I'm not sure if he is reading this post.

Judging by how the Democrats catipulated to Bush, was there really that much of a difference in how the parties operated?

Did Nader lose the Congress for the party for so many years?? Bush's horrible tenure was possible only because of the DEmocrats. They failed to act as a check on his excesses.

So why do you guys keep whining about him? If Democrats had the spine of Nader, they would have made life miserable for Bush and not conceded the framing of issues to a nutjob. Maybe they would have won a few more senate and congress seats sooner like they did in 2006. Without Nader, I doubt a Deaniac movement would have taken place placing the party deeper in a state of complacency. As it is, it is still trying to remain there despite all the events that transpired. Imagine how much worse the party would have been. We are just lucky as a party(unlucky as a country) that the Republicans are first class fuckups.

I do not understand the logic of people on this blog. I take it from the sentiment here no one should ever run a third party candidacy because one party will always be worse than the other major party and we just cannot take that risk ever. I defended Ross Perot when some of my Republican friends whined about him tag teaming against Bush in the debates(though it is still debatable whether the majority of his voter base was actually proBush in the states that counted).

It's a shame I have to keep adding disclaimers because people here just assume people only support people they vote for. I never voted for Nader.