By
Andrew Doughman
May 5, 2008
Little-known third-party candidate Matt Gonzalez, vice presidential candidate for Ralph Nader’s 2008 bid for president, made an appearance on campus Friday. He spoke critically of Barack Obama and explaining why Nader’s campaign shouldn’t be viewed as an election spoiler.
Photo by Cliff Despeaux.
Matt Gonzalez speaks in Kane Hall Friday afternoon. Gonzalez, the vice presidential candidate in Ralph Nader’s campaign, voiced his opinion on Barack Obama’s political mistakes.
The 42-year-old Gonzalez delivered his speech in Kane Hall 120 to an audience of about 20 people. He’s used to the small crowds.
“I’ve walked into rooms with less people than this,” he said. “And the first time I spoke to about four or five people expecting a larger crowd I learned a lesson, which was that, years later, I always ran into people from the smallest crowds I talked to.”
Gonzalez opened his speech with a claim challenging potential voters to look at options beyond the Democratic and Republican parties.
“I believe you’re throwing your vote away when you vote for Obama, when you vote for Clinton, when you vote for McCain, and I’m going to make that argument today and will welcome your criticism,” Gonzalez said
Gonzalez primarily focused on the Obama campaign because he believes Obama will secure the Democratic nomination at the party convention in August. He sought to persuade the audience that Obama is not as progressive as his campaign rhetoric claims.
Gonzalez called Obama’s voting record into question and condemned the senator for voting for the Patriot Act, as well as “flip-flopping on NAFTA.”
“He had his facts and figures about Obama’s votes and was able to illustrate some votes that Obama had made that perhaps some Obama supporters may feel is inconsistent with his current rhetoric,” said Matt Barreto, a UW professor of political sciences.
Gonzalez’s speech also commented on the place of third parties in the American electoral process, arguing for reform in support of a system allowing third parties to have more of a stake in elections.
One of his ideas was an instant run-off election or a ranked-choice election, a voting system in which voters rank up to three candidates for one office. If a majority is not reached in the general election, the lowest ranked candidates are eliminated and the second or third voter choices are considered until a majority is reached among the remaining candidates.
“We would be welcomed with open arms if we didn’t have an election system that allowed for the spoiling of a contest,” Gonzalez said. “If we had an election system that allowed for a majority winner … of course people would be glad Nader is in the contest.”
Gonzalez was previously associated with the Green Party, and nearly became the first Green Party mayor of a major U.S. city when he ran for mayor of San Francisco in 2003. He lost to Democratic candidate Gavin Newsom in a run-off election 47 to 53 percent.
His speech at the UW concluded with a question and answer session involving several students, a group who Gonzalez challenged to think critically about political issues.
“You guys are educated, you’re going to school, you have a lot of advantages; it’s your responsibility to ask the hard questions.”
4 Comments
#1 Susan Winchester
on May 5, 2008 at 10:29 p.m.(Berkeley, CA | Unverified Name)
FYI Green Party candidate Mike Feinstein was the mayor of a major city called Santa Monica, CA, back in 2000.
#2 Zeleni
on May 6, 2008 at 9:02 a.m.(Urbana, IL | Unverified Name)
There's also Gayle McLaughlin, who's the sitting Green Party mayor of Richmond, CA.
I will be supporting former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, the presumptive Green nominee, but support the right for Nader/Gonzalez to appear on the ballot.
#3 Steve Conn
on May 6, 2008 at 11:02 a.m.(Langley, WA | Unverified Name)
Without Nader and Gonzalez, issues and positions which neither major party candidate will touch, will remain off of the table. Impeachment of the current President is one of them and a vote for Nader and Gonzalez will be a vote for that issue just as a 2004 Nader vote (where allowed) was a vote against a war which Kerry and Bush supported.
It remains to be seen if either will be allowed to appear on the ballot.
#4 greg
on May 6, 2008 at 5:54 p.m.(Oklahoma City, OK | Unverified Name)
our country hasn't always been democrats and republicans, we've had a rich history of 3rd parties (weren't the republicans a 3rd party fighting for the abolishment of slavery?). stand up for your rights, declare your independence!! vote nader/gonzalez for president '08!!
Post a comment