as Democrats have long complained, it was enough to throw the election to Bush.

But while Nader often said, during the campaign, that there was little difference between Al Gore and Bush, the party has since become an especially vociferous critic of the Bush administration, attacking seemingly every major presidential initiative -- from the war on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq, to the latest push for tax cuts. That has some rethinking their plans for 2004. "There are Greens at all levels who are so infuriated with . . . the Bush administration that they would do anything to see him turned out," Strawn said.

It is unclear under what circumstances the party could agree to support a Democrat. Many of its officials adamantly oppose supporting any of the more centrist Democratic candidates. "There is no possible way that we would ever support someone like a [Connecticut Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman or a [Missouri Rep. Richard A.] Gephardt," said Anita Rios, one of the party's five national co-chairs.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), one of the most liberal Democratic candidates, appears to have gained the most traction among the Greens. But he is considered one of his party's longest long shots -- and it is uncertain whether the Green Party would pass on its own presidential race to support someone with such a slim chance of winning.

The prevailing opinion, among the officials, is that they should run a candidate. For all their complaints with the Bush administration, many remain almost as disenchanted with the Democratic Party, complaining that it is too weak-kneed to adequately oppose the president's agenda. "We have a lot of problems with [Democrats], too, just as much as we do with the Republicans," said Tom Sevigny, another party chairman. "It's not just Bush."

Then there are the more practical concerns: The party could lose its ballot status in some states if it doesn't run a presidential candidate. The public might assume the Greens' time has come and gone, without someone at the top of their ticket, and it could hurt Green candidates running for other offices.

"There's a lot of people who look at the pressure, from the Democratic Party, in particular, for the Greens not to run a candidate as being a sort of invitation to commit suicide on the Democratic Party's behalf," said co-chairman Ben Manski. "That's not something that a lot of people have a strong inclination to do."

For now, Nader appears to be the party's most likely candidate. His candidacy would bring the party media attention, instant name recognition and experience running a national campaign. But officials said the nomination is not simply his for the taking. Some complain, as they did during the 2000 election, that Nader never adequately emphasized minority issues or gay concerns. Others are irked that he never registered as a Green (he is an independent). Still others fear the party has become too closely identified with the longtime consumer activist and ought to look for a new voice.

Nader did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.

The party won't begin making any hard decisions on him or any other candidate until July, when it meets for its annual national meeting. And it won't formally choose a candidate -- if it does -- until the 2004 nominating convention, slated to be held in Minneapolis, Milwaukee or San Francisco.

Until then, Rios said, "none of us knows what's going to happen."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company