The Badger Herald

NEWS

Nader, Reform Party join forces

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Ryan Masse:

by Ryan Masse

Thursday, October 28, 2004

At first glance, it seems a strange pairing: Ralph Nader, consumer activist and former Green Party candidate, and the Reform Party, brainchild of Ross Perot and former home of Pat Buchanan, joining forces in this year’s presidential election.

But this political odd couple shouldn’t come as a surprise, say spokespeople with the candidate and party, who say Nader and the Reform Party reflect shared fundamental principles on a majority of issues.

“If people look at the Reform Party position, it’s amazing how many of their positions we agree with,” Nader press secretary Kevin Zeese said. “Whether it’s getting out of Iraq, or a crackdown on corporate crime, opposing the Patriot Act and destruction of the constitution by John Ashcroft … [the connection] is not as surprising as people think.”

Reform Party press secretary David Weller echoed Zeese’s sentiments, listing Nader’s stances on international trade agreements, the military’s budget and the decision to go into Iraq as in accordance with the Reform Party’s views.

“We consider him a reformer because he does agree with 70 to 80 percent of our platform,” Weller said.

The partnership began in May, when the Reform Party endorsed Nader as the party’s nominee for president. With the party’s help, Nader has been able to get on election ballots such as Florida’s that otherwise would be tough to secure.

UW emeritus professor of political science Charles O. Jones views the alliance as a marriage of necessity between a candidate who needed ballot access and a party facing an identity crisis.

“The Reform Party lacks a clear identity; it’s a shell of what it used to be,” Jones said. “They were relatively etched with Perot, but then with Buchanan and [former Minnesota governor Jesse] Ventura, you wonder what this party stands for other than in general professing interest in change.”

Perot formed the Reform Party before his second presidential run in 1996. Buchanan succeeded him as the party’s presidential candidate in 2000, although there is a dispute within the party as to whether it was Buchanan or John Hagelin who secured the official nomination.

Weller believes the endorsement of Nader will bring the party back towards its “close to the center” platform and away from the far-right policies that Buchanan pushed.

For Mike Heideman, Students for Nader campus coordinator, the Democratic Party’s attempts to keep Nader off ballots necessitated Nader’s union with the Reform Party.

“The only reason he has to [work with the Reform Party] is because the Democratic Party is being extremely undemocratic,” Heideman said. “But I think it speaks to Ralph’s broad appeal and the need for his voice to be in this election.”

Others, however, view the affiliation with the Reform Party as an ideological leap for Nader, who ran in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections as the Green Party’s candidate before opting to enter this year’s race as an Independent.

Madison Ald. Austin King, District 8, a Nader supporter in 2000, denounced the independent candidate for accepting the help of what he deems a “hardcore racist” party.

“Nader is a hero of mine, so to see him accept support from a party right of the Republican Party is highly disconcerting to say the least,” King said.

Although in the short term Nader needed the support to get on ballots, King believes the affiliation will have long-term consequences for the consumer activist.

“There will be a huge blow to his credibility as long as he continues to accept [the Reform Party’s] support without condemning their politics, contrary to 2000 when he ran a vibrant, progressive campaign,” King said.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 28, 2004 @ 7:54pm):

I disagree with Nader's acceptance of the Reform Party endorsement, but he is running a thoroughly left-wing campaign and he has not adjusted his platform one iota to bend to their politics. He is pro-choice, for giving driver's liscenses to undocumented immigrants and maintains all of his progressive platform. The Democrats forced him to accept their endorsement. Austin King is supporting a candidate (Kerry) who said in the debates that "there were Arabs coming across the border unchecked". Is it any wonder that Nader polls 20-25% among Arab-Americans with statements like that coming from Kerry? King supports a candidate that wants to put 100,000 more cops on the street. Kerry's policies are going to prop up racist institutions and for King to criticize Nader's tactical acceptance of the Reform Party line is a bit absurd and hypocritical. This piece of "journalism" is highly questionable. Why did the Herald choose to do a piece on this aspect of his campaign 5 days before the election? This is another example of front-page editorializing. This is just like their story about the Nader campaign turning down signatures from Republicans. Instead of mentioning that fact prominently, they made it appear through the article and especially its headline as if the Republicans had actually aided the campaign, when in fact, the Nader campaign never asked for and indeed condemned the Republican "help". On the same day they endorsed John Kerry, such a piece makes one question the integrity of the paper.

Anonymous (October 28, 2004 @ 9:12pm):

The Nader campaign is two faced. With one face, it condemned the Republican help. With the other, it accepted the Republican help.

Did anyone really expect Nader or Republicans to behave with any honor?

Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 2:19pm):

"The Democrats force him to accept their [Reform Party] endorsement." What a bunch of crap. You're so hell-bent on hating John Kerry that you make up lies to excuse the messed up behavior of your preferred candidate. And yes, it would be hypocritical for King to criticize Nader while giving a free pass to Kerry. But I've never heard him say anything nice about Kerry, other than that he is the only candidate who can beat Bush and is not quite as awful as Bush. Earlier in this newspaper, he called Kerry a "corporatist and a militarist." I personally thought he was being unduly harsh to Kerry, but that's my view. I just don't see why you far-leftists are wasting time bashing Kerry when the true enemy for all of us should be George W. Bush.