Greens Nominate Cynthia McKinney

The Green Party has made a good deal of history this weekend.

The party has nominated a former member of Congress for the presidency, a coup for the party that itself has yet to elect a U.S. representative or senator.

The party has nominated a woman for president, no small matter in a year when Democrats have rejected an opportunity to crack the political glass ceiling.

The party has nominated an African-American for president, no small matter in a year when the Democrats have embraced Barack Obama.

And the former member of Congress, the woman and the person of color that the Green Party has nominated is a smart, articulate and outspoken public figure who – despite the fact that she has taken her hits from a media and a political class that never could get comfortable with the idea that a young black women was walking the corridors of power and making no apologies – is more than capable of standing her ground in a presidential race that so far has been longer on style than ideas.

Cynthia McKinney, a former Democrat who represented Georgia in the U.S. House during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George Bush and often sparred presidents of both big parties, easily secured the Green nomination Saturday at the party's convention in Chicago.

She then delivered an acceptance speech in which she made it clear that the small but serious party, which has more than 200 elected officials nationwide and grassroots organizations in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, would be heard in a campaign where much of the media has a hard time seeing beyond Democratic blue and Republican red.

As delegates and supporters waved "Paint the White House Green" signs, McKinney declared, "I am asking you to vote your conscience, vote your dreams, vote your future, vote Green."

Resolutely anti-war and anti-imperialist, firmly committed to defending individual liberties and determined to hold the outgoing president and vice president to account – as a member of the House in 2006, McKinney introduced the first articles of impeachment against President Bush – McKinney is an ardent advocate for national health care, expanded education spending and energy policies that emphasize mass transportation and conservation rather than rewarding oil-company profiteering.

And, as she notes, "I have a record of standing up on all of these issues."

It is that record, and her willingness to stand on it, that distinguishes McKinney from Democrat Obama and Republican John McCain, both of whom are being accused of changing positions in order to reposition their campaigns for November.

McKinney does not spend much time attacking either the Democrat or the Republican. Rather, the former state legislator and six-term member of the House – whose broad experience as a child of the civil rights movement, a community activist, an educator and a state and national official compares favorably with both of her big-party rivals – simply says: "Don't expect me to keep a count of the major flip flops of the other candidates between now and November. I'm sure there will be plenty. They are in this flip flop because they have to appear to share our values -- while they serve somebody else."

That "somebody else" comment is a reference to the corporate and governmental elites that Cynthia McKinney has spent a lifetime battling. She has her scars. But she is still reasonably young by presidential politics standards – just 53 – and she is still appealing and appropriately idealistic.

Don't talk about "wasted votes" or "spoiling" that which is already spoiled, she says

"We are in this to build a movement," McKinney told the cheering delegates. "A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the movement that will turn this country right-side-up again."

Comments (27)

1. Hey, all you smart, left-leaning subjects of the Domininon of the Electoral College:

   If it should happen next November that you live in a state where Obama is nearly certain to win or nearly certain to lose, you may want to consider voting for Cynthia McKinney. In rare instances, the Electoral College is weak in ways that we can exploit. I was happy to do this in 1996, by voting for Ralph Nader for President on the isthmus of Madison, Wisconsin, where Bob Dole actually finished THIRD, after Clinton and Nader.

   You can still vote for Nader, too, if you wish. He's still the same decent guy he always was. But maybe McKinney is even better. Nader's talents seem not to be appropriate for long-term campaigning for high-level public office.

   But if it should happen next November that you live in a state where Obama and McCain are running close to neck-and-neck, please vote for Obama.

   This pragmatic advice was given by the late great Molly Ivins, now the patron saint of the great state of Texas. Follow this advice, and we won't have to complain about "spoilers" this election year.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/13/2008 @ 10:14am

2. The "spoiler" argument is a myth perpetuated by the Democratic Party. There really is no such thing as a spoiler. For example, to call a Green a spoiler assumes that Democrats are entitled to those votes in the first place. They are not. Votes belong to the voter, and the only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate which you do not prefer. If Democrats want these votes, then let them work for the votes by taking positions on the issues that actually resonate with the people casting these votes.

   It can just as easily be argued that a Democratic candidate is a "spoiler" for the Green candidate; and it's dishonest to blame a Green without also blaming the opposing Democrat, who may have taken a large number of votes that would have otherwise gone to the Green. In fact, I would argue that if you're going to call anyone a spoiler, the Democrat probably took far more votes from the Green than the Green did from the Democrat; so they would actually be the bigger spoiler.

   Bottom line is that our system of plurality elections is broken. What we need is a system of MAJORITY elections, using either runoff elections or Instant Runoff Voting. The Democrats know this; but despite being repeatedly asked to do so, they are refusing to address this problem. They won't even do so within individual states, like Illinois, where Democrats have full control of the House, Senate, and Governor's mansion. Greens do not have the power to address this problem--only Democrats do--so let's place blame where blame belongs. I strongly disagree with the above mentioned "safe states" strategy, as this gives Democrats no reason to address fixing our broken plurality election system. It's a standoff that Democrats have created on purpose, with the hope that they can simply wait out the Green Party.

   Let's not let the Democrats get away with this type of undemocratic behavior.

   Posted by TruthMonger at 07/13/2008 @ 11:11am

3. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/13/2008 @ 10:14am

   "But if it should happen next November that you live in a state where Obama and McCain are running close to neck-and-neck, please vote for Obama."

   This idiotic "vote for Nader as long as it won't hurt Obama, and vote for Obama if it will strategy" is both nausea inspiring and precisely why Nader is both running as an independent and ran as an independent last time. The Green Party embraced this death wish at the highest levels last time and got what it deserved: Vote totals a mere fraction of Nader's. Who can or wants to imagine the survival of a political party that has no more confidence in itself than to present itself to the public only as a contingency! Not only is the approach utterly lacking in self-respect but it plays directly into the "argument" offered by the system so as to justify its continuing oppression of third party and independent candidacies. Progressives should vote Nader, period. What remains are two Democratic parties, a wussy one and one calling itself "Green" that is bent on self-immolation.

   Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 11:23am

4. Remember 2000!

   A vote for Nader or Cynthia is REALLY a vote for John McCain.

   Think about it.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2008 @ 2:49pm

5. Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2008 @ 2:49pm

   "Remember 2000!

   A vote for Nader or Cynthia is REALLY a vote for John McCain.

   Think about it."

   Yes, in 2000 there was progressive running for president. Lets remember that.

   And as it was then, when a vote for Gore was a vote for Bush, so today a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. Not much beyond that to think about, son.

   Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 3:23pm

6. I hate to break the news to you but the reason the green party gets maybe 1% of the vote is because they only appeal to the extreme hard left. So yes, "A vote for Nader or Cynthia is REALLY a vote for John McCain."

   Posted by pyeatte at 07/13/2008 @ 6:13pm

7. Holding Dickie Bush responsible for their actions: arrest Karl Rove for contempt of Congress. It's a good and right start. A green vote is a vote to restore civil liberties.

   Posted by AT at 07/13/2008 @ 6:14pm

8. In response to Posted by JakobFabian at 07/13/2008 @ 10:14am Nader Is an Independent he epitomizes I...he is a good spokesman and deserves to be heard. Cynthia McKinney as Pres. nominee with Rosa Clemente as Vice Pres. are on the Green Party ticket. Meaning they've a Political organization with platforms, infrastructure and Vision. I see CM as Part of a Movement, not an individual candidate that is drumming up followers. Naderites for the most part are hero worshiping Nader and often are very opposite in what Nader himself says and promotes. Stop groveling for crumbs! We're beyond that and are moving forward With a movement that will draw hopefully a critical mass at Least large enough to be heard and give Americans with a clue a real reason to hope again. Not for the Power in an individual *which i don't deny Ralph as having, but the Power in each one of us to be a part of something larger than ourselves that can actually turn this country around on People Power. You can't spoil that which already Is spoiled. Let's make it better.

   Posted by Myths at 07/13/2008 @ 7:08pm

9. Posted by pyeatte at 07/13/2008 @ 6:13pm

   "I hate to break the news to you but the reason the green party gets maybe 1% of the vote is because they only appeal to the extreme hard left. So yes, 'A vote for Nader or Cynthia is REALLY a vote for John McCain.'"

   And I hate to break the news to you, chief, but one of the main reasons third parties find it so hard to draw more than single digit support from voters is because the corrupt system you support so eagerly oppresses them by keeping them out of debates, denying them ballot access and the like. And then they send marionettes like you out to spread the word that there's some imagined equivalence between voting for Nader, lets say, and McCain.

   We've just had an announcement that the Federal Reserve intends to do what it can to prop up Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac, but no one else. This news easily could trigger a Wall Street pull back of very significant proportions. The government has no futher capability of covering the financial system and credit of all kinds just might dry up. There are rumours that 150 banks may fail in the next year. All of this, never ending war in the Middle East and a refusal to collapse our absurd military commitments in Korea, Ubajubastan and elsewhere, and you're calling for the election of a schmegeggie like Obama whose party, together with the Republican, joined to put us in this fix in the first place? Please with the Nader is McCain bull hockey.

   Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 8:55pm

10. Funny how we're blogging about something as ridiculous as Cynthia McKinney when this will be tomorrows headline:

    "White House, Fed will rescue Fannie, Freddie"...

    My gosh, we are so screwed. And most of us have no idea. If I could find one instance of Cynthia McKinney speaking out against the Federal Reserve system, I'd vote for her.

    But I can't. She isn't about change. She is a slogan-based, fad following, typical politician. SHe's fine with the system. She just wants a turn in the driver's seat.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 07/13/2008 @ 9:16pm

11. Posted by freiheit1 at 07/13/2008 @ 9:16pm

    Amen! McKinney is a cypher, not so Nader or Baldwin.

    The whole thing is about to come apart and because no one in Washington - at least since the 1960s - has ever thought about anyone but themselves. We are owned as to our foreign policy through the extortionate intimidations of the AIPAC goons and as to our economics by the money men of the favored, you-name-it lobbies of the Democrats and Republicans. And nothing short of mass public action a la Ukraine 2007 is likely to change it. The time has come for change alright, but not the kind of change Obama represents. He hasn't even a clue.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 9:54pm

12. 2Happy, this has nothing to do with subsidizing the coasts. Wake up please.

    How does the White House and the Fed bail out? They print money out of thin air and "loan" it to Fannie and Freddie. Real interest continues to be paid on this fiat money. It is inflationary. It is immoral. It serves to only protect Wall Street. I repeat, it only serves to protect Wall Street. This has nothing to do with protecting the people. We will languish under debt and inflation forever.

    It is so blatant and so simple. The designers of the Fed were brilliant. They took over the US nearly a century ago. Didn't overtly fire a shot. In fact, we as Americans are not even aware of it.

    From today's news: "Debt sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is held by financial institutions around the world,'' Paulson said today. ``Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets.''

    Paulson sought to ease concerns that taxpayers would foot the bill for a bailout. ``Use of either the line of credit or the equity investment would carry terms and conditions necessary to protect the taxpayer,'' he said."

    That is a lie. The taxpayers are being fleeced again.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 07/13/2008 @ 10:51pm

13. By the way, I bet Cynthia is fine with this set up.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 07/13/2008 @ 10:55pm

14. The great thing about the Green Party is that it's a truly modern party, formed over the last 25 years. Although the Greens organized earlier (during the late 1970s) in places like New Zealand and West Germany, the German Greens intentionally adopted the sunflower, a native North American plant, as their symbol, because they regarded the international Green movement to be an extension of our own Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

    The Green Party of the USA has its own detailed program and its own intact, brilliant, well thought-through principles, beautifully maintained and completely untarnished, because, well, sadly, they've so seldom been used outside of the Greens' own raucously grassroots-democratic conventions.

    But there's really no reason for anybody to wonder about what Cynthia McKinney stands for. She's a Green, and Greens are very, very picky about whom they choose as a candidate for anything. That's why they had their falling-out with Nader, who, I repeat, is a decent man, but evidently not a party man.

    Cynthia McKinney is no more a "cipher" than the Green Party. And to suggest that the Greens have somehow "sold out" is ludicrous. You can't sell out until you have some power and influence to sell. The Greens, sadly, haven't got much of either in this country, though they DO in many other countries whose electoral systems are more proportional (i.e. fairer and more democratic) than ours.

    Check the Greens out on the web, and then decide for yourself!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/13/2008 @ 10:57pm

15. Will President McKinney be prosecuting Mossad honchos, the vegetable Sharon, and the near-vegetables of BushCo for the "false-flag" terrorist attacks of 9-11?

    Posted by feinfein at 07/13/2008 @ 11:21pm

16. No faith no problem? Obama's supporters would call this scare tactic. But it (Obama's no faith) is really scaring.

    ---------

    Finding His Faith: So much has been made about Barack Obama's religion. But what does he believe, and how did he arrive at those beliefs? Lisa Miller and Richard Wolffe NEWSWEEK Jul 12, 2008 In 1981 Barack Obama was 20 years old, a Columbia University student in search of the meaning of life. He was torn a million different ways: between youth and maturity, black and white, coasts and continents, wonder and tragedy. He enrolled at Columbia in part to get far away from his past; he'd gone to high school in Hawaii and had just spent two years "enjoying myself," as he puts it, at Occidental College in Los Angeles. In New York City, "I lived an ascetic existence," Obama told NEWSWEEK in an interview on his campaign plane last week. "I did a lot of spiritual exploration. I withdrew from the world in a fairly deliberate way." He fasted. Often, he'd go days without speaking to another person.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 07/13/2008 @ 11:25pm

17. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/13/2008 @ 10:57pm

    To suggest that someone vote for a party only if that party is likely to lose in any given state - a policy the Green Party embraced in 2004 - is the very definition of sell out and that, very strangely, of itself. What does that say about a party's own belief in it's raison d'entre? If they can't believe in themselves, why should anyone else? Nader ended his relationship with the Green Party just because of this idiotic death wish and rightly so.

    As to McKinney when Nader is available instead, what's to argue. The only thing notable about Cynthia McKinney is that she got into a fracus with a Washington cop out of some kind of personal pique. Otherwise she was a system player. What's to recommend that. Progressives should vote for Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 11:31pm

18. Posted by HelenDAO at 07/13/2008 @ 11:25pm

    "Often, he'd go days without speaking to another person."

    Hi Helen,

    Think there might be some way we could convince him to return to this earlier isolation? After the AIPAC speech and the FISA flip-flop, I'd think I've heard all I want to hear about Barak Obama.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 11:41pm

19. Remember 2000! A vote for Nader or Cynthia is REALLY a vote for John McCain. Think about it. Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2008 @ 2:49pm

    didn't you mean to write " A vote for Buchanon is really a vote for Gore."?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2008 @ 07:18am

20. FREIHEIT, at one point the Green Party platform called for the complete restructuring of our banking and fed reserve system. Not sure if it is still in there, it seemed to me to be pretty "extreme" in it's goal.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2008 @ 07:29am

21. Every election cycle this happens: the so called progressives get together and talk to each other! What a progressive movement! When will we stop the charade and face the fact that talking among ourselves – to borrow from Mike Mayer – may make us feel good, but only diverts us from doing the real work, the really hard work: of trying to talk to folks in the hinterland and convincing them that ideas and efforts of the progressives are worth their consideration. The conservatism and the two-party ism do not thrive in a vacuum, they do so because overwhelming majority of the people in the country, who do not live in the bi-coastal metropolises, yield to the ideologies of those ‘movements', and not to the ideas of the green party or other progressive causes: behold the fate of Denis Kucinich! Unless progressives are able to make some headway in that realm, they will not go anywhere. And the way to do this is NOT to waste time and little resources the progressives have on national campaign. The focus should, for a very long time, on local politics: trying to get elected in all and every local office, dog-catchers to state representatives. That is what provides the opportunity to interact with people at the local level, and see if the progressive ideas would fly; it will at least teach us why progressivism does not work, if indeed the local level efforts fail. Running for national offices at this time is either a result of naïveté or wishful thinking. I can not discern any gains from such past efforts.

    Posted by M. siddique at 07/14/2008 @ 09:39am

22. 'Rep. Cynthia McKinney apologized on the House floor Thursday for a confrontation with a Capitol Police officer last week....

    Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said McKinney didn't stop at an officer's request, then turned around and hit him after he grabbed her when she passed a security checkpoint.

    "Any time an officer does not know who the person is coming in the building, I direct them to stop that person. And even if you're stopped, you're not supposed to hit a police officer. It's very simple," he said. "Even the high and the haughty should be able to stop and say, 'I'm a congressman,' and then everybody moves on." ... Citing potential criminal charges against McKinney, another of her attorneys, Mike Raffauf, said Wednesday his client would not discuss specifics of the case.

    McKinney has acknowledged that when she was stopped she was not wearing the lapel pin given to lawmakers. The lawmaker said the identification pin is irrelevant. …

    McKinney and her attorneys insist that Capitol Police officers should be trained to recognize all 535 members of Congress on sight. .. Gainer argued that McKinney has turned an officer's failure to recognize her into a criminal matter.

    Gainer said ... that he has seen officers stop and question white, black and Latino members of Congress. He added that officers are given photos of new members of Congress, but with 30,000 employees in the Capitol complex and more than 9 million visitors a year, officers have "to make sure we know who is coming in the building."...' -- http://www.cnn.com/ 2006/POLITICS/04/06/ mckinney/index.html

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/14/2008 @ 09:58am

23. Progressives should vote for Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/13/2008 @ 11:31pm

    So, you're voting for Nader, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:55pm

24. I do not know if minority parties will do well in this election, but their chances are better in 2012. We are looking at a major economic collapse, and unless some FDR style economic controls are applied, both of the major parties are toast.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/14/2008 @ 4:20pm

25. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/14/2008 @ 12:20am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Conveniently overlooking that FannieMae did just fine for decades until you private sector-types moved in with excessive sub-prime loans and CDOs to hide the risk; an ability enhanced by the repeal of Glass-Steagall (read "deregulation"; thanks Mr. Clinton!).

    Posted by brunowe at 07/15/2008 @ 3:35pm

26. If only we could find one decent, honest, hard-working person who loves freedom and liberty; someone who knows the value of working for what you have; someone who would not take a bribe to look the other way; someone who values not just America, but the IDEA of America, as our forefathers envisioned it; someone who remembers what it is like to be proud of something America did, because it was the right thing to do, not because it was profitable; someone who would not promise anything that they could not deliver on; someone who can lead based on the truth, without making up falsehoods in order to achieve some personal agenda. I would vote for that person in a heartbeat. Sadly, that person is not anywhere in this election, and I don't think has ever even run for office. The right wingers don't care about anyone but themselves. The left wingers rush in to bail out the right wingers, because they bought their stuff from them and still owe on it. Shmucks like me have to pay for it all. And you will, too. America is dying! Do you care?

    Posted by ps2dad at 07/15/2008 @ 4:46pm

27. A vote for Nader in 2000 was not a vote for Bush. A vote for McKinney in 2008 is not a vote for McCain. A vote for a third party or independent party candidate sends a message to the major parties that you are dissatisfied with the two party system and want serious change. When Nader so-called spoiled Gore's bid for the White House it showed that many mainstream voters thought that the SYSTEM WAS SO SPOILED that they could no longer automatically vote for one of the establishment candidates.

    Voters should have the courage to send a message to the political establishment of what their deep seated beliefs and views truly are. Democrats should not bemoan Nader's "spoiling" of the 2000 election, but instead explore the discontentment of the Nader voters to understand how they can bring disaffected voters back in the fold.

    After all the radical ideas the greens had about the environment, climate change, and (in 2004) of anti-Iraq War sentiment have now been integrated into the mainstream of American politics - even being embraced by a surprising number of Republicans. A mere coincidence? I think not.

    How can you spoil a system which is already spoiled?

    I submit that Nader's two recent runs have jarred the American political conscience to refresh the tenor of political debate in this country - making our system a little less spoiled.

    Maybe if Gore showed more of the political courage and clarity he is now showing - and had fired Carvel and his clown show - then maybe he would have "spoiled" Nader's chances at making an impressive third-party run and had gone on to grab the White House.

    The Democrats also backed down from their constitutional right and duty to challenge the Florida and Texas (two Texas "inhabitants" were on the same ticket - in violation of the constitution) a needed fight worth risking the stability of the Republic in exchange for her long-term integrity.

    Indeed the founding document of the nation states, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    The two party system in this country is spoiled and each year our duty as citizens should be to make the establishment candidates EARN OUR VOTES, not to to automatically grant them our consent. I say to lovers of the history behind the founding of our nation, read the Declaration of Independence each day during this election season, and the preamble to the Constitution, then ponder what it means to vote like a true American - one loyal to the spirit of the founders.

    Examination of the Constitution will find no reference to the two-party system or the establishment of any political parties for that matter. Read the Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration twice on election day, then vote your conscience - if that is for a Democrat or Republican then go for it. But if you truly want to make Nader, McKinney, Barr, or another candidate your choice then do so in the spirit and guidance of our nation's founding document. DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE ON ELECTION DAY!

    After all if voters, in 1860, were afraid to vote for the spoiler candidate, Abraham Lincoln would not have become the first Republican president.

    Posted by YpsiDonald at 07/19/2008 @ 08:23am