Ed Fallon and Al Gore
January 30th, 2008 at 09:13pm Geraldine
Ed Fallon was a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000. He described Al Gore as “to the right of Bill Clinton” and said that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either.”
So what was the platform of the far-right wing, DLC Democrat that Ed Fallon refused to support?
In Gore’s acceptance speech, he stated that “campaign finance reform will be the very first bill that I send to the United States Congress,” that “free trade…must be fair trade” and reaffirmed his commitment to a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In fact, in that very same speech, Gore reiterated the basic theme of his campaign-representing the people versus the powerful, which Gore defined as “big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs”. It is a theme that Ed Fallon even supported in 2008 when he endorsed John Edwards, whose candidacy was based on the idea that “powerful, well-financed interests [were] taking over this democracy, and taking it away from regular Americans.”
So the question is what was so right-wing about Al Gore crusading for campaign finance reform, fair trade and gay rights in 2000 that Ed Fallon couldn’t support him? Instead, Fallon supported a candidate and party that advocated ending the use of all pesticides and most fertilizers and “an end to government price supports” for agriculture, wanted to allow unemployed Americans collect government benefits without any time limit or restrictions and believed African Americans should be able to form their own separate nation on American soil. It’s a platform that veers from policies that are just bad to those that are outright wacky.
When Ed Fallon would rather support the candidacy of someone who runs on a platform that African Americans have a right to secede from the United States and form their own nation on American soil over a candidate who is committed to passing campaign finance reform, something is wrong. Ed Fallon’s support of Ralph Nader and the Green Party over Al Gore is not just a sign of bad judgment but it’s a sign of someone who has the wrong priorities for Iowa, for America and for Liberalism and Progressivism as well.
Related Posts
- Ed Fallon Displays Agricultural Expertise
- Fallon Can’t Take What He Dishes Out
- Is Fallon Loyal To The Party?
- Support Ed Fallon’s Summer Vacation!
- “Sex Ed” Fallon
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, US House, Leonard Boswell
Related Searches: campaign finance reform, ed fallon, ralph nader, american soil, al gore
17 Comments Add your own
1. noneed4thneed | January 30th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The question isn’t what the person supported that Ed Fallon supported in one election 8 years ago. The question is what does Leonard Boswell support everyday in Congress and how those views differ with those of the Democratic Party and of Democrats in his district. Boswell voted for the war in Iraq and continued to support it until recently. He voted for NCLB. He continually votes in favor of Free Trade agreements that hurt workers in his district.
What is important is that on these key issues Fallon will vote the right way.
2. KL Snow | January 31st, 2008 at 8:10 am
Fallon has called his endorsement of Nader in 2000 a mistake time and time again. He’s apologized for it He encouraged Nader not to run in 2004. He held a public flogging. What more do you want from him?
As for refusing to sign a loyalty pledge in 2002, I’m completely behind that. Being a good Democrat is more than just having a D behind your name and Fallon recognizes it.
Furthermore, we’re less than a month into this campaign and Boswell has completely bypassed any opportunity to be positive, so he can smear Fallon. If he doesn’t have a single positive thing to say about himself, why should we have anything positive to say about him?
3. Mark Langgin | February 1st, 2008 at 6:43 am
Kyle,
I’ll ask you one question - what would Ed Fallon do for down-ballot Democrats in the 3rd District?
4. Dan | February 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Mark,
I think Fallon would be good for down-ticket dems. Harkin will be nearly unchallenged. Boswell is completely motivating. Fallon is a candidate that people can get excited to come out to vote for.
5. Mark Langgin | February 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Dan,
Well, I don’t think “turnout” is exactly the question. The Presidential contest will do the most for turnout. For example, will Fallon be able to go into a rural swing district and help raise dough for down ballot candidates.
Also, since Fallon refuses PAC money - will he refuse to cooperate with the coordinated campaign that is at least partially funded by labor and other interest groups? How is he going to fund a turnout operation? How can his campaign be coordinated with down ballot races if he won’t participate in the coordinated campaign?
6. desmoinesdem | February 10th, 2008 at 7:19 am
This post is disingenuous. Obviously Fallon and some of my progressive friends did not back Nader in 2000 because of the African-American secession issue or Gore’s stand on campaign finance reform.
“Geraldine” is probably old enough to remember this time, but in case not, let me remind you that Gore was the Clinton administration’s main point man for getting NAFTA passed. Most famously, he debated Ross Perot on that issue on CNN. Gore was associated with the “Rubinomics” economic policies that many progressives disagreed with. The Clinton administration’s embrace of welfare reform also hurt Gore by association.
Nader first ran for president in 1996 and already got about 1 percent of the vote because so many liberals were mad about the way Clinton was governing.
Let me make clear that I voted for Gore in 2000 and encouraged my friends to do so. I agree that Fallon made a mistake, as he has acknowledged many times.
But to cite that mistake as equivalent to Boswell’s many betrayals of Democratic values is absurd.
7. Geraldine | February 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
DesMoinesDem, Leonard Boswell never worked to defeat the Democratic nominee for the President. Leonard Boswell may be a relatively moderate Democrat in a Republican leaning congressional district but he never betrayed his party or his party’s nominee in order to let George Bush become President.
You may disagree with some of Leonard Boswell’s votes, I disagree with some of Leonard Boswell’s votes too. But Leonard Boswell never did anything to put George Bush in the White House and has worked to elect Democrats for county, state and federal offices in Iowa for decades.
I’m not sure how you define Democratic values but if helping put George Bush in the White House isn’t a betrayal of Democratic values, I’m not sure what is.
8. Iowa Progress » Bos&hellip | February 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
[…] are crowing that it is a sign that Boswell is somehow running scared of Nader-endorsing opponent, Ed Fallon, a look through Boswell’s legislative record shows that it fits with Boswell’s history […]
9. Gavin Aronsen | February 18th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Anyone who’s read my coverage of this contest knows I have past connections to the Fallon campaign, but even with that bias…
When can we say enough is enough about this Nader business? Fallon’s endorsement of Nader in no way helped Gore lose. In fact, Gore won the election; if anyone, blame Bush Co. and the media for giving the election to Bush. Or Nader, if you wish. But did Fallon’s endorsement of Nader in Iowa really have any effect on the candidate’s performance in Florida?
10. Geraldine | February 25th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Gavin, Gore did multiple events in Iowa the week before the election, including a rally in Waterloo the day before the election. As you well know, Iowa is a swing state and Nader very nearly delivered it to George Bush. Without Ed Fallon actively undermining Al Gore, Gore could have spent more time and his campaign could have spent more money in Florida or New Hampshire or New Mexico rather than in Iowa and other states in the Upper Midwest.
Though this of course touches one of the big contradictions behind Fallon. If Ed Fallon actively stumping the state for Nader made no difference in how Al Gore did in Iowa, then doesn’t that make Fallon an ineffectual, fringe candidate supporting non-entity? But if Fallon did make an impact in Al Gore’s performance in Iowa that justifies descriptions of him as a major Iowa progressive. However, it also directly implicates him in helping to make George Bush President and keeping the most important American environmentalist since Rachel Carson out of the White House. You can’t have it both ways.
11. Gavin Aronsen | February 26th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Isn’t it at least a bit disingenuous to suggest that “Nader nearly delivered [the state] to George Bush”? A lot of Nader supporters probably chose him over Gore for much the same reason Fallon did (many, like Fallon claims personally, probably felt bad about it afterwards; others, no doubt, did not).
You have to look at Fallon’s path from “fringe candidate supporting non-entity” to his current position in the Iowa Democratic Party. Nader probably said it well on Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday: “I’m a fighter for justice, Anderson. When there’s perennial injustice, you have got to keep going after it, whether inside the electoral arena, or getting progressive forces inside the Democratic Party to take over and replace the corporate Democrats.”
I blogged in detail about my take on the idea that Nader cost Gore the election here, if you’re interested (and hope you are, it’s interesting to read opposing progressive views on all this):
http://amesprogressive.org/2008/02/26/blogs/gavin/the-nader-haters-come-out-to-play/
12. Adam | March 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Quick Fallon link, check this out and vote for Fallon!
http://www.equalitygiving.org/
13. Iowa Progress » Fal&hellip | April 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
[…] Fallon attacked a mailing by Leonard Boswell today that criticized Fallon for his support of Ralph Nader as “very cynical [and] very deceptive” today. While Iowa Progress has previously […]
14. Iowa Progress » Ed &hellip | April 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
[…] primary voters in the 3rd District shouldn’t support Fallon either. Fallon notoriously betrayed the Democratic Party and stabbed Gore in the back and is now facing the consequences of his […]
15. Iowa Progress » &hellip | May 28th, 2008 at 8:26 am
[…] Ed Fallon has been painted as unelectable for a variety of reasons, including his support for Ralph Nader in 2000, what really makes him vulnerable is his repeated votes to protect sex offenders versus the […]
16. gratis poker nerladdninga&hellip | July 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
gratis poker nerladdningar…
recurrences.Timonizes cylinders:castor …
17. texas home insurance&hellip | July 28th, 2008 at 2:12 am
texas home insurance…
rendered abscess lightest.legislation:standby disprove …
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed