History informs us that third-party votes led to the Alito nomination.

While a number of factors may have tipped the Florida electoral votes to Gore had they been corrected, it is still true that had people who voted for left-wing third-party candidates in that election voted for Gore, Alito would likely not have been nominated to sit on the Supreme Court. Ironic, then, my friends, is the notion that we and our esteemed colleagues should thus flock to third parties should Alito end up being confirmed. Would this not provide a means for more Supreme Court justices, similiar in philosophy of jurisprudence to that of Alito, to be nominated to the bench? Indeed, effective plans should endevour to get us more of what we should want, rather then less, should they not? It is possible that many of those who voted for third parties previously, now see the nomination of Supreme Court justices as an issue important enough to vote for Democratic candidates in future elections.

are responsible. let us try to remember that--and quit regurgitating what sound suspiciously like rw talking points, designed to deflect heat from the corruption of the republican party and its operatives.

A post that purports to show a means by which the right-wing agenda is furthered when a fragmented left dilutes its vote by spreading it amongst competing left-wing candidates is seen by you as regurgitation of "what sound suspiciously like rw talking points," something you see as designed to deflect heat from an issue other than one raised by the OP. Neat trick. . .

we lost all representation.

If we vote all Democratic candidates in for the sole reason they have a D after their names, well, that's just as likely to get us "less than we should want". What we want is for them to uphold classic Democratic Party ideals. Maybe demonstrating that there are third parties who seem to offer more of what we want will get the Democrats in Name Only to wake up. Our votes are not in the bag.

What does the Democratic Party moving to the right have to do with my original post?

Third parties offer none of what you want when they can't get into office. You may recall I ran for President in 2004 on a number of things like free education and full employment if I was elected. I could promise all that because it was moot: I'd never be held accountable for them because I'd never be in a position to fulfill them.

The "winner-take-all" electoral system is flawed. The implementation of that system in states like Florida and Ohio is corrupt. The Gore 2000 campaign had some serious problems that made that ticket unsupportable by some progressives who ended up voting for Nader.

Blaming the people who supported a third-party candidate is bogus... blame the DLC which moved the party so close to the Republican line on economic and privacy issues. If the Democratic Party is ready to go back to representing true liberal / progressive ideals, 3rd party candidates won't matter. If they are determined to play the part of Republican-lite, then reap that whirlwhind, DLC...

- KnaveRupe (who did NOT support Lieberman for Vice President in 2000...)

...Gore would have won. It's really as simple as that. The justification for voting for Nader was that there was "little difference" between Gore and Bush*. Now we see what's included in that "little difference".

Alito wouldn't have gotten nominated.

If Kerry had run a better campaign Alito wouldn't have gotten nominated.

Why single out the particular cause you single out?

I cant hold Ralph Nader (who I do not like or support) responsible for a decision that DEMs have the power to make...

Democrats need to take a stand against Alito and call Frist on his bluff.

It's not Nader's fault if Democrats continue to give Bush whatever he wants.

...would be something that could have been prevented by Nader, and an issue dismissed by him (I believe the phrase used by him to describe abortion was "gonadal politics") as insignificant in considering a vote for him.

From the rules:
"Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread."

This especially applies when the prvious thread has been locked or removed. Thanks.