Sunday, February 22, 2004

Imagine Bush having to debate Edwards or Kerry AND Nader

Imagine this scenerio...

National Debate. Bush is having to debate either John "Expanding Accordion" Edwards or John "Expanding Sackbut" Kerry. This must be frightening enough to poor George "Deflating Kazoo" Bush. But alas...he has to fend off the Democrat AND the fearless Ralph Nader.

Bush is obliterated.

And should it be the case that Nader realizes he hasn't enough votes to beat Bush...just because of machine politics...he might then throw his endorsement to Edwards or Kerry...and win himself a decent job within the new administration.

It could happen!

This is not necessarily a bad thing for Democrats. Especially if he is included within the debates. Mr. Nader has been a lifelong fighter for average Americans, and has certainly earned the right to be a contender.

I say "Let him"! He can help spread the truth about Mr. Bush...which can only hurt Bush. It is not enough to win. Bush must lose.

TRANSCRIPT of Nader on "Meet the Press"

EXCERPTS from the Interview:

MR. RUSSERT: You had said when John Edwards announced his candidacy that it was a good idea that he run for president.


MR. RUSSERT: You like him?

MR. NADER: I think the more organized the citizens are, the better a politician he's going to be. He's like an expanding accordion, unlike President Bush, who is really a giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being.

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of what you stand for, this is what you said in July of last year about George Bush: "[Nader] said Mr. Bush was not only `beatable but impeachable,' for deceptions and prevarications on national security matters..." Will part of your platform be the impeachment of George Bush?

MR. NADER: Let me put it this way. When a president misleads, if not fabricates, going to war and sending our sons and daughters to war with no exit strategy, with a quagmire over there, that is very serious, Tim. If there's any better definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in our Constitution, then misleading or fabricating the basis for going to war, as the press has documented ad infinitum, I don't know any cause of impeachment that's worse. So what is an impeachment? It's a hearing to see whether the House of Representatives is going to accuse or charge the president with high crimes and misdemeanors. And then it goes to the Senate for a trial. Our Founding Fathers gave the Congress the right to fire the president. It shouldn't be a big deal. For far more trivial reasons, you know, Clinton was impeached.

I think this country deserves a serious explanation of why, how, when this country was plunged into war against a brutal dictator tottering over an antiquated, non-loyal army, surrounded by hostile neighbors who, if he made one move against, would have obliterated him. It was oil. And oil has ruined so much of our foreign policy and antagonized so many people in the Third World, when we should be converting to renewable energy and solar energy and energy efficiency, all of which creates jobs in this country. So I think it is very important for the American people to take what happened last year very, very seriously.

MR. RUSSERT: So there should be an impeachment hearing and trial?

MR. NADER: I think Congressman John Conyers is going to file such a request.