Nader of the Above

July 19, 2000 3:17 PM

Nader of the Above ...Michael Moore's at it again, and I think this crazy scheme just might work. But then I thought Mike's idea of getting all the candidates to bodysurf over a mosh pit was gonna work too...
posted by ZachsMind (24 comments total)

Nader's got my vote even though I'm terrified by the possibility of Bush getting elected (because he's far too stupid to be President) Gore is only slightly smarter and believe me, he's just as corrupt. The public is in a state of complete apathy and I don't blame them. I predict voter turnout to be an all time low. The two party system is a sham and everyone knows it.We can make a difference if we get off of our collective asses and vote. Vote for Admiral Ackbar or some other third party candidate. A fictional space octopus can do a better job than Bush or Gore!
posted by Mr. skullhead at 4:17 PM on July 19, 2000

I honestly haven't decided who gets my vote because of the whole "if you don't vote for Gore, Bush will win" problem. But I'm definitely helping out with the Nader campaign.

Moore's got a great idea. Memes to spread...
posted by frykitty at 4:24 PM on July 19, 2000

If you're helping out with the Nader campaign, wouldnt you be helping persuade people to vote for Nader, in which case, why not just vote for Nader?

I personally don't care if Bush gets elected. How different will he even be than Al Gore? What do they differ on...abortion?
posted by Doug at 5:31 PM on July 19, 2000

Come on, they gots totally diff'rent hairstyles, torsos, voices; Gore's got a hotbib to wear while shifting across center stage, whereas our man in Panama, G W Bush, has a tiger-penis fetish. Obviously Nader's got the Oval Office in his Bag, 'slong as he don't get "the lumps" BETWEEN NOW 'N' FRIDAY ... heh heh heh. Y'all know what I'm talkin' 'bout.
posted by EngineBeak at 5:37 PM on July 19, 2000

frykitty - Vote for whoever you think is the best person for the job, not because someone else might win.Doug - Thanks for proving my point about voter apathy. EngineBeak - WTF are you talking about?!? Is this some lame attempt at humor?
posted by Mr. skullhead at 6:01 PM on July 19, 2000

I did not even know Admiral Ackbar was running!They better let him participate in the debates.stupid media.
posted by thirteen at 6:20 PM on July 19, 2000

No, guys, remember that if we vote for the Admiral (as much as he's a war hero and all) we'll have to put up with his running mate. Now, Ackbar's a squidlike Lucasian alien. His sympathies are with other aquatic Lucasian aliens. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Meesa vote for Nader. With Terrance McKenna dead, Nader's the only choice left.
posted by Ezrael at 7:23 PM on July 19, 2000

Isn't this just like voting for Ficus?
posted by tiaka at 8:40 PM on July 19, 2000

Nah: the Ficus thing was about introducing an element of competition into the unopposed House elections for districts that have been run like hereditary fiefs for decades. (At least the British parliamentary system means that most elections are real contests.)

As for the Presidential election... well, you're all fucked, aren't you?
posted by holgate at 9:15 PM on July 19, 2000

Gore and Bush are cut from the same cloth. They're sons of politicians. Neither of them look like leaders to me. They're figureheads. Someone else is pulling their strings. However, subtle differences make Gore the lesser of two evils.

Gore is not for the death penalty, he believes in the Internet, and he's pro-choice.

Bush is pro death penalty, doesn't have an opinion on the Mac vs PC debate, and is anti-choice.

If I saw the nonvoting citizens in America get up off their asses and push for Nader, I'd vote for him in a second. Career politicians need a big slap in the face, and Nader in the Oval Office would do that. However, without nonvoters in the picture, if people who would have voted for Gore vote for Nader instead, Bush will win.

Believe me. I live in Texas. You do NOT want Bush.

Despite the fact I know ALL Americans should vote, I'm considering not even showing up November myself. What's the point? Thanks to the Electoral College, for the last two terms Texas went completely Republican. My voice is silenced. My vote is irrelevant. I can't help Gore even if I wanted to. Our entire political system is a joke. No wonder most people don't bother to vote.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:31 PM on July 19, 2000

"EngineBeak - WTF are you talking about?!? Is this some lame attempt at humor?"

Hmm, just like the election itself? It was clear enough to Edouard Pickaninny. Something tells me someone needs their somwhats cleaned out with buttah. And that means flesh, a dachsund, and dribble. Come out shooting, square!
posted by EngineBeak at 9:46 PM on July 19, 2000

>Gore is not for the death penalty

*buzz* sorry wrong answer there Zach, Gore is all about the gore of the death penalty. Nader's the only candidate that even questions the death penalty.

It's pretty sad that our only choices are Bush or Gore. Just sad. They're poster boys for voter apathy, watch 2000 be the lowest turnout ever.

I'm going to vote for Gore, only because I don't want Bush stacking the supreme court with anti-abortion judges that will take away more of our rights.
posted by mathowie at 9:48 PM on July 19, 2000

ummmm... Gore *is* for the death penalty. If you're not going to vote for someone just because they have little chance to win, maybe you shouldn't moan and whine about the two-party system because you're only contributing to it. This whole electoral college mess seems totally unnecessary in this day and age. Why can't we just use straight percentages? Maybe a runoff between the first two candidates if the winner doesn't get 50% of the votes, which would encourage people to vote for who they want to vote for. As for me, I can't imagine Nader being president and turning this country into a socialist mess...
posted by gyc at 9:53 PM on July 19, 2000

Hmm, let's think of a country with a flourishing economy, a thriving federal system, high voter participation in national elections, and a centre-left government coalition made up of social democrats and Greens... That'll be Germany, then.
posted by holgate at 5:22 AM on July 20, 2000

Mr. Skullhead,

I'm not apathetic about voting, I'm apathetic about voting for Bush or Gore. My point was that that guy was afraid to let Bush in office. Well, how different would the country be if Bush ran it as opposed to Gore?

Oh, and Gore is not for the Internet in any valuable way. Gore is the one that proposed those "toll bridges" on the net.
posted by Doug at 6:35 AM on July 20, 2000

Are we not proving the point, by the very tone of this discussion, that the two main choices (Al Gore Jr. and George Bush Jr.) are no choice at all?

Frankly, I'm with Mike Moore - If I don't vote for Nader, I'm not voting for anyone. No one's taking my vote away from Gore, because I wouldn't vote for either one of 'em.

Pro choice, indeed.

posted by chicobangs at 7:51 AM on July 20, 2000

The idea behind supporting Nader's campaign is to see how far we can push the candidacy before it comes to crunch time. If he's not viable by then, I have to vote for Gore.

If you truly study the records of Gore and Bush, they are hardly alike. Their similarity is a media myth. A great way to get a feel for Bush is to take a regular trip to read Molly, a remarkable editorialist from Texas.

My heart is with Nader. My mind will wait a few months.
posted by frykitty at 8:48 AM on July 20, 2000

I wouldn't vote for Gore because of Tipper. Sure she has been muzzled for a while, but I fear first lady status would give her some sort of validation for push her censorship agenda again.

Nader is the only real choice. Stealing votes it not an issue. You can either vote for 2 party politics or vote against it.
posted by john at 8:54 AM on July 20, 2000

I love the fact that Gallup or whoever can ring up a few thousand random Americans weeks before the election and accurately determine what the outcome will be to within a percentage point or so. Really demonstrates just exactly how important it is that I, particularly, wander down to that poll booth and pick "tweedledum" over "tweedledee".

But Nader's got my curiousity. Given what he stands for, voting for him sounds like an effective protest, and helping out the Greens along the way sounds cool. Now if only we could do something about the way Congress seats are apportioned, we could get a *real* democracy going here...

-Mars

posted by Mars Saxman at 9:09 AM on July 20, 2000

Note that Moore doesn't buy into the anti-abortion Supreme Court argument either.
posted by harmful at 9:34 AM on July 20, 2000

Any ideas why the Libertarian candidate hasn't gotten much attention from the press? I guess I'd much rather have the Libertarians as a viable third party than the Green party.
posted by gyc at 9:35 AM on July 20, 2000

I think it's because Nader is a recognized media figure (I can't even remember who the Libertarian candidate is) and the Greens have been showing more respectable numbers in the polls. It's the same reason nobody's talking about the Reform Party--Herr Buchanan scotched their numbers.

Of course, part of the reason for those poll numbers is because of media attention. And you know Big Media doesn't want three parties, much less four. I'm entirely down with the argument that any party that has gotten its candidate on enough ballots to theoretically win the election (Democrat, Republican, Reform, Green, and Libertarian) should be invited to the debate. Because, you know, that sounds like a debate where issues would actually get brought up...
posted by snarkout at 10:08 AM on July 20, 2000

I'm wondering if one of the reasons why the Green party is gaining more media attention is the slight liberal bias of the media? (I know that I've heard ~60% of journalists consider themselves liberal.)

The problem with having that many people (I guess it would be 4-5) debating is that it would degenerate into a fiascal like the Republican debates this year with each candidate only getting ~15 minutes total to speak, unless you want to drag out the debate to 2-3 hours. God knows it's boring enough in its current format. In fact, why have presidential debates? Every major presidential candidate has a website which lists their basic stance on issues. Why not just let people research the issues themselves instead of being spoonfed by the (not always impartial) media?


posted by gyc at 11:50 AM on July 20, 2000

Frykitty, you would have to mention Molly Ivins. I love her words. She's a great woman. I enjoy reading her and I often agree with her. She's also just another Democrat shill. Not much different from Barbra Streisand when you get down to it. They just each fight the battle for their team in a different way.

I didn't know Gore was for the death penalty. Anyone got links to verify that? Would like to see it.

Provided I actually vote this year, it'll be for Nader. I'm not Green, but with his public image, Nader's the only remotely possible alternative. The Libertarian theology will never appeal to enough voters. Buchanan's a lame horse. Nader can't win, but he sure as hell will give the R&D a run for their money.

I just hope his percentage points at least hit the double digits. The people who don't want this two party "tweedle" crap anymore have got to be heard. We need choice. We need twenty or thirty serious contenders each election: not two definite choices with less than half a dozen 'wildcards.' We need choice.

posted by ZachsMind at 9:40 PM on July 25, 2000