Nader '08

[Max Headroom]

Because he looks and sounds like a weasel, his message is easier to take in written form. Here is a transcript of the Nader announcement of 2008 presidential campaign on Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/):

MR. RUSSERT: Will you run for president as an independent in 2008?

MR. NADER: Let me put it in context, to make it a little more palatable to people who have closed minds. Twenty-four percent of the American people are satisfied with the state of the country, according to Gallup. That's about the lowest ranking ever. Sixty-one percent think both major parties are failing. And, according to Frank Luntz's poll, a Republican, 80 percent would consider voting for a independent this year. Now, you take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through, and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about? And the--all, all the candidates--McCain, Obama and Clinton--are against single payer health insurance, full Medicare for all. I'm for it, as well as millions of Americans and 59 percent of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April. People don't like Pentagon waste, a bloated military budget, all the reports in the press and in the GAO reports. A wasteful defense is a weak defense. It takes away taxpayer money that can go to the necessities of the American people. That's off the table to Obama and Clinton and McCain.

The issue of labor law reform, repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests. Cracking down on corporate crime. The media--the mainstream media repeatedly indicating how trillions of dollars have been drained and fleeced and looted from millions of workers and investors who don't have many rights these days, and pensioners. You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president.

Here is the Nader website top 12 issues (http://www.votenader.org/issues/):
Adopt single payer national health insurance
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
No to nuclear power, solar energy first
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
Open up the Presidential debates
Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Work to end corporate personhood

[Max Headroom]

On Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: How would you feel, however, if Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot tilted Florida or Ohio to John McCain and McCain became president, and Barack Obama, the first African-American who had been nominated by the Democratic Party--this is hypothetical--did not become a president and people turned to you and said, "Nader, you've done it again"?

MR. NADER: Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Many leading members of the bar, including the former head of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco, absolutely dismayed over the violations of the Constitution, our federal laws, the criminal, illegal war in Iraq and the occupation? There's no way. That's why we have to take this opportunity to have a much broader debate on the issues that relate to the American people, as, as, as a fellow in Long Island said recently, Mr. Sloane, he said, "These parties aren't speaking to me. They're not speaking to my problems, to my family's problems."

[Rob G]

Wow Buck, This is well presented. Your totally right. That fuck looks like a damn Weasel. Its funny cause i can now identify my mixed feelings about Nader. Initially I was 100% open to Nader because I mean instead of coming from a background of being a politcal shitback. The dude was like king of Consumer advocates. ofcourse our president should come from a backhground like that. But then alot of times when i saw him on TV there was this instinctual mistrust within me. I think your right. its his appearance. I mean theres other issues too. Like everything he wants to do in every area is such a massive changes that it almost seems like fantasy. But why the fuck not. There preatty much like 5 types of president that are all next to each other on the big spectrum and we just keep electing the same tyopes of dudes. Nader would represent something in the vein of Monte Pyton. "Something Completely Different". Obama is gonna have a hard time presenting himself as "The Candidate of Change" with Mister Nader arround. Then again Nader has never been able to propell himself above even the lowest ranks of 3rd party candidates.

[Max Headroom]

Not that the beautiful people are shoo-ins, but someone like Nader has an unlikeable appearance plain and simple. He only makes this worse by rambling like a lawyer instead of short palatable statements. I like third party candidates though, they bring some issue to the table and sometimes force the main parties to at least address things not 100% mainstream. It's a sad fight, like an old, overweight boxer making a 10th round effort to go for the knockout against the 21 year old full of stamina and far ahead on all point cards.

Nader will pose no threat to Obama or anyone else. I worry the 2000 election blame game will ruin his attempt to use that limelight to call attention to other issues.

If the powers in DC had paid the minimum of attention to the American public, there would be no chance for a guy like Nader to even get on the ballots. He does have a track record for accomplishing things in DC that are amazing for anyone not elected to office, but the partnering of corporate interests with media coverage and lobbying means we might never see galvanizing change like that in our lifetimes unless dramatic changes occur. When he says that the politicians should not have any healthcare or retirement benefits unless they can guarantee them for the American people it is treated like some kind of joke. I don't get it, but I like him calling out BS.

In other 3rd party news, according to the pillar of accuracy (joke) wikipedia lists only 3 in the US with more than 100,000 members; Constution, Green, & Libertarian. FYI, in NC you can register as Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian. Seems like the tobacco economy here lent itself to personal rights positions (read: vs. public health limits on smoking) and a strong libertarian base in NC. In other online links I noticed Ross Perot won 18% of the 1992 vote but I don't recall ever hearing he was the reason Bush I lost to Clinton I. Here's a website where some guy shows how many votes (acutal people not Electoral) would be required to have changed president in the past elections: www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html

[Rob G]

I have heard Perot invoked as the reason Bush lost. I dont know if thats true at all. However I do wish our election system was like some others.

A few of the European countries do it like this. They have an initial election where all kinds of dudes run. Then they have a second election where only the top two run. I think thats awesome.

[Max Headroom]

Is that how caucus votes go? I'm note sure. That's totally the superior format. That avoids the entire minority vote swing crap, the plularity vs. majority crap, cuts down on the BS that keeps people from throwing their name in the hat for the early rounds, and avoids having nonsensical choices on the round that actually counts. I want to call it round robin, but it seems like there is a term for it. A better phrase coined by someone much smarter than I am.