Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910
from: James Fallows
to: Ralph Nader

What About the Cantwell Story?

Posted Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 8:02 PM ET

Who are these people?

Ralph,

Thanks for this installment. You are more of a Bill Schneider-type political-handicapping pro than you usually let on!

I agree with your assessment of Gore's predicament. I am chagrined that the debates loom so large in analyses of how his campaign fell apart. I wrote a big Atlantic article that summer about how Gore had become the most ruthlessly effective political debater in sight. As he was—until then. Political historians always stress that debates matter in ways that have nothing to do with the logical clash of ideas. That certainly was true this time. Bush was barely coherent in the first debate, but in the three sessions Gore was three different people.

By the way, I'm on your side about opening up the debates. There should have been at least one that included both you and Pat Buchanan.

I think you sell Clinton short as the political talent of our age—but I agree with you that his talent has been used mainly for personal survival.

Good points about Edwards. Indeed, I think you've given a preview of what's in store for him in the next stage of the "mentioning" cycle. Everyone knows he's "attractive" and that he's the one "fresh" possibility for the Dems. Next comes the "but what is he for?" stage.

Now, Ralph, I need to return to an item from our very first round. I said: Those Green votes in Florida cost Gore the state and the election. You said: If you want to play that game, you have to count the Greens who voted for Maria Cantwell in the Washington Senate race. They helped her knock off Slade Gorton, by a tiny margin, which set the stage for James Jeffords, and so on.

In the last few hours I've heard from a number of people on the West Coast saying: Wait a minute!!! The history, as they recount it, goes this way:

In the Democratic primary, Cantwell ran against the state insurance commissioner, Deborah Senn. Cantwell had been elected to the House during the first Clinton victory, lost during the Gingrich backlash two years later, and then made a quick fortune at RealNetworks. She was the big-money candidate. Senn was the "reform" candidate. The Greens didn't have their own candidate but supported Senn.

After Cantwell beat Senn for the nomination and was running against Gorton, you came to Seattle—and attacked Cantwell. Here is what Nina Shapiro wrote in the Seattle Weekly six weeks before the general election:

Nader saved his sharpest local comments for last, weighing in on the Democratic primary results in the race between populist state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn and onetime congresswoman and high-tech millionaire Maria Cantwell. He called the race "exhibit number one" in demonstrating the evils of big money. A longtime fan of Senn, Nader claimed she lost because of Cantwell's dough. He further characterized the victor's former tenure in Congress as "distinctly mediocre."

I know and respect Nina Shapiro and have no reason to doubt her report. Another person I don't know but who claims to have been at that speech sent me an e-mail. According to this account, you'd said that there was "no real difference" between the Democratic and Republican candidates with Senn out of the race. Someone I do know sent me a quote from Joel Connelly, a big-time political columnist in Seattle, who wrote earlier this year:

On one Seattle visit, [Nader] decried Maria Cantwell and vocally endorsed Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn for the U.S. Senate. Cantwell crushed Senn in the Democratic primary. Yet, in his book, Nader claims Green Party voters in November "gave Cantwell the seat."

On a logical level, these accounts can be squared with what you said. Your point was that if the Democrats wanted to play the "what if" game, counting how many of the 90,000 Green votes Gore might have taken in Florida, then they should also consider the possible benefits the Green provides in the Washington Senate race—even if you hadn't meant to help them there.

But I understood—maybe misunderstood—you to be saying something more. Essentially, that the Greens were "taking credit" for that victory and thought there was a difference between a Democratic and Republican Senate. It is obvious that the Democrats would care about ending Republican control of the Senate; I understood you to be saying that you did, too.

What are you saying about the Cantwell story? What's your answer to these accounts from the Northwest?

I am sorry to end on this note, and I would have asked this earlier if I'd known about it any earlier. And right now I'm remembering how often you told us, back in those inspirational Nader Raider days, not to shrink from unpleasant questions.

Thanks for this exchange,
Jim Fallows

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910
from: James Fallows
to: Ralph Nader

What About the Cantwell Story?

Posted Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 8:02 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
James Fallows is national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and author, most recently, of Free Flight. Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, is author of Crashing the Party.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes From The Fray Editor:

Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.

There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.

Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."


Reader Comments From The Fray:

There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.

I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?

--Dilan Esper

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.

By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.

--Thrasymachus

(To find or answer this post, click here.)


It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.

--Gerard Winstanley

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

(5/1)


Washington Post