08/26/2002 Archived Entry: "McKinney and the Greens?"
I was wondering how long it would take for Cynthia McKinney to bolt from the Democratic Party to the Greens. It wouldn't be the first time the GA Rep has considered it, in 1995:
GEORGIA BLACK DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS DISCUSS A NEW PARTY
U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) and two Georgia state legislators, held a public meeting in Atlanta on September 8 and discussed the idea of forming a new party, in Georgia, to better represent black voters. McKinney's congressional district was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. She has been working with the Georgia legislature on a plan to redraw the lines, but was frustrated, as the legislature was unable to agree.
State representative Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) said black lawmakers and voters would actually increase their political voice by being independent. He said, "Without us, there would be no Democratic Party, and yet here we are struggling to hold on to the little bit of political power we've gained over the years." Senator Ed Harbison (D-Columbus) said "Blacks feel victimized. I'm not ready to promote the death of the Democratic Party, but I think a lot of us are going to evaluate it closely." McKinney will soon introduce a bill to let states use proportional representation for U.S. House elections.
But rather than form a 3rd Party, the McKinney revolt would more likely wind up in the Green Party. Nader is all for sore losers breaking from their Party for a General Election run. McKinney isn't talking about the GA 4th CD (the "sore loser" law forbids her running in the General), she's talking of taking on Max Cleland and running for the US Senate, and there is not a current candidate of the Greens for the US Senate in Georgia. Nannette Garrett is the Green candidate for Governor in Georgia. The filing deadline for our ballot access passed about two weeks ago, and it's unclear to me whether the Greens can still put up a nominee for the US Senate.
UPDATE: I talked with someone named Hugh of the Green Party in Georgia who has an "open door" policy with McKinney-- in fact, she's the last Democrat he worked for a while back. He's spoken with many Greens across the state, and she's not made any contacts to run with the Greens this year against Cleland. The filing date has passed for named ballot access, and she could only run as a write-in candidate. His speculation was that McKinney is talking about taking on Miller in 2004...
Replies: 19 comments
If Democrats have enough of a pad, it does not matter whether Miller stays or goes. He supports the GOP anyway, and wrote a whining article in the NY Times why the Dems are not doing well in the US South. Perhaps he should read the Judis and Texeira book, which would tell him that the white southern rednecks do not own this country anymore as they used to during the GOP southern strategy era.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/26/2002 04:09 PM PST
If Democrats have enough of a pad, it does not matter whether Miller stays or goes. He supports the GOP anyway, and wrote a whining article in the NY Times why the Dems are not doing well in the US South. Perhaps he should read the Judis and Texeira book, which would tell him that the white southern rednecks do not own this country anymore as they used to during the GOP southern strategy era.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/26/2002 04:09 PM PST
McKinney may be liberal on many issues but she injected some nasty anti-semitism into her losing campaign. The worst example of such was the invitation to Louis Farrakhan to campaign for her, not exactly something to endear to McKinney Jews, liberals, gays, environmentalists, etc.
Considering that the Greens are very strong on equality and nondiscrimination I'd be surprised if they'd welcome her into the party other than just to trip up the Democrats. However, I hope the Greens in Georgia field a serious candidate in 2004 when, I believe, Zell Miller, the pseudo-Democrat, comes up for reelection.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/26/2002 08:09 PM PST
I sense a maddening obession with the 'Emerging Democratic Majority' book.
While it is true that the Democrats may have an opportunity to seize votes from an influx of hispanics, there are a number of places where the Republicans stand to potentially gain.
(1) Black voters. I know it seems outlandish, but we've already seen a number of cases of high profile moderate blacks running in Democratic primaries (and either winning or coming close to it) - Kirk and Booker are two notable examples. As African-Americans continue to be open to more moderate Democrats, they become increasingly likely to be supportive of moderate Republicans. (Similarly, as their incomes rise, they become will become slightly more likely to support the GOP.) It's not going to happen over night, but I think it's possible for the GOP to double its share of the Black vote in 10 - 20 years (from a 90/10 split to a 80/20 split).
(2) Jewish voters. The Republican party can thank Dubya for putting the GOP's favoritism towards Israel in the spotlight. (It also doesn't hurt that there's a huge The GOP is already getting much more money from Jewish sources in the past, and Bush owes it all to 9/11. Whether this shift is something permanent or just a blip on the radar screen has yet to be seen, however, there's room for the GOP to capitalize.
(3) Gay voters. I'm not sure I understand it myself, but each election shows a larger percentage of the gay vote going to the Republican candidate (Bush and Dole both got about 25%.) Dubya did outreach to gay voters (it was a bit hollow, but it's hard to dispute that he's been the most gay-friendly Republican president ever). More and more, the hard core right fringe finds itself more marginalized as more gay-friendly Republicans (Racciot, Guiliani, Pataki, Whitman, Weld, Bloomberg, etc.) carry the day. In fact, Diane Allen (who I am convinced will either be a Senator, Governor, or Congresswoman from New Jersey this decade) is fully in support of gay marriage, and that may be a first. The best way for the Dems to crush this slow, steady uptick of support? Howard Dean.
(4) Union voters. Unions have been traditionally Democratic, but the GOP relations with Unions are friendlier than ever. Bush's move earlier last year to protect the steel industry and his support for drilling in the ANWR (unions support it because it would create a number of new union jobs) are at the stem of the change. I hate to see the GOP sell itself out on the fiscal side of things, but Bush will definately have an easier go at Michigan and Pennsylvania this time around now that there is a slight 'pro-union' perception of Bush.
All those blocs won't be making huge moves towards the Republican party, I'll give you that, but any slight move will benefit them in a big way.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/26/2002 10:54 PM PST
It's basically going to be a non-issue, because Miller isn't running in '04.
Posted by AVADem @ 08/27/2002 05:03 AM PST
If the economy is fine Bush will win a second term, and it would be fine only if he waits till the end of 2003 to invade Iraq. If he does it anytime soon, the economy would be sour just in time for the 2004 elections and the "Emerging Democratic Majority" may well become a reality. 2008 would likely be the watershed elections. If the leaders of the GOP are Chuck Hagel, Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahart and Pat Roberts, GOP would be able to keep up. If the leaders are still from the "lunatic southern white" wing which ascended due to Nixon's southern strategy, yes, I am talking about Nickles, Lott and DeLay, the GOP may become a minority party for a generation. So there are a lot of ifs there.
As for the impact on PA and MI this election, at least the governor's polls indicate that his steel tariffs are not working. Furthermore, tariffs have increased steel prices and may cost auto workers their jobs in Michigan and in this era of airline meltdown may lead to more layoffs in Boeing. Although UAW may sympathize now with steel tariffs the members are not going to take kindly to layoffs.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/27/2002 07:04 AM PST
This cannot be good news for the GOP.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/27/news/economy/confidence/index.htm
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/27/2002 07:12 AM PST
Mr. Moderate, I agree with some of your suggestions about GOP opportunities but have a few comments:
1) Black Voters: Well, it would be hard to LOSE opportunity here. However, I think more danger for the Dems is not losing them to the GOP, but to 3rd parties.
2) Jewish Voters: Totally agreed.
3) Gay Voters: While I would agree that generally upscale gays would seem to have a better fit with the GOP economically, any significant recognition, socially, within the GOP would totally destroy the Affluent/Religious Right coalition which has made the GOP work ever since Reagan, prompting some form of chaotic realignment, which would probably not be good for the GOP.
4) Union Voters: The GOP is making amazing strides with union voters, but if the unions get some actual power, there will be internal tensions between the Unions and Business factions of the GOP. It's possible to demonize environmental and consumer groups enough to make this work, but difficult.
Posted by RParker @ 08/27/2002 11:21 AM PST
G.C Raj
"white southern rednecks do not own this country anymore"
Ahh, and just who does "own" the country. Dems?
AVADEM
He has made some comments about that. A win by Saxby could keep him another term, though.
And if CM thought many GOP voted against her in a primary this time, have her try running against Zell. That would be funny (if GOP had no comp race in primary).
Hey Dems - you can have Lincoln Chaffe is we can have Zell!!!;)
Posted by jimGAGOP @ 08/27/2002 11:32 AM PST
JimGAGOP:
Hopefully no one owns this country other than American citizens of all shapes and sizes. I would like to think that the 1920s and 1930s or for that matter pre 1980s are gone for good.
As far as Zell Miller is concerned, does not matter one way or the other. I preferred Coverdell over Miller any day.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/27/2002 12:57 PM PST
I am gay and I am not the least bit impressed with Howard Dean as a presidential candidate. Sorry but we are not a monolithic voting block like other minorities. Also Zell Cannot wait to get out of the Senate. He isnt running for another term. His wife is sick and he is just keeping the seat warm for King Roy
Posted by GaDem @ 08/27/2002 01:02 PM PST
How can a Dem Majority be thwarted. Simple. Minorities get greedy before the white electorate becomes a minority in say, Texas and start demanding their own representation in the US House. The GOP then uses this as a pretext to create proportional racial representation, creating a white majority GOP representation and a minority Dem representation. See attached.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-08-26-hispanics_x.htm
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/27/2002 01:02 PM PST
G.C.-Are you from Kansas? I found it interesting that three of you four potential good GOP leaders were from the same state (as for Hagel, I think he will be Minority Leader come Jan. 3).
Posted by AVADem @ 08/27/2002 01:54 PM PST
No. I live in the east coast. Kansas may be a butt of all jokes, but they surely produce very intelligent people, and so does Nebraska, unlike the South. Sam Brownback and Chuck Hagel each have a much higher IQ than Don Nickles and Trent Lott combined. If anything, Kansas and Nebraska produce very intelligent Republicans. This is also true of most of Indiana, where I used to live back in the 1980s, except the two Dans..Dan Quayle and Dan Burton of course. I used to teach one of Burton's mistresses in college. She frequently did not complete her homework or paper on time and I used to get call to give her a little break. Only later in the 1990s did I know that Burton was having an affair with this woman.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/27/2002 02:38 PM PST
"Hey Dems - you can have Lincoln Chaffe is we can have Zell!!!;)" - jimGAGOP
I'd take that one. Zell's about to retire and Chaffee is just starting out. :)
Posted by RParker @ 08/27/2002 02:40 PM PST
It would be interesting if Roy ran for Senate. I think he is on the short list for VP. I don't know how far he will let the talk go, but it could hurt him in the gov race. Doubt that he will lose, though.
Men such as Zell, MCain, Lincoln chaffe, arlan spector, john Breux (sp?), Max Bacus - These are all people essential to balance in politics. They are unknowns in that Zell can not be counted on for a party line vote, nor can Mcain or Chaffe for the GOP. I think Jeffords switching did little as far as voitng goes, but did affect the order of what is voted upon. Jeffords lost all his pull with the GOP and all his appeal to the Dems once he swtiched. Just as many men say the best part of courting a woman is the chase.
He did it b/c he thought Strom was gonna die and Hodges would put a Dem in the seat, and SC would get all the goodies, not Jeffords.
Max Cleland may be better for GA than Saxby b/c he is not a given to vote liberal (contray to what saxby will try to show).
Saxby is a solid Bush GOP. Zell and Max can bring more "bacon" home to GA since Dem must cater to them to get them to vote with the Dem consistantly. Saxby would get little for the state since Bush can say "hey what are you going to do, vote with the other team?"
Tom D can't say that to Zell or MAx
Posted by JimGAGOP @ 08/27/2002 03:01 PM PST
A new emerging Democratic majority in Georgia...perhaps as a result of the Hispanic inflow?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=536&ncid=536&e=19&u=/ap/20020827/ap_on_el_ho/georgia_democrats_2
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/28/2002 08:04 AM PST
People who do not like what the administration is doing, should turn out and vote, instead of sitting and complaining all the time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4551-2002Aug27.html
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/28/2002 12:13 PM PST
Hey guys did glad to see the ole gang is back. Soon to be ex-rep. McKinney dont let the door hit you in the ass.
Posted by THE MODERATE @ 08/28/2002 04:15 PM PST
