It helps that I agree with him on pretty much everything.

You mean like taking donations from Republican corporate fatcats - while simultaneously lambasting the Democrats for being corporate sellouts?

Look, shaggylocks - if you were going to vote for a hyprocritical psuedo-liberal who kisses conservative ass thinking it will win him votes...then why didn't you just vote for Romney?

At least he, unlike Ralph, was brutally honest enough to run as a GOP candidate...which is what he is.

It's just amazing to hear and read people who call themselves liberals scream bloody murder when an actual liberal runs for the presidency. You'd think the fact that Ralph Nader has done more for American workers and consumers than anyone alive would give him a certain credibility among, well, everyone, but definitely among liberals, but apparently not. He's made our lives far safer than they were before he came on the scene, but when he asks us for something as humble as our votes, liberals go berserk. It's disgraceful.

Here's the deal: As we all know, politics has been steadily moving to the right for many years. The Democratic Party has moved right along with it. The Democratic Party today bears scant resemblance to the Democratic Party of FDR and LBJ. You know, the one that brought us Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, Civil Rights, progressive taxation and support for unions. And that's no surprise, is it? Every election year liberals let everyone within shouting distance know that they're voting for the Democratic candidate irrespective of his/her actual politics. "Take us for granted," liberals cry. "Run anyone you want regardless of how conservative, regardless of how at odds his/her record is with my values. I'll vote for him/her anyway." All that does is send a loud clear message to Democratic candidates that they can move as far to the right as they want and liberals will come with them. Play the game of politics that way my friends and you lose every time and frankly deserve to.

And by the way, the evangelical right wing, on which you are so fond of looking down, is far smarter than you are. They know that if they withhold their votes, money and activism from candidates who don't toe the line, they'll get more power next time. And they do. Liberals would love to have the stroke with Dems that the religious right has with Reps, but we don't because we flunked Politics 101. Use your power or lose it.

Ralph Nader gives liberals the opportunity to show Democrats that you need to honor our values, promote our issues and conform to our principles or you don't get our votes. Yes, if we spurn Democrats this year it'll result in McCain being president, but we need a longer vision than the next four years. Until we become willing to accept the consequences of voting our princples, we can't be surprised or angry when those principles vanish from the public debate as they have.

many FACTS at my disposal than using a disposal (that would be Ralphie, for the irony-challenged) for a candidate, like you Nader lovers.

The Nader Haters on the left are probably going to drive me to vote for Nader this year, if only to show that I support his right to run in the first place. It helps that I agree with him on pretty much everything.

It must be handy to have so many FACTS at your disposal, eh?

dataguyX: you are right the people going for Nader are not very smart like the ones who go for moron Bush. Nadar is the jerk who put Bush in the White House instead of a real president AL Gore.Nadar is old ugly and silly.

Can anyone seriously say that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush? Sure, some of you can say it to piss people off, and a couple of you can even say it with a straight face, but to serious suggest such a thing is like suggesting that the sky is red or that water is dry.

Can anyone give me an reason for Nader running for President in 2008 that is equally as plausible as the one Mr. Conason is suggesting? The only impact such a campaign could possibly have is to throw the election to someone who stands against everything Nader supposedly stood for in the past. Unless that is Nader's intention, that makes about as much sense as washing your car with a bucket of axle grease.

"Mr. Conanson, I have been reading Nader's articles regularly for five years, "

I cannot think of anything more useless or ridiculous than that. Mr. Nader has nothing to offer. He is, actually, insane. After all, if you believe something and say it over and over and over again, that's the definition of "insane".

He has said that there is "no difference between Democrats and Republicans". If you say that without snorting derisively, you are, in fact, insane.

Why would anyone read anything written by this living sack of shit?

Yeah, all the "Naders just doing this because both parties are equally corrupt" arguments tend to vanish out the window when it becomes clear how much support Nader accepts from Republicans.

If Nader wants to take the stance that he's against both parties, then let him hold to his values and reject all GOP support, financial, legal, etc. I don't give a flip if it helps his campaign, anyone who truly believed in the principles Nader espouses would reject it outright, not make excuses and smirk at the camera everytime he gets on t.v.

Otherwise, it's becoming more and more apparent that Nader is either letting himself be used by the GOP, or becoming an outright shill for them. Either have principles or don't, Ralph. But don't come at us with "I'm doing this because neither party is the voice of the people" arguments while you're greedily wrapping your hands around the cash one of the parties, in particular, is handing out to you. What makes you any different than the kind of politician who takes cash from big donors and then does their bidding with a pretended "who, me?!"

You're in the GOP's pocket, Ralph. You took their cash and their help. It was your choice to be there. Your sainthood is dead and your legacy is looking pretty filthy the last few years. Clean it up.