This is more ballots than the Nader presidential bid made in 2000 or 2004. Proof positive that voters want real change, not 'small change.'
Michael Richardson of the Nader campaign explained, "This means 85 percent of the American electorate will actually see the names Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez on their ballots. . . . This is quite a feat since states generally make it really hard for third-party candidates to get on state ballots. But in every state, our volunteers collected more than enough signatures to qualify. The response has been positive -- much better than in 2004. It's obvious that there is national interest in more choices and independent candidates outside the two-party system."
Despite the political bigotry and the ballot access laws rooted in that bigotry, the Nader campaign met their announced goal and did so ahead of schedule. Ralph Nader and running mate Matt Gonzalez are also on the road campaigning.
And they've taken their campaign to the press with limited success. The Nader campaign notes that Ralph requested time with the editorial boards of The Washington Post, Politico, National Journal and The New York Times. Results? "[T]he Politico reporters took few notes and the Washington Post editor responded to questions about why he didn't cover Nader by saying that he didn't think Nader could win."
The campaign's medic coordinator Toby Heaps explained Thursday, "The story of the decade is breaking, we have the candidate of the century on this story--and we are getting no coverage by major media." Heaps was referring to the fact that the continued economic meltdown -- which became impossible to ignore last week -- has been addressed repeatedly by Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader didn't require headlines about the meltdown last week to begin addressing the issue. (Putting him far ahead of the media anointed front-runners.) Ralph's been on that issue when no one cared to explore it, when it couldn't even make it into a "Nation's Briefs" section in most papers.
Heaps continued, "Yesterday, Ralph Nader issued a chronology of the lead-up to the current meltdown, and his ten-point plan to restore a semblance of accountability, transparency, and incentives that would steer Wall Street away from short-termist, out-of-control casino capitalism toward fulfilling its proper function of efficiently allocating capital to advance our long-term economic well-being. The plan was sent out to 6,000 reporters, including specific e-mails and phone calls to the editors and reporters from the major newspapers that are on this beat and evening TV news producers. Aside from the Fox cable business channel, no major media picked it up. "
That's more than the media favorites propose. Barack Obama seemed on a different page from his running mate (Joe Biden) and, while calling out John McCain's band-aid fix, had nothing to offer himself. (He still has little to offer and appears to have copied McCain's proposals.)
Real change, not 'small change.' Real change requires more than pretty words -- poll tested and often cribbed from others (Deval Patrick, John Edwards, a Washington Post cartoon . . . it's an endless list for Barack -- including this site for his overly praised March speech). Real change requires knowing the problem. That's not a superficial knowledge that your advisers hand you in a quick cram session, that's deep knowledge. The kind of knowledge you only get from spending hours and hours thinking about and researching and discussing the issue. Ralph Nader didn't have to cram last week to address the economic meltdown, he's been forecasting for some time.
But that's something the Real Press ignores and something Panhandle Media does as well. Remember that Bill Moyers has not invited Ralph Nader onto Bill Moyers Journal once this year. Remember that when Bill monopolizes the next media conference with the same tired speech where he yammers on and about about public broadcasting's mandate for diversity and to provide voice to those shut out from the corporate media. Remember it and grasp that Moyers wasn't interested in diversity in 2008 (or 2007 for that matter), he was just another mogul focused on electing his candidate of choice (Barack). Remember that for all his folksy words about how valuable the public is, he didn't find them valuable enough to trust by presenting a full range of discussions.
You can't get away from that idiotic PBS promo (which Ava and C.I. have called out Moyers' participating in and now so have the PBS' ombudsperson Michael Getler and David Zurawik of The Baltimore Sun). Moyers thinks this election is monumental? Well why can't the candidates get on his program? Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader wouldn't turn the Journal down but they're not invited. And they're not discussed by guests who are invited. Moyers wants to claim the election is monumental while refusing to inform the public of the choices they have.
It must be nice to be the candidate who has both the corporate and the begging media willing to sing your praises, willing to put some heavy foundation over the bruises from your latest cave and pretend like you're the sweetest and smartest thing that ever walked on water.
But in the real word, words have to be backed up with actions. Ralph Nader has consistently done that his entire life. Or, as a friend of ours has taken to saying, "Ralph Nader didn't fail the left, the left failed him."
Ralph is the independent candidate and you can declare your independence from corporate and panhandle attempts to control your mind and your vote by standing with him on election day. It's the difference between begging for small change or working for real change.