NADER IS IN -- GET OVER IT, OBAMAHOLICS!

I know a lot of people will think ill of me but I get to where I hate politics for the same reason I don't like sports, Good Lord people this is America he can run if he wants to. Get real !!

No real thoughts of any substance other than I was surprised when I read this news this morning.

I think Nader is a joke. My best friends are jokes- George Clinton of band Funkadelic. Seriously there is a freight train running into the general election named Obama and swift boat attacks won't stop it. It will have a better ground game than the GOP, out maneuver them and will out raise them in cash. Nader won't be a factor.

Isn't it a pathetic statement that the most positive thing that republicans have this year is Ralph Nader?

Greg, I'm with you on this. If any other candidate loses vote, then it was because the voters felt Nader offered a better message. I think people have to stop putting blame on Nader and simply realize that most voters pick candidates, not by choice, but by a process of elimination. Many times, it comes down to the lesser of several evils, rather than the best of all worlds.

Mario, this is not necessarily true: "If any other candidate loses vote, then it was because the voters felt Nader offered a better message." I can't tell you how many people I heard say they would vote for Nadar to "make a statement" that they weren't happy with the two-party system. Instead of choosing what they considered the lesser of two evils, they chose the third and biggest loser.

Sandy, that is an option that consumers/voters can believe in, if they choose. That is, the beuaty of the free market is that we as consumers/voters, who may believe in "making a statement" about the two party system or not, have every right to be motivated to behave for whatever reason -- even if you and I disagree with their rationale.

And, Clark, once again you've come up with another silly anti-Republican hypothesis, this time theorizing that Republicans perceive Nader as a positive. Have some more Kool-Aid, my friend.

its his right to run but personally I wish he would give it a rest.

If he has the money, I say, go for it.

Now, lets just see in how many states he can get his name on the ballot.

if nader cost the taxpayers any money, is he eligible for tax-payer funds to run his idiotic run for president,he should not run.

Yay! Nader to the rescue of the Leftists who have nobody carrying their banner this year in the Democratic party............LMAO!

This crackpot is going to hand the White House to the Republicans...........again!

Anyone who supposes American elections are a "free market" is delusional. American elections are a zero-sum game. There may be additional losers, but there is only one winner.

There is no chance that the fifth time out Nader will increase his lifetime total of votes in the electoral college from zero.

Also, Nader is even older than John McCain, who I think is too old to withstand the demands of an office that very visibly aged Bill Clinton and even the much-vacationing and feckless George W. Bush

Nader'ss running again shows him to be a knave as well as a fool and discredits rather than advances issues he has claimed to be for.

Stephen, your comments are very good, but I don't understand why the competitive elements and dynamics of a political race are similar to those in various product categories. Within the marketplace, it is also a zero sum game -- explain/elaborate, if you would.

Thank you!

your theory seems sound :)

Thank you, denise. Hopefully I won't embarrass you and all my other Gather friends too much!!

I couldn't agree more, Lora. Excellent points!!

Nader is a vain twit. Candidate who are not serious contenders do not get press. It will be interesting see if Nader with single digit poll ratings gets the same attention.

Anybody with the cash can enter the race. Nader is not a threat to Barack Obama.

When did we become a free market society?

Not anyone can enter the race...read the rules.

I do agree that the more choices the public is given the better off everyone is.

I just wish the "other" choice wasnt Nader.

I have my doubts whether his intentions are to actually try and attain the presidency or to manipulate the vote.

in theory, choice is good. In point of fact, when offered a choice between grilled salmon with steamed asparagus and wild rice- or a greasy bic mac and fries, am forced to reply, uh, that's no choice at all. You did not really need to mention the Mickey D pseudo food, because that ain't gonna happen for me.

That's sort of how I think about voting for Nader. Thanks for the "choice", now please go away.

I certainly see your point, Chris -- thanks for your comments!

However, that's the beauty of a free market system. What appeals to you like grilled salmon may be another consumer's/voter's Big Mac. The unforced, voluntary nature of economic choice results in the most fair and desired outcome, regardless of the reason(s) for any particular consumer/voter choice.

Greg states: In a free market system like ours, the consumer/voter benefits by having a greater and greater number of choices, so as they can maximize their own personal welfare using their own judgment and criteria.

But that only applies to the "other side" not to you, right Greg? I will infer from your article that you are not in favor of my (current) right to have an abortion should I so choose.

But as your article is not about the details used to illuminate your main point, allow me to speak to that. Stephen Murray nails it. Our political system does not adhere to a free-market playing field. The words you use, Greg, and the manner in which you put them on the page, I find very condescending.

Are you looking for genuine dialogue on the subject or simply like-minded agreement with your POV?

Susan, your comments are almost so insulting and incorrect that they barely merit a response.

Our political system DOES have analogous characteristics (NOT IDENTICAL) to a free market system. Moreover, neither I, my wife, daughter, or anyone else has even a vaguely similar perception with regards to my supposed condescension.

With all due respect, Susan, I think even the most casual and objective observer would conclude that it is you who is not desirous of a genuine dialogue. I will gladly stand corrected if I am wrong, but I think anyone choosing to read/reread my article will not come to the conclusion you have.

Greg, I too considered the gratuitous abortion comment to be condescending and judgmental, so it was not just Susan who objected to it.

Then, I stand corrected and am truly sorry, offering my apologies to you, Susan, and others who feel similarly. That wasn't even the major point of the essay, the free market aspect(s) were.

Again, I'm sorry, and will try to be more careful next time.

None of the candidates seem worried about Nader's announcement, nor should we be.

I like and respect Ralph Nader for his huge service to the country. Almost everyone in America owes this intelligent and responsible man a debt of gratitude but that does not mean we owe him a vote.

I will never lose admiration or respect for Ralph Nader but I can never view him as an impartial responsible political candidate because of his strange and quiet views on the Middle East conflict. Nader's international relations ideas are incoherent. To me it is very important to understand all aspects of a candidates beliefs and platform and not take things for granted because you want to have hope or faith.

I missed the thread about free-market and democracy. Voting is not really a market but ideas are free and more and more important. The candidates do hold a monopoly on ideas by the time they get the presidential debates, in fact part of the problem is that there was virtually no exploration of almost any ideas in either Democratic or Republicans debate right up to today.

Breaking the monopoly of ideas by letting Ralph Nader participate in the Presidential debates has always been something I have been in favor of, but he should have to have some requisite number of supporters that I doubt he can come up with. This is our loss whether or not anyone would vote for him or not.

The abortion comment in the article was needlessly insensitive.

It's rather a moot point. Nader will do a few talk shows, but won't even be on the ballots of many (perhaps most) states. Obviously he's not really running for President; he's simply taking advantage of whatever forum on which he can get his views heard (kind of like us pseudo-policy wonks on Gather).

Yes and no, David. From an electoral standpoint, it might be a moot point (and certainly if he isn't on lots of state ballots). However, it is always positive in a free market of ideas (which some readers apparently don't feel we have, which I hope is not wholly correct) to have a large and increasing number of these ideas from which to choose. Remember, we will also undoubtedly have Presidential candidates from such disparate parties as the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and others.

Greg, obviously abortion was not your main point of the article -- however, whether it was or not, you should not be pressured, nor should you be willing to apologize for your point of view on the subject. It has become politically incorrect (to an extreme degree) to be pro-life, and to speak out strongly about it. Or even to speak out at all.

Those on the other side of the issue are more than willing to speak out strongly to you about their opinion on abortion -- they just did, right here, on your page -- and no one is making them feel they need to apologize for doing so. Perhaps someone should.

If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, which obviously you do, you have no reason to apologize for opposing it. Stop and think for a minute how people nowadays would view a historical abolitionist who was confronted by a slave-owner, and wound up apologizing for opposing slavery! People would be saying, "How could he have apologized for opposing slavery?!"

Stand strong, man! Fight the good fight! If someone is offended by the fact that you speak out against abortion, perhaps you too should be offended that they are afraid to hear voices in opposition to theirs... And maybe we should all wonder why, for those who support abortion, they are not willing to allow you to have your opinion, and they will have theirs. Why must they shut up everyone who speaks on behalf of the helpless human whose life is taken... I'll leave it there.

Thanks

Thank you for your point, Frank. Maybe I should have written my response better. I was NOT apologizing for my (and my wife's) adamant pro-life stance. I was simply saying that the abortion comment deterred from the central point of the paper, which was the importance of a free market of ideas.

Although, your points are well taken. Maybe I should write a paper on abortion, and (nothing personal, you who are for choice except for the baby, who can't talk or act) show the intellectual dishonesty of that argument.

Boy, that ought to get some comments!

Go for it, ol chap!

Frank, a careful reading of my first reply shows that I did not pressure Greg to recant his position on any matters, nor was I hinting for an apology about his stance. I pointed out the disconnect, imo, of his statements. I told him how his article affect me.

As far as I'm concerned, Greg and I have had our say to one another about this issue. For me to address your issue with regards to abortion, that'll have to take place on a new article that you or someone else publishes.

An aside, Greg. I find it interesting that your tone changes from the one you use in your article to one that is very receptive in your responses to people's comments. When you say that my responses are insulting and incorrect, it would be help to me if you'd be more specific.

Thanks

Actually Greg I applaud your last response. I personally have no objection to anyone's stance on abortion or any other subject, and will defend and respect your right to hold it. What I objected to was gratuitously tossing it into an otherwise well written and well thought out article in which it was irrelevant to the subject matter.

Right, but I still have no one to vote for.

Off topic: Loving the comments you are getting Greg, though I don't know why anyone would say your piece isn't open to dialogue. Honestly, that is the only reason I swing by your political pieces.

"And, Clark, once again you've come up with another silly anti-Republican hypothesis, this time theorizing that Republicans perceive Nader as a positive. "

Show me a republican who's not happy about Nader entering the race and I'll show you an utter fool.

Good point, Clark. However, one should be in favor of him entering the race regardless of their particular political ideology. As I said in an interview this morning, I would have the same sentiment if (for example) Ron Paul ran as an independent or (more likely, if he decided to enter the race) the Libertarian candidate.

Voting one's self interest alone is self defeating. It is only when we factor in the common welfare of our civilization do we truly progress. Limitless choices may be great for the world of retail. But when it comes to democracy, too many voices means no majority and no majority means a terrible thing happens... nothing.

Of course you are true, Devin. I meant my comments to be taken within the context of constitutional limitations. For instance, people should not be able to vote themselves a gift, just because greater than 50% feel that way.

You've heard the joke, I'm sure about the country which had two wolves and one sheep as its citizens. If no individual rights occur, the two wolves (with 67%) could vote to have lamb chops for dinner!!

"However, one should be in favor of him entering the race regardless of their particular political ideology. "

Show me a democrat who's pleased that Nader has entered and I'll show you an utter fool. While I don't personally think his presence will change the outcome of the election, particularly if Obama wins the nomination, I can't imagine a registered democrat being happy about Nader.

My choice of a movie today precludes (practically) choice of another TODAY, but I can watch another movie tomorrow. Only one person takes over the office of president of the United States.

It is telling that your title does not mention McCainiacs. I don't think that Nader is going to draw many votes (certainly none in the Electoral College, where he'll go zero for five), but insofar as he gets any votes from voters who would otherwise have voted for the nominee of one of the two parties, it is more likely to be from those who would have voted for the Democratic candidate than for the Republican one -- as the Big Business contributors to Nader's two previous campaigns know and as Mike Huckabee reiterated. Any votes for Nader are -- whatever the intent of those who cast them -- votes that aid maintaining the status quo.

In the real world, a vote for Nader is a vote for continuing the posting of US ground troops in Iraq. (Not that I am at all satisfied with the Democratic candidates failure along with McCain to address the real rival for US economic domination, China.)

In a way I agree with you Melinda. If the mainstream candidates cannot come up with a message that resonates with a majority of the voters, then they deserve to lose.

I agree with Devin in a way. But Mr. Bush's last run also produced nothing and it was ore or less a two party race. We've had eight years of missed opportunities and bad choices. I'm ready for a change even if I find I disagree with some of what happens.

Nader really doesn't hope to persuade Democrats or Republicans, Clark. He's after those of us who remain independent of either of the two parties. Our numbers are growing despite concerted efforts of both parties to block us out of the electoral process. I am certain he doesn't believe he can win. I think he wants to act as a spoiler again. Unfortunately for him, and probably fortunately for the rest of us, I don't believe he has sufficient following to do so any more.

Hey independents... why not also be independent thinkers? Or realistic thinkers?

Nader doesn't hope to persuade anyone. just like Huckaberry hound, Nader needs to campaign to make more money to support himself. And keeping your mug in the news spotlight fills the coffers faster than anything.

Nader likes the spotlight. He's, what, 78 now? Don't think for one minute he's running for any other reason. He prolly sells more books when he on the road campaigning, and he's just like everyone else who has a mortgage or rent to pay. How many more elections cycles can he realistically handle at his age? He'll be 83 or so 4 years from now, I kinda doubt he'll wanna run again at that age. It really takes a physical toll on you.

Nader's only a spoiler in it to turn a profit for his pocket and to keep his face in the brilliant light of the media spotlight. Don't keep fooling yourselves. Instead, why not think for yourselves?

Forgot to mention... someone above mentioned Nader's policies in regards to the Middle East. To inject a bit of reality in the discussion once again...both of Nader's parents are Lebanese immigrants and he still speaks his native language of Arabic fluently. If you know that, it's not hard to understand his Middle East policies.

Most people I know who come from the Middle East AND who are not either Muslim or Jewish are not hoping for Israel's survival. I've got many friends like this and many of them consider Arafat to have been a hero. One friend actually compared Arafat (this was just after he died) to ((of all people!!)) Robin Hood! Can you imagine? Arafat stole more money from "his people" (The palestinians are not his people, Arafat was from Egypt and maintained close ties to his country his entire life; even so, Arafat STOLE money from them) than anyone else.

Please forget Nader people. Aren't you tired of publicity hounds?

With all due respect, DD, you sound very cynical. Although I personally disagree greatly with Nader, I don't think his motives are exploitive. I personally think he is simply an idealist (which carries an entirely new set of problems with it).

It's fair to call me cynical Greg, even if what I say turns out to be true. Though I prefer to think of myself as a realist. As one ages idealism fades, and all that's left is the hungering for more of the spotlight one once had.

So do you honestly think Nader is running due to his overly-developed idealism? Me? Just as with Huckaberry Hound I think it has more to do with Nader's pocketbook and the spotlight he once had... and continues to hunger for.

Personally I wouldn't vote for Nader. I think he makes some valid points from time to time, but I'm simply not convinced that this time out he's doing this for any other reason than the publicity and the need to feel relevant.

This is America, if Ralph Nader or Ron Paul want to run, they have a right. I agree, if they pull votes from another candidate, then the other candidate didn't deserves the votes. The Obama luster will tarnish on its own, but maybe Nader has a message all the candidates need to hear.

I agree that it is his (or anyone who meets the qualifications) prerogative to run if he wishes. What I don't understand is the logic behind his decision.

While reading his list of issues (http://www.votenader.org/issues/), for the sake of discussion, assume he is 100% correct that these are the top 12 issues for the country AND that each are "off the table" of the other candidates. Will his candidacy REALLY effect change such that all or any of these issues are back "on the table" come January 2009?

The reason I ask this is that it is very clear (and Nader seems to agree) that he cannot be elected. Conventional wisdom, the first time he ran, was that his run as a Greens candidate "pushed" Gore to the left in the General election. Even if you grant that this is true (I can't say, for sure), did this result in Ralph's issue's being addressed in 2001? No, because Gore lost. (For the record, I'm not blaming Nader for this - your article has a point - a candidate should be appealing enough to garner votes on his or her own).

Here's my point: if his candidacy is not designed to win, then what is it designed to do? The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that it is designed to influence the issues debated during the election, and ultimately lead to at least some of those issues being addressed in the next administration.

Well, it seems to me that there would have been better, safer (in terms of desired outcome) ways to do this than running for election and attacking both the Democratic and Republican candidates. One would be to work with the Democrats, openly, on policy issues. Another would to get a position in someone's cabinet (imagine, Ralph Nader as Secretary of Commerce! I think he'd do an awesome job).

Here's one more point: George II ran as a moderate in 2000. Imagine if he was "pushed to the right" in the general election (showing his true colors, btw) - he would have lost.

I agree with your logic, Joe, but your example is not good. As a result of Nader in 2000, Gore ran as less (not more) of a liberal, downplaying such issues as the environment which he clearly could have used to stave off Nader defections.

My only thought is "Why does he bother?"

Nader has no chance of being elected, but just get him into
one of the debates and he stands a chance of forcing
many Americans to think for the time in their lives.
That might be Earthshaking for our tired corrupt
political system in a way that brings about real change,
not just a different kind of beauty contest.

I think Nader has worn out his welcome and is a non-factor at this point.

I really don't now what to think about Nader running this year. I was just surprised when I saw it on the news. I still have to figure out my thoughts on this one.

Wait...what is that I hear? a groundsell of support? or just a yawn.

for anyone who thinks Nader has a chance and votes on 'principle' for hi.......just remeber what happend last time with Bush and co.......

Is there a difference between Republicans and Democrats......look at the country after 8 years of republican misrule.

Nader is a modern-day Harold Stassen. Expect him to continue to run -- this is a vanity campaign.

I am not surprised to see a lot of comments here. So many, it is easy to lose things in the noise. So did I lose the answer Greg asked for out of Stephen Murray concerning why Presidential Elections are zero-sum games, too dissimilar to free-markets, which are co-operative games?

The simplest answer is in two words: "game theory". Find a good book, website or whatever on the elements of game theory and its applications to sociology, and there it will be explained: one more choice of candidate is not an improvement, it does not even approximate a free-market, in which competition must be atomistic.

Ah yes, I will in fact "get over it."

Especially when Obama is our president.

Nader should change his name to Nada