[Jaysun]

I actually agree with Nader to a certain extent in that I think that it's good to have more people involved in the debate. Having more people forces everyone to address more issues.

No matter how kooky some loser candidate is, he serves a useful purpose in that he forces the other candidates to address his pet issue. That's good for all of us. It can help expose the intentions of politicians before they're elected. If kooks ran for office more often, we might have more Conservatives and less RINOs in public office.

[Happy2BMe]

Ditto to what you said.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Would you really be saying the same thing if there were a credible small-party candidate in the race who threatened to siphon off millions of votes from W and hand the election to Kerry?

[ZULU]

I agree.

I wouldn't vote for Nader and I don't agree with his position on most issues - MOST, but NOT all issues. But he is inherently a decent man and deserves as much consideration as "Lurch" and "Pretty Boy" do. He is certainly far more sincere in his beliefs than either of those two opportunists and he does have America's best interest at heart, again, unlike the crypto-commies in the Democratic Party.

I jsut hope he siphons off enough votes from decent Democrats to help Bush and hurt Kerry.

Besides, although I am a Republican, I resent the high-handed tactics of both political parties in keeping other political parties from the public view and serious consideration in elections. Who knows, there may actually be a nascent party out there with the courage of conservative convictions which can replace the vacillating boobs in Republican Party with an effective alternative to the Democrats.

The government doesn't belong to the Democrats and Republicans, although they would like the nation to believe it does.