Ralph Nader weighs in on the debate (you know, the one he wasn't invited to)

Ralph Nader, while driving this afternoon through the bucolic hills of western Pennsylvania en route to a rally in Pittsburgh, said Friday's presidential debate must go on, despite John McCain's proposal to postpone it to allow time to craft a government bailout for finance firms.

"Sen. John McCain is engaged in showboating," said Nader, an independent presidential candidate who is on the ballot in at least 45 states.

"I think whatever is happening in the massive bailout, in the $700 billion blank check that Bush wants from the Congress, is not dependent on Sen. McCain's returning to Washington. But over 50 million American voters are depending on his showing up on Friday at Ole Miss for the debate."

If McCain demurs, Nader said he would love to fill in for him.

"If he doesn’t reconsider, I would be very happy to take his place in the empty chair on the stage," Nader said. "I'm the No. 3 presidential candidate."

The sunny demeanor belies Nader's heartfelt belief that the meetings between presidential nominees, organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, are controlled by a biased cabal of major media companies and the Democratic and Republican parties. Nader, along with Bob Barr, has not been invited to participate.

The commission "is controlled by our two major competitors who don't want us to compete in front of tens of millions of Americans," Nader said. "Only in America. No other Western nation has such farces."

Nader spoke with The Ticket in advance of a five-day swing through California, starting with a 2 p.m. rally Friday in the Embassy Room of the Davidson Building at USC. From there, he will head to UC San Diego and Encinitas on Saturday, UC Santa Barbara and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo on Sunday, Monterey Peninsula College on Monday and San Francisco State on Tuesday.

Nader said he's visiting California because he expects to draw great support here, and the state is ignored by Barack Obama and McCain, aside from when they are trying to raise money.

"We will spend more time campaigning in California than both McCain and Obama together," Nader said. "Because Obama's going to win California, why bother? Because McCain knows he's going to lose it, why bother? Thirty-four million Californians don’t get the benefit of the two major parties' presidential campaigns. They just go to California to collect money. That’s disrespectful."

-- Seema Mehta

Comments

[Gene Debs]

It's helpful to have an honest man like Ralph Nader, who is willing to endure such personal sacrifice, so that voters might know what a candidate uncompromised by avarice and ambition looks like. His uncommon erudition makes him so much the better.

[mangu43]

Nader, if you are truly for what is best for this country, you will put aside, your presidential aspirations, support obama, and not ruin a 3rd election.

Go home nader.

[Duane]

Why any liberal or progressive would want to waste their vote on Illinois Senator Barack Obama is beyond me. In my opinion, this guy is a corrupt, pro-war huckster who spends most of his time running from one fundraiser to another picking up $28,500 checks from the same billionaires who want us little people to bail out Wall Street.

Ralph Nader on the other hand is what we need for "change we can believe in." He is opposed to corporate welfare, in favor of single-payer health care for all, against bombing Iran, in favor of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, for Palestinian rights, against offshore oil drilling, favors decriminalizing drugs, and is opposed to the Wall Street bail out!

He's got my vote!

[zaid]

Let's LET Nader debate. He knows more about a lot of these issues and has done more than Obama and McCain combined.

[Jessica V. Cortez]

Thank you, Seema Mehta, for a cogent, timely article on the issue of closed debates, which is of paramount importance. The fake debates do not provide a forum for issues in this country that need to be discussed.

The two corporate parties have left the U.S. in disrepair.

I support Nader 2008.

[UCLAdy04]

The Obama campaign is not "ignoring" California. They have campaign offices all over the state and I am one of the thousands of volunteers that spends time registering voters and signing up volunteers. Realistically California is not an area that Obama needs to hold big rallies to garner support, but that doesn't mean that the state is being ignored by any stretch of the imagination.

McCain is pathetic for this stunt he is pulling and the presidential election 40 days away is FAR more important than a stupid photo op on Capitol Hill for McCain. He is too erratic to be POTUS and he is making a mockery of our election process. No way, no how, no McCain-Palin!

[OPEN REAL DEBATES]

Time to accept a scripted Presidential "debate" yet again?
Brought to you by your "good friends" on Wall Street.

No USA Main Street Paul or Nader,
nor Cynthia McKinney...

[Michelle]

In response to Mangu,
If NAder doesn't run than one of the other 3 will have a top spot on the list of viable third party candidates. Then they will be blamed. The truth is, many people voting for NAder would not vote for the other 2 candidates because they are so similar in views. This is true for the death penalty, The patriot act, single payer health care, they both will not withdraw troops in the immediacy of their would be candidacies and essentially the same on abortion cause MCcain as his would be predecessors have done nothing to overturn the main abortion law.

[robert]

Open the debates. America needs more choices. As of now we're only +1 candidate better than a Communist country... and that's a stretch considering McCain == Obama.

[Nolan P.]

Hey UCLady, Nader has offered to fill in for McCain.

Obama has backed out of other debate offers, especially the Google one in New Orleans, which was organized to help out the state post-Katrina.

Obama is a notorious flip-flopper. He said he would debate ANY of his opponents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt_pvi-ij1g

Let's see if he sticks to his word. Probably won't, judging from his history.

But let's just see...

I'm glad true Progressives have somewhere to go. The Democratic Party sold out a long time ago.

Nader/Gonzalez '08
"People Fighting Back"

[Sebastian McGarigle]

Why not let Nader Debate? What are the Democrats and Republicans afraid of? If he is so "out of step" with the American public, the viewers would see that, and Nader would not be a "Threat" to either party. So why are they afraid to let Nader debate?

[Karen]

Ralph Nader actually has propositions for changes in the 700 billion dollar swindle bill that would include:

Provisions for homeowners to stay in their homes in default, or rent them at market value.

A cap on executive compensation and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

A stimulus package for infrastructure repair and upgrade to generate new community jobs.

Comprehensive regulation of and disclosures by the financial industry and Wall Street to prevent this from occurring again.

Prudent margin requirements on derivatives trading and a tax on securities derivatives transactions.

Shareholders control over the corporations they own.

Tougher criminal enforcement against culpable firms and executives.

When someone has answers to working out of the current economic maelstrom, why aren't they included in the dialogue. Ralph Nader has the courage to speak on the behalf of the American taxpayer, unlike the corporate lapdog major party candidates.

WAKE UP FOLKS, THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE BOTH BEING PAID OFF BY THE SAME PEOPLE. FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL. A candidate not handed 1.3 billion dollars of corporate money without their expecting a payout in return. The privately held Comission on Presidential Debates is not only trying to silence Ralph Nader, but is TRYING TO SILENCE YOUR VOICE, THE VOICE THAT SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.

[Warren]

In response to Mangu, If Nader doesn't run than one of the other 3 will have a top spot on the list of viable third party candidates. Then they will be blamed. The truth is, many people voting for Nader would not vote for the other 2 candidates because they are so similar in views. .. Posted by: Michelle

Michelle,

Nadar took more votes away from Gore than Bush in 2000. He may have been instrumental in Gore losing Florida, and thus the election.

It is ironic, in a two party system, that a 3rd party candidate can act as a spoiler for the candidate who's views most closely resemble his or her own. I wish there was a revision to the electoral college that would allow a 3rd Party candidate to broker electoral votes. That would be *true* empowerment for candidates like Nadar. In fact, I would be *very* tempted to vote for him. Until that time, I respectfully ask Mr. Nadar to choose the candidate that can best support his agenda and come out with a joint press conference. Particularly, this year.

[George Dance]

Both Nader and Bob Barr are on 45 state ballots, and both have polled at more than 5% in polls (more than 10% in some states).

I think Obama should agree to debate both of them.

For Obama to be the only one on stage may look too much like grandstanding, which is something he should avoid.

Letting Barr in has obvious political advantages, as he's more likely to draw conservative/libertarian voters from McCain, but there could be a backlash if it's seen as opportunism. Letting Nader in as well would cancel that out, as he's more likely to draw liberal/progressive voters.
Having them both would also allow Obama to position himself as more in the political center; something he's been trying to do anyway.

would be the most politically advantageous, as Barr is more likely to draw votes from McCain; but there could be a backlash, if that looks too much like a po

[True Debates]

The 1992 Presidential Debates with Ross Perot were not dull. His warnings have now come true. Replace John McCain with Ron Paul. Add Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. Barack Obama must earn his victory, not win by default.

[Will]

Obama and McCain should be ashamed of themselves for participating in closed presidential debates organized by the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates. What's honorable or democratic about refusing to debate third party candidates?

Shame on us for giving away our democracy to the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties. Shame on us for giving away our democracy to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Shame on us for not defending the rights of all Americans to fully participate in the electoral process. Shame on us for letting the Commission on Presidential Debates, an unelected partisan organization, decide who can participate in the televised debates. Shame on us for giving up.

[Mike]

The current debate format is a charade. Why not include Ralph Nader?

[Okla Elliott]

Obama and McCain won't debate Nader because they know they would lose. Nader is the only candidate of substance running. He has my vote.

I'll be voting straight Dem for other offices, but Nader is the only prez candidate who has earned my vote by telling the truth and showing his superior knowledge and moral vision.

And, as for you people who claim Nader takes votes away from Obama, I want to let you know that my vote is my vote, not Obama's or McCain's or Nader's. I choose to give it to the best and most honest man -- in this case, Ralph Nader. If everyone who claimed to really want change would switch from Obama to Nader, then we'd actually get real change in this country.

NADER/GONZALEZ '08

[sham debate]

John McCain is used to force the election of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama forced you to pay for Wall Street's bailout.

Stop the extortion, blackmail, bribery, and division;
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney.

"The two parties should be
almost identical, so that
the American people can
'throw the rascals out'
at any election without
leading to any profound or
extensive shifts in policy."
- Carol Quigley