Our current so-called “President” is a coked-up corporate puppet.
The so-called “President” who preceded him was no better.
I can just see it in my mind’s eye now: President Ralph Nader, on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, hurriedly convening Congressional hearings to investigate why Boeing cannot manufacture a 747 capable of withstanding a high-speed impact with a steel skyscraper.
Uh, what exactly ARE Ralph Nader’s credentials? What qualifies him to be president? The same people who criticised Bush for lack of presidential experience seem to unquestionably accept that Nader is fit for office, despite the fact that he’s never done anything in his life except appear in the media. He wrote “Unsafe at Any Speed” right after college, and never worked again. Yes, he ran his consumer rights action group, bu that’s not a particiularly impressive resume item.
Only if you ignore corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, and farm subsidies.
And to address Sam Stone’s question, AFAIK there are no requirements of experience for someone to hold the office of President of the United States. Ostensibly, anyone brainy enough could do the job, even with no prior experience(*). That said, I think a lot of folks would conclude that Nader’s a bit brighter than George – at the very least, he seems to have a better grasp on most of the issues.
(* = Cecil in 2004! 
)
Ralph Nader, and his socialist hooey, would be Unsafe in Any Office.
And the 2008 tickets will likely not include Condi or Hillary, and certainly won’t include Powell. It’s rare that you see the nominees coming – until recently, even veeps weren’t all that assured to ascend to the Oval Office or even the nomination. Reagan was pretty obvious for 1980, he started building a head of steam in the early 1970s that made him unstoppable come 1980. Bush was likely, but Dole or Kemp had the inside edge right up to the start of the primaries. Dukakis, Carter, Clinton, Nixon (in 68) – all came out of the woodwork at the last moment to grab the top slot on the ticket.
And not everyone who didn’t vote for the Greens was misled or scared, Jerry. Some of us don’t want the government involved in medical care, don’t want the unions to be given any more power, prefer jobs over trees, people over spotted owls, hamburgers over salads, cars over buses, relatively low taxes over crushing socialist taxes, and don’t give a party any credit for nominating Indians or Arbas – big deal, who cares about the nationality, gender, religion, race or sexuality of our candidates? Not me.
I voted for George W. Bush, worked for his campaign, in fact. I think he’s done good job, particularly with the tax cut package and the war on terrorism – but I probably won’t be voting for him again, because he’s given too much power to religious sleezebags like John Ashcroft. At this point, I plan to vote Libertarian come 2004.
rjung: I’m aware that there are no formal qualifications for President (other than being over 35 and being born in the U.S.A). But that hasn’t stopped people on the left from attacking Bush for his ‘lack of experience’. I’m just curious - if being a governor of a large state for two terms, and the owner of several businesses doesn’t qualify as adequate experience for the Presidency, then how can you support Nader, a man who has less experience in the real world than I do?
What is there about being a ‘consumer advocate’ that makes one fit to run the most complex economy in the world?
Nader is a joke. He’s about 90% of the way towards joining the tin-foil helmet crowd. His world is full of evil, predatory, conspiratorial business people who are enemies of the people. He’s totally out of touch. For example, when asked what his military response would have been after 9/11, he said that he would focus more on health care and safety at home, because “A safe society is a secure society.” That is such a ridiculously stupid comment that you can tear it to pieces in about 30 different ways.
Well, firstly, I don’t support Nader. 
I do consider him a more viable Presidential candidate than GW Bush, but then, I also consider “Weird Al” Yankovic a more viable Presidential candidate than GW Bush.
As for Bush’s qualifications, my impressions from friends who live in Texas is that the Governor’s power is relatively limited – most of the real work is by the legislature. This jives with the mainstream media reports that Bush’s governorship was marked by four-hour workdays and extended afternoon rounds of golf. And considering that Texas conservatives and liberals are relatively close in their views (as opposed to the rest of the nation), Bush’s claims to be a bipartisan bridge-builder never carried much weight with me. And I haven’t heard anyone who said that Bush’s business leadership was anything notable – at best, he seemed to have sat back and let his dad’s cronies run the show (much like the way things are now, hmmmm). And, of course, there’s the whole “intelligence” thing going against him…
But eh, this is all moot anyway. I certainly don’t realistically expect Nader to get the White House any time soon, given the country’s current two-party system, just as I certain’y don’t realistically expect the typical Bush supporter to recognize his numerous shortcomings.
Okay, my second two cents on this. Want an out of left field candidate for the 2008 Dem. nomination? Russ Feingold, the latter in McCain-Feingold. I think he may be appealling if there is 8 years of GW. He seems to be a little to the left, but he doesn’t exactly toe the party line, so that may hurt his chances of winning a nomination.