July 31, 2000

11:29 PM

Let Nader into the debates! Sign the petition, email the Commission on Presidential Debates, write letters to the editor about why Ralph belongs in the debates, and more!

No matter who you're supporting this election, I can't see why you wouldn't want Nader in the debates. If you're supporting Bush (um, why?), Nader would make Bush look like an even more solid conservative. If you're supporting Gore, Nader would nudge Gore on the important issues. And if you're supporting Nader, well...!
posted by veruca (21 comments total)

I don't want Nader in the debate because I think Nader is a nutcase and I don't have the faintest interest in what he has to say.

But then, I have no intention of watching any of the debates anyway.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:35 PM on July 31, 2000

But won't it at least be more fun with a "nutcase" in the debates? I loved those debates with Perot...they were the most entertaining I'd ever seen...
posted by veruca at 11:43 PM on July 31, 2000

Thanks for the links, veruca. It could only make things more interesting. Not enough to watch, but just the idea of the front-runners squirming is pleasing.

"The Hash-Pipers"??
posted by aflakete at 2:37 AM on August 1, 2000

heh...remember the Sandpipers' recording of Guantanamera? currently heard in a Dasani commercial, I think... ;)
posted by veruca at 4:41 AM on August 1, 2000

How about not just Nader but Buchannan (talk about a real nutcase! A very smart nutcase though) and Harry Brown? Of course I'd have no problem with Nader in the debates to take more leftist votes away from Gore.

The Dems and the Republicans might seem the same to you for your core issues, but to me they're miles apart...
posted by gyc at 8:29 AM on August 1, 2000

The Nation has been covering the Nader candidacy full throttle in recent weeks, and I like what he stands for a lot better than Tweedledee and Tweedledumb. Now I just have to decide if it's better to vote for the right person who has no chance or the lesser of two evils.
posted by rcade at 8:39 AM on August 1, 2000

They should be required to debate while dressed up in those old costumes from the Fruit of the Loom Commercials. I think the presidential debates should be broadcast on the Survivor television show. See if Gorey and Bushy could fight over economics or education after being starved to death for two weeks and then tempted by a snickers bar. Nader'd get voted out after the first week.

You guys been watching the Republican Philly Con? Scary, isn't it? It's like "Stepford Wives 2000" or something. Really eerie. I think Bushy's trying to hypnotize the world with complacency and boredom.

everything's blue and green and tranquil. Bush is a blue and green tranquil president with a purpose of some kind and I will be tranquil and blue and green and with a purpose if only i vote for George Bush because he is the thousand points of light and makes me happy. Ommmmmmmmmm...
posted by ZachsMind at 8:41 AM on August 1, 2000

I think Nader's a nutcase, but somehow he seems less dangerous than Gore or Bush...
posted by daveadams at 8:49 AM on August 1, 2000

Lethal injection somehow seems less dangerous. Radiation therapy. Having one's eyes gouged out.. Even Pat Buchanan somehow seems less dangerous than Gorey or Bushy. That's not a good measuring tool.

I honestly think every American should go to the polls and vote for anyone BUT any of the candidates who want to win. Vote for your favorite school teacher of your childhood. Write in the name for that elephant guy from the Banana Splits. Vote for Pokemon. Just don't vote for anyone who wants the job. Colin Powell's wife has strongly discouraged him from running. For good reason. He'd be target practice. I think we should vote for him. We should try to draft him in. He won't win anyway, and if he did he'd say no, but it's the principle fo the thing. Vote for principle. Vote your conscience.

And vote for the fun of it. Get all your friends together and storm the voting booth and stand in line as a group. Ask for the day off work. Bring alcohol. Throw toilet paper rolls from the line. Be rowdy. What are they gonna do? Throw you out? It's your constitutional duty to vote! They can't throw you out!

I mean hell, let's face it. Bushy's gonna win, okay?

That was decided behind closed doors months ago. Gorey probably already knows it. Am I being a conspiracy theorist again? Please. Wake up. This whole thing is a sham and a facade and we all know it. Let's prove it. If we can get over 50% of the country's population to actually go out and literally vote their conscience and their heart. AND HAVE FUN WHILE THEY'RE DOING IT. And there's no talk about that come the six oclock news, then we'll know. If people vote for who they want to vote for REALLY, and not the lesser of two evils, then on the news reports that night there's NO discussion of a dramatic increase in voting but it's all like "Mickey Mouse" votes, and they're still talking about just Bush Gore and maybe Nader, then we'll know. This was a set up from the get go.

Think the guy who's class treasurer at the local PTA actually has some business sense, and is the one person you know who would make the best president? Vote for him. Know this homeless guy who you talk to briefly now and then cuz he's like, always there? Next time ask for his name. Vote for him. Write in the name of the child you haven't concieved yet. You're gonna be all alone in that voting booth. You can literally vote for ANYONE you want. Don't vote just so you could say you voted for the guy who won. Don't settle for the lesser of two evils. They all suck. Don't vote for any of them. Vote for who you personally really think would be the best man for the job.

Bush is gonna win anyway. Don't piss your vote away trying to play their game by their rules.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:12 AM on August 1, 2000

>>almostcool: Allright here's a little niblet...

According to the American Federation of Teachers, Texas ranked 39th in school year 95-96 for average teacher salary. That improved to 38th in 96-97 and to 36th in 97-98, the last year figures are available for all states.

I would suggest not accepting as gospel, or at least researching statistics bandied about by candidates.
posted by netbros at 10:51 AM on August 1, 2000

As much as I really like Nader, I can't stand Bush even more. I'd vote for Nader, but think that the lesser of the two evils is where I'll cast my vote, again.
posted by thinkdink at 11:10 AM on August 1, 2000

I guess I'll just have to "piss away" my vote by voting for Bush even though I think he's the best candidate anyway.
posted by gyc at 11:27 AM on August 1, 2000

"The state of Texas ... is ranked 50th ... 49th ... 48th ... 47th ... 41st ... 42nd [ in good things ] ... it is fifth ... first ... first ... first ... first [ in bad things ]"

First of all, these kinds of statistics are so easily manipulated that it's ridiculous to even quote them. However, they will often get close on some broad ideas." A lot of the numbers deal with Texas having a problem with poverty/lack of insurance/low pay. But you know what? The fact is that southern states, including Texas, have a lot of poor rural areas with large, poor populations. Is that the fault of the governors of those states? Is there anything the governments of those states can do to make them as rich as Connecticut or California? Of course you realize the "cost of living" is a lot lower and even though someone might have an income below the poverty line in rural Arkansas, they probably have a better lifestyle than someone with twice the income living in New York City.

Southern states are poor, and there's nothing the state governments can do about it, so pulling rankings like that out is just silly. Sorry about the rant, but I'm from one of these poor states and it really wasn't so bad, and these kinds of statistics just rile me up.

Not that I'm a fan of Bush, but it's not because of Texas's rankings in some arbitrary, easily-manipulated statistics published by political think-tanks which are funded by people with a particular reason to discredit one person.

Once again, I apologize for my tone, but I wanted to say this and I'm 'too lazy to go back and edit myself.
posted by daveadams at 11:34 AM on August 1, 2000

Buchanan will not be on the ballot anyway, so he shouldn't be in the debates. (see this Washington Post article for my source). Basically, his own party is accusing him of faking petitions, the pre-election equivalent of stuffing ballot boxes.

Personally, I would never vote for Nader, but he's got enough support this time that he deserves to be in the debates. If Harry Browne isn't in the debates, I'd like to sign that petition too. I would like nothing more than to see all four of those guys up there.
posted by astrogirl at 12:58 PM on August 1, 2000

Southern states are poor, and there's nothing the state governments can do about it, so pulling rankings like that out is just silly.

Texas is poor? The state was so rich as a result of the oil boom that it has one of the best highway systems in the planet and still had enough left over for two rich land grant universities, UT and A&M. Those statistics might be excused in Deep South states, but there's no excuse for Texas other than 20 years of piss-poor government, a legacy that Bush has more than continued.
posted by rcade at 1:06 PM on August 1, 2000

Are there any statistics on how Texas compared before Bush became governor. It's simply not fair to view those stats without knowing whether they were an improvement from previous years or if they were not an improvement.
posted by gyc at 2:33 PM on August 1, 2000

I'd love to see Harry Browne and John Hagelin in the debates, too. The more ideas, the merrier!

If you feel the same, contact the Commission on Presidential Debates directly and ask them to let the rest of the kids come out and play.
posted by veruca at 5:11 PM on August 1, 2000

Hmmm. Some real food for thought here in the above postings. Statistics, lies and damn lies.

In many of the great films about politics in America, the hero's party--and the opponent's--isn't even named. Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," rent it, and see a young Jimmy Stewart stand up for what's right. See what he's up against.

The business interests of America, the corporations, are largely silent on the lack of any increase in hourly worker income since 1973, adjusted for inflation. We are all affected and no one but "nutcase" Nader will actually talk about it. The other two will be squirming. Put Ralph in the debates. Period.

Cube slaves working for a promise? Staying awake during the American dream??? Just what do Dubya and Al have to say to Nader's position on corporate dominance in our lives today?

That dominance could explain why a lot of good people could be led by fewer than 10 media conglomerates into thinking a "two party system" is good for us. No, it's good for them. The "lesser of two evils" vote is also good for them. They only buy off two parties. And (a lesser) evil still wins.

Read the Michael Moore piece. At least look at Ralph Nader's positions today. Then, vote your conscience. Amaze the experts who don't know anything until after it's happened anyway. -- onward through the fog, G.
posted by goodhelp at 3:23 PM on August 2, 2000

I hear yah. Calling Nader a nutcase says more about you then it does about Nader. Fair weather voters.

It truely is sad to see people actually thinking Bush or Gore will do a single positive thing in Office other then that they won't actually do much of anything.

At least Nader has shown that he has fought for the right side in the past and has made positive changes. Something that the others only dream about.
posted by john at 5:27 PM on August 2, 2000