We proved our comments with facts, Patrick. Before you can convince anyone of anything, you must offer facts as well, rather than trite clichés and rehashed Naderite doubletalk. You didn't even try to support this comment with anything but unfounded opinion: "Gore lost because he was so far to the right many faithfull [sic] Dems saw him as a Republican."

Saying so doesn't make it so, and the facts show you're simply wrong. Not only because Gore won. You're wrong because Gore won more Democratic (and more liberal) votes than anyone else in history. Perhaps you didn't realize that? Consider the evidence:

The facts do not support your claims that "Gore lost because he was so far to the right many faithfull [sic] Dems saw him as a Republican." Gore lost few votes for the reason you claim was decisive.

According to exit polling data, when asked "Do you think Al Gore's positions on the issues are...?" only 9% said Gore's stance was "Too conservative" - and 45% of them voted for Gore anyway. Of the less than a tenth who thought Gore was too far to the right, only 10% of those voted for Nader while 42% - more than four times as many - voted for Bush!

Most voters - 87% - considered Gore "too liberal" or "about right." Gore won a large majority of the 44% who said his positions were "About right." 89% of those voted for Gore while 9% supported Bush. However, Gore lost badly among the 43% who considered him "Too Liberal" as 7% of those voted for Gore, but 91% voted for Bush.

More than four times as many voters who rejected Gore did so because they considered him too liberal, rather than too conservative as Nader claims. Al Gore lost nine times as many votes from people who thought him too far left rather than too far right. Al Gore lost votes on the right, not on the left.

The data shows Gore won because liberals and Democrats didn't stay home. They supported Gore in record numbers. Liberals recognized the real liberal in the race, as Al Gore won in the inner cities and the other liberal areas. Gore didn't win by enough to prevent the Supreme Court election theft, only because so many more conservatives than liberals voted.

Al Gore won the most total liberal votes ever and the highest percentage of liberal voters in decades, carrying 80% vs. only 6% who supported Nader. Twice as many liberals 13% voted for Bush rather than Nader, making your choice the third choice among liberals. Gore also won among moderate voters 52% to 44% for Bush. Gore only lost only among conservatives who supported Bush 81% to 17%.

Data from Presidential Exit Polls, MSNBC, Nov. 7, 2000:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=N1

Investigative reporter Sam Parry confirms and adds analysis to these facts, asking, "Is Nader Right?" Perry also challenges Nader to "offer a plausible road map for how his political strategy will achieve anything beyond a consolidation of conservative power."

The facts prove Nader isn't right and Nader hasn't offered any explanation for how his actions on behalf of the right will help anyone. Nor has Nader shown any sense of responsibility for helping the right wing claim control of the federal government.

As Parry reports: "Nader's analysis ignores the point that Gore won the popular vote and earned more votes than any other Democratic candidate in history. Gore was only the second presidential candidate - and the first non-incumbent president - to top 50 million votes, trailing only Ronald Reagan's vote tally in 1984."

Parry adds, "There's also little evidence that Gore offended the Democratic base by failing to stake out more liberal positions," Parry concludes, based on the facts, "Indeed, the Democratic base stayed overwhelmingly loyal to Gore in 2000."

Parry refers to Charlie Cook's The Almanac of American Politics 2002: "Of the 39 percent of the electorate who called themselves Democrats in 2000, Gore pulled 86 percent of the vote, which was not only higher than Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 but also the highest percentage for any Democratic nominee in at least the last seven presidential elections."

That means more Democrats supported Al Gore - and by a larger percentage - than Clinton (twice), Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter (twice). Parry notes Gore won "the more progressive states in the country, states such as New York, California, Massachusetts and Maryland [but] saw an erosion of support [in] key heartland states - such as Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia - any of which could have tipped the election to Gore."

Parry adds, "it is hard to make the argument that Bush carried them because Gore wasn't liberal enough [as] the polling data suggests Gore was hurt in the Appalachian states because many of his positions were viewed as too liberal."

See: "Is Nader Right?" Consortium News, Sept. 5, 2001: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/090501a.html.

Exit polling confirms Parry's conclusions. As the liberal columnist Robert Scheer explained: "Nader Betrayed Those He Pledged to Help." Scheer listed those who recognized Gore as the best choice, those Nader hurt so badly by helping Bush:

"The lesson of election 2000, no matter the final photo-finish outcome, is that, for better or worse, the Democratic Party is the only political home for those with a progressive agenda. That was recognized by the overwhelming support for Al Gore among union workers, racial minorities, lower-income people and voters who want government to be an active agent in preserving the environment, empowering minorities and women, protecting personal freedom and guaranteeing, as Hillary Rodham Clinton promised throughout her campaign, that no child is left behind in this prosperous nation."

Unfortunately, Nader and his followers refuse to learn that lesson.

As Scheer explains, "It is elitist in the extreme for Ralph Nader to scorn the judgment of those who make up the core constituency of the Democratic Party: labor, women's rights activists, minorities, civil libertarians, gays, environmentalists." Yet, Nader did worse than scorn all of these people. As Scheer writes:

"What contempt he showed for his longtime allies, going into Florida on the last day of the campaign to denounce Gore in terms harsher than those he used for George W. Bush. Nader's nearly 100,000 Florida votes likely has cost Democrats the White House and with it the veto power President Clinton has used to protect the very people that Nader was bamboozling."

See: "Nader Betrayed Those He Pledged to Help," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 2000: http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/00_columns/110900.htm.

This claim: "Nader was the only Dem in the last election" makes no sense at all. Real Democrats don't dismiss issues like civil rights, equal rights, women's rights, worker's rights, gay rights, regulatory policy, Medicare, Social Security, education, choice, the environment, foreign policy and more as Nader did.

Nader did this claiming - despite huge differences between Al Gore and Bush on all those critical matters - he saw no differences that mattered to him. Most of those who voted against Gore claimed he was too liberal, and almost none considered him too conservative. So what was Nader doing by claiming Gore was too right wing?

Nader hurt liberal and moderate candidates and the millions if not billions who depend on them - not just Al Gore - with this "killing lie." It's impossible to calculate how badly Nader harmed the planet by discouraging many liberals and even moderates from showing up by branding Gore a "whore" and with the rest of his "tweedle-dum tweedle-dee" attacks.

Nader claimed Gore and the Democrats are no better than Bush and the Republicans. Since Nader and the Greens had no chance to win, this rhetoric signaled to many voters: "why bother?" Data indicates Nader helped to suppress liberal turnout enough that conservatives outnumbered liberals at the polls by three to two, 29% to 20% of the total.

You can think anything you like and vote Nader for any reason you want. Please don't fool yourself, however. The facts shatter the notion Gore "lost" because he was too conservative." Unless you base conclusions on "feelings" not facts, you should rethink your intention to vote Nader again.

Nader - not Al Gore - moved to the conservative side. Not with rhetoric - talk is cheap after all - but with actions. Nader actually joined forces with the far right, and hurt the progressive cause, by intentionally helping Bush. Don't take my word for it; take Nader's word for it. He admits he favored Bush in 2000, confirms he did so to make things worse - set us back decades - to make people more willing to support him in the future. If Nader runs in 2004, that's only further confirmation.

No one can make Nader care about any person or thing. Just like anyone else, Nader is free to help or hurt, care or not care about the environment, the poor, working people, women, minorities, the elderly, children, and all those others whose rights and needs he sacrificed. It's painfully clear that none of this is important to Nader.

Maybe you're a white straight male millionaire like Nader, and you think you benefited from Nader's efforts on behalf of Bush. Fine for you, but you can't escape the global damage or the guilt for the horrible consequences others suffered. That's on Nader's karmic permanent record - and yours.

Nader can say and do anything he wants. He can even place his ego above human lives. We can and will call him on it, however, and expose the damage he does. Still, Nader's indifference to life is astonishing. Remember, Al Gore led the way on efforts to halt global warming. Bush denies it even exists.

Nader denies there's any important difference between Gore and Bush, so he is calling Global Warming unimportant. Has Nader apologized to the survivors of the thousands in Europe who died in the recent heat wave? Does Nader consider them unimportant too? Nader lies and people die. Indefensible.

Do whatever you want, but don't pontificate about who's a liberal and who isn't. Not based on BS when we warned you and Nader that Bush was horrible. Not when you gloat about causing inevitable additional harm we'll suffer if Nader helps Bush again.

People are dying because Nader helped Bush, so don't self righteously judge those of us working against Bush. Ignoring or denying Nader's fatal damage - and calling Bush's enabler Nader "the only Dem in the last election" - is truly "shameless."