Importantly, Nader never joined the Green Party, and still refuses to share resources with them. It almost seems that Nader is using the Greens to advance his goals, some of which look more like a personal crusade if not a vendetta against Democrats. More and more, Nader's allies and supporters wonder how this promotes the interests of Greens and progressives.

Stung by these criticisms, Nader is trying to blunt them without really addressing them. Nader is helping the Republicans retake the Senate. His stalking horse candidate Ed "Eagle Man" McGaa is splitting the liberal vote, so Bush's hand picked candidate Norman Coleman could well beat Sen. Wellstone in Minnesota.

People think Nader endorsed Sen. Wellstone. Not exactly. He predicted McGaa won't get many votes, and said he can't see how Wellstone could lose. He didn't say "I support Wellstone" nor did he say "People who support me should vote for Wellstone." That's not an endorsement, but it is vintage Nader.

If Ralph Nader really wants to endorse Paul Wellstone, he can do so easily. All he has to do is tell McGaa not to run, and tell all Greens to vote for Wellstone. That's an endorsement. So far, Nader hasn't done anything like that. Why not?

Nader's "war" against the Democrats - all Democrats - takes priority over all else. He wants Wellstone to lose, but he understands it would hurt his "war" if progressives find Nader's fingerprints on Wellstone's political corpse.

Nader is smart enough to know that if the Greens help Coleman enough to beat Wellstone, and if the GOP retakes the Senate, the Greens are done. They will never trick many Democrats into supporting them. But Nader won't do anything more than he has to.

Nader is an expert at hinting and making people think he's on their side. Vegans assume Nader is antimeat. He's not. Is he a vegetarian? No, he's not. He lets people assume he is, as he munches McDonalds hamburgers.

The free Mumia and justice for Peltier people assume he's on their side. He's not. He dismisses them saying there's not enough time to worry about a few injustices.

Nader takes so few real positions, he lets people see what they want to see. Many assume he's "tirelessly fighting" for them when he's not. Sometimes, he even goes out of his way to present a false impression about himself and others.

Example: Nader attacked Al Gore for Occidental policies that hurt the U'Wa Indian tribe, while investing in Fidelity Mutual Funds. Nader's allies in RAN (the Ranforest Action Network) call Nader's investments "genocide" - when others do it.

Nader used the U'wa as props, claiming he was their savior and Al Gore was their enemy. It turns out the opposite is true. The U'Wa advocate says he never saw Nader do a thing to help them, while Al Gore intervened with the State Department to help the U'Wa - at great cost to Occidental. Nader does nothing to help, attacks the guy who did help, and exploits the U'Wa for political purposes. Vintage Nader.

Back to this Wellstone thing. Nader knows everyone is up in arms about it, but he still wants all Democrats to lose...so what does he do? He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Most people are completely fooled, as Nader hopes they will be.

This is not just about Wellstone, however. The whole Senate and the House are up for grabs this November. Even Nader supporters like Steve Cobble, director of the Campaign for a Progressive Future admits Nader's tactics are hurting the Green Party and the progressive cause. As he wrote in an article The Greens Versus Wellstone...Or, Handing The Senate Back To Trent Lott published at TomPaine.com:

"I admire Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader. I also admire Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. That might mean I'm principled. It might just mean I'm confused. It does mean that I feel obligated to do my small part to avert the loss of one of the few progressive Senators worth worrying about, a loss that could put the U.S. Senate back in Trent Lott's hands."

Cobble explained the stakes, and called upon Nader and Senate candidate McGaa to call off their efforts: "Thus, my plea to the Minnesota Greens: take a breath, put aside your anger at the Democrats, and act in your own best interests, as well as the nation's -- please reconsider your challenge to Senator Wellstone."

Cobble advised the Greens "You should do this not just because it helps Paul Wellstone win re-election -- which it will -- but because it's in your own best interests. Respectfully ask Ed McGaa to step aside as the Green's Senate candidate." Note Nader has not done this. McGaa remains as a likely spoiler in the deadlocked race.

Cobble may be an idealist, but he is not unrealistic. "I know I'm asking the Minnesota Green Party to do something politically brave and unusual," he writes, asking them to repudiate "a tactical error, and to reverse course while there is still time." But time is running out. The election is mere weeks away!

In Cobble's view, Nader is undermining Wellstone and empowering the Republicans, and this can only hurt the Green Party. Cobble urges Nader and the Greens to "Drop this Senate challenge. Do it not just because it's in the country's best interests, but because it's in your own best interests as a new, small party." Still Nader refuses.

The ardently pro-Nader Nation opposes this Naderite strategy even more adamantly. In Red Over Green Party Moves, Mark Cooper writes: "[U]nfortunately, when hundreds of Minnesota Greens met for their state nominating convention two weeks ago, they took a precipitous lunge toward political suicide. By more than a two-thirds margin, the Minnesota Green Party endorsed a candidate to run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone--arguably the most liberal, the most "Green-ish" member of the US Senate."

Cooper notes "Wellstone is already engaged in a touch-and-go fight for his political survival. The White House is pouring in support for his conservative rival, Norm Coleman, as the Bushies hunger to retire the obstreperously liberal Wellstone and to simultaneously win back the Senate for the GOP. It is an election in which every vote counts, and even a relatively small Green vote could tip the scales in favor of Coleman."

Nader cannot discount Sifry, Cobble or Cooper as anti-Green dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. They all praise Nader effusively. They all support the Greens. Cobble champions Ken Pentel, the Green candidate for Minnesota Governor, and blames the Democrats for trying to intimidate Nader. Will Nader take this sound advice from these staunch supporters and rise to the occasion? Prospects appear dim.

Nader's record for taking advice is not the best. Michael Moore says Nader focused on swing states and zeroed in on Florida at the end of the 2000 campaign season, and admits Nader ignored his pleas to stop helping Bush. Why? Moore won't say it, but Nader has. Nader wanted Bush to win.

Leftist rage against the Greens is not uncommon. As Harold Meyerson of the pro-Nader American Prospect writes in Greens to Liberals: Drop Dead!: "There's something so very pure about the Greens' destructiveness. The Republican right, after all, isn't committed to stamping out liberalism purely as an end in itself; it is also a means to advance its own agenda of more power and wealth to the powerful and wealthy. When the Greens run a candidate against a Democrat, however, neither their campaign nor the effect of their campaign advances their agenda one whit. Their goal is simply to defeat Democrats, even the most liberal Democrats. Especially the most liberal Democrats." [Emphasis in the original]

Some say this is unfair to Greens - including Nader's 2000 running mate Winona LaDuke - who do not support the backside attack on Wellstone or efforts to empower the right wing. They claim these actions are flukes, and pretend Nader hasn't said this is his strategy, publicly and repeatedly. What explains this refusal to take Nader at his word? Denial? I don't know.

I do know this: Nader wants Republicans to beat Democrats, all Democrats, and leads these efforts relentlessly and unabashedly. In an interview with David Moberg of In These Times Nader paid lip service to Republican offense, but mainly downplays them - indeed denies there are any differences between the major parties.

Moberg explained: "Nader directs his most withering criticism at Clinton, Gore and Lieberman. Nader says Gore is a 'political coward' suffering from 'a serious character problem,' [and calls Gore] 'disgusting' in the way he panders to black church audiences...." Despite Nader's pandering to the NAACP in Baltimore.

Nader said he'd unhesitatingly back Greens against even arch-liberal Democrats and vowed the Greens would focus their spoiler efforts on the closest races. In his own words, Nader said that where Democrats "are winning 51-to-49 percent [he will] go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to lose people, whether they're good or bad." That's what Nader is doing in Wisconsin, Texas, and all around the US.

Moberg adds "Nader is willing to sacrifice progressives like Russ Feingold in Wisconsin or Wellstone." In Nader's own words: "That's the burden they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray."

Now Nader is trying to make Wellstone pay while avoiding any accountability. This is nothing new for Nader, who still refuses to accept any responsibility for helping Bush keep the 2000 election close enough to steal. Act irresponsibly and deny responsibility for your actions. When in doubt, blame the victim. That's the Nader MO, and it's what he taught his followers to do. The Minnesota Green Party is trying to blame their helping Republican Coleman on Wellstone.

Wellstone, generally regarded as the most liberal and green-friendly member of Congress, defended Nader and his right to run for President in 2000. As Green Party spokeswoman Holle Brian admitted to The Progressive Magazine editor Ruth Conniff, however, "People came to the [Green] convention with the goal of endorsing a candidate [against Wellstone] come hell or high water."

They picked someone to the right of Wellstone on many issues, who support war in Iraq, and failed other litmus tests the Greens claimed made Wellstone unacceptable. They blame this on Wellstone!

Even if this were an aberration, progressives would find this nihilism alarming. However, as Meyerson reports: "The race against Wellstone, in fact, is not an exception to Green strategy, but its quintessence. Already the Greens have tipped congressional races to the Republicans in Michigan and New Mexico, and there was that unfortunate outcome of the presidential race about 18 months ago. In fairness, Ralph Nader warned us then that even a Democrat who brilliantly advanced liberal causes would merit Green opposition."

Ah, that presidential race! As Nader fan Eric Alterman wrote in the Nation, Tweedledee, Indeed, "Naderites, [claimed] that 'frightened liberals' had blinded themselves to the opportunity to build a genuine progressive opposition party in exchange for a few pro-choice Supreme Court Justices and the odd rhetorical gesture. That's why, even when it became clear that Nader held the balance between Gore and Bush in key states like Florida and New Hampshire, he refused to release his supporters. Nader actually looked forward to a Bush presidency because it would 'galvanize' progressives and teach the Democrats a lesson."

Then Alterman explained the lesson Nader and Bush taught us by listing changes in just the first two months of the Bush Occupation:

* convinced the House of Representatives to pass a $2 trillion tax cut, of which 43 percent will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans;

* signed a bankruptcy bill, vetoed by President Clinton, designed to squeeze poor and middle-class people with medical emergencies, childcare payments and the like, but which does nothing to curb banks' predatory lending practices, which target the young and poor;

* signed a bill overturning Clinton Administration work rules requiring employers to address conditions causing repetitive stress syndrome--affecting more than 1.8 million workers, nearly two-thirds of whom are women--in what looks to be the opening shot in an all-out war against organized labor;

* torpedoed global efforts to combat planetary warming--breaking a campaign pledge and humiliating his EPA chief--by ruling out regulation of carbon dioxide emissions (after Nader lauded Bush's support for such measures as "historic");

* proposed the opening of "all public lands [!]," including national monuments, to drilling by his oil company cronies;

* Undermined John McCain and Russell Feingold's efforts to control the abusive, antidemocratic campaign finance system;

* subverted the South Korean peace process--and humiliated his own Secretary of State--to preserve arguments for the costly Star Wars boondoggle.

Alterman added: "Note that I haven't even mentioned the appointment of extremists like John Ashcroft and Theodore Olson, who will be advising Bush about whom to appoint to the federal bench; or Gale Norton, the James Watt protege now heading the Interior Department, who believes polluters should be trusted to be self-policing; or Andrew Card, the automobile industry's chief lobbyist, now Chief of Staff; or Michael Powell, the new head of the FCC, who has no interest in moderating media mergers. And I haven't said a word about so-called social issues."

Alterman also left out Bush's notoriously negligent international relations decisions. Bush washed his hands of the Middle East crisis, and let that conflict explode. His orders removed Clinton's safeguards against terrorist attacks - such as the two Los Angeles Class attack subs Clinton aimed at the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Also, Bush's orders to the CIA, FBI and others to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists undercut our national security.

Is Nader at all concerned about any of this? Does he regret his broken promises not to help Bush or his silence in the aftermath of the deadlocked then stolen election? No, he does not, and many on the left have noticed.

Even so, "Many of his critics say they are willing to forget about 2000, if only Nader and the Greens do not oppose Democrats in close congressional races in 2002," writes Jon Margolis in the Nader friendly Mother Jones magazine. His article Nader Unrepentant quotes Amy Isaacs, national director of Americans for Democratic Action, "What's done is done, but if in the face of everything they're still going to threaten good Democratic members in 2002—well, if he wants to commit political suicide, okay, but he can't ask me to drink the Kool-Aid with him."

Other leftists criticize Nader for more than just trying to build up the Greens at Democrats' expense. Some - who have no love lost for Democrats - see a real tilt toward the Bush Republicans. As the World Socialist Website reported in Nader speaks in Detroit: Green Party presidential candidate keeps silent on Bush by Jerry White:

"One of the most remarkable phenomena of recent months has been the political amnesty granted President George W. Bush by former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Since Bush's inauguration, Nader, who campaigned as an opponent of corporate domination of the two major US parties, has remained mute about one of the most right-wing and openly pro-business governments in US history."

Even after the long list of Bush Occupation outrages Eric Alterman listed above, Nader appeared April 2, 20001 at a Detroit, Michigan university campus and made a "one-hour speech" which lacked "any mention of Bush or the right-wing policies of the new administration."

Nader only referred to Bush "in reply to questions from the audience. At one point he acknowledged that Bush was overturning standards to protect workers from on-the-job injuries and restrict arsenic levels in drinking water. But he chose his words in such a way as to deflect the blame from Bush and shift the onus onto former President Clinton: 'All those things that Bush is eliminating - ergonomics and environmental protections - Clinton set a trap for him and he fell right into it."

Nader reluctantly admitted a few Bush abuses, but helped the right wing by blaming Clinton for them! Was this Ralph Nader or Rush Limbaugh? The speech was too late for an April Fool's Day joke.

White explains how Nader's attitude and outlook hurts the Greens: "But Nader's remarks raise another, even more fundamental, issue. They show the lack of seriousness that he and the Greens have about building a genuine alternative to the two capitalist parties. The real perspective of the Green Party is to become an effective pressure group on the existing parties." That's far from certain, but Nader seems intent on hurting one of the parties - the Democrats - to the benefit of the Republicans.

"Addressing another question from the audience Nader said, 'Clinton and Gore did nothing to protect the environment,' and proceeded to ask the audience, 'How much are you losing?' with Bush in the White House," according to White. Again, this was after the long list of Bush Occupation moves which Alterman listed which marked a decidedly anti-progressive trajectory.

Many people might well tell Nader that they had already lost a lot with Bush, and have lost even more since that speech. The failed Bush economic, social, environmental and international policies lost us $trillions, millions of jobs, rights and freedoms - while Nader and Bush try to blame all that on Bill Clinton.

As White reported, "Nader is going out of his way to provide political cover for Bush and the Republicans. Last month, he co-authored an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal that gave a positive appraisal of the new administration." That's true! Nader's March 7 Op-Ed entitled 'Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It' actually praised Bush's corporate policies! See: Ralph Nader's political olive branch to Bush.

Nader believes only he and those who blindly follow him are pure and true. Any dissent is "evil" and must be attacked. As Media Whores on Line explains, Nader prefers the company of people like Pat Buchanan and Grover Norquist to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Why? Not just because these other uncompromising authoritarians share his basic outlook and approaches. Because people who actually get things done have to make compromises, and the Nader that's a betrayal.

Don't take my word for it, take these comments from a generally pro-Nader and very pro-Green article: It isn't easy being Green with Nader, by Aubrey Immelman, St. Cloud Times Columnist,"Nader's dominant, controlling orientation and distrusting nature, in conjunction with his aloofness and extreme conscientiousness, make him [what] personality expert Theodore Millon labeled 'the puritanical compulsive.' [Someone who is] 'austere, self-righteous, highly controlled' individuals whose 'intense anger and resentment ... is given sanction, at least as they see it, by virtue of their being on the side of righteousness and morality.'"

"For them, the world is divided into saints and sinners, and they arrogate for themselves the role of savior. Their mission is to root out vice, evil, and iniquity, their wrath becoming, as Millon puts it, 'the vengeful sword of righteousness.' [I]n politics, the problem with puritanical pursuit of principle is that it moves inexorably toward ever-greater degrees of fundamentalism." [Quoting the old saw] "Politics is the art of the possible. In politics, fundamentalism - to strive, to seek, to find, and then to smite - is not the American way."

Ironically, this inflexible fundamentalist attitude drove Nader himself to betray every cause he ever supported in 2000 when he actively helped Bush. Nader's admirers admit he lied to them when he promised not to help Bush, but focused on swing states - especially Florida - anyway. They felt betrayed when he did that, and then when he refused to take a stand in favor of voting rights during the recount controversy.

There's no question Nader intentionally empowers right wingers. Again, don't take my word for it. Nader freely admits this himself. He vows to defeat Democrats, even those far more progressive than himself, to punish them for - in Nader's words - "letting their party go astray."

Building the Green Party? That's secondary on Nader's agenda. Progress on issues - defending hard won gains and achieving more? Protecting consumers, education, the environment, workers, civil rights, choice, gun safety, gay rights (which Nader mocks as "gonadal politics") and other life and death concerns for those in most need? Not even on Nader's radar, as Congressman Barney Frank explained so well in his Letter to Ralph Nader, by Barney Frank.

Frank observed that Nader's own words reveal his priorities. By denying Gore and Bush differed on any important issues, Nader was saying these issues aren't important to Nader.

"My explicit points are that Gore and Bush differ sharply on whether or not a woman should be allowed to decide to have an abortion; whether or not the federal government should act against discrimination based on sexual orientation; whether or not the federal government should seek to regulate gun ownership further; and on important aspects of how to deal with racial prejudice, including the subject of affirmative action."

Frank allowed that Nader was honestly stating his views, respecting Nader enough to take Nader at his word: "[Y]our assertion that there are no important issue differences between Bush and Gore is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that the issues I have just cited are not important."

Frank "[F]urther argued, based on my own experience in Congress in dealing with these issues, and my recollection of your advocacy, that since you have generally ignored these issues in your career, it is reasonable to assume that the answer is that you do not believe that they are important." As Frank explains, Nader is entitled to support any cause he chooses, but his stance "undermines the efforts of those of us who are working on them."

Frank noted a change in Nader's rhetoric, if not his actual commitment on several progressive issues: "Apparently, you are beginning to recognize that this posture is an obstacle to your gaining votes among many liberals and others to whom these are very significant concerns. And I take it that is why you asserted at the Press Club that you are a 'superior' candidate to Gore on gay and lesbian concerns. On this point, the record flatly contradicts you."

Frank then detailed how Nader was misstating the record. "Vice President Gore has been an active advocate for the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals for many years." This in stark contrast to Nader's refusal to get involved.

"Your desire to avoid what you deride as 'gonadal politics,' and I think of as the fight for gay and lesbian rights, has been consistent. Having been actively involved in the fight against gay and lesbian bias in Congress since 1981, I cannot remember ever hearing from you on this subject. And the record shows that you have similarly avoided the subject of abortion."

Nader had no answer. He was AWOL and MIA on the issues Frank listed, so his only response was to duck his record and attack Frank's intelligence! Carl Pope, the President of the Sierra Club, Gloria Steinem, union leaders and other staunch progressives also questioned Nader's attacks against Al Gore and Nader's record on the issues, and Nader also attacked them personally - impugning their courage, commitment, and honesty.

Nader's irresponsible, vindictive behavior hurts the Green Party as it alienates erstwhile allies. It also hurts all progressives, really all people and living things on planet Earth, because it divides the center / left and empowers the extreme right wing. Why does Nader do this? His personality - his will to punish - drives him to it.

Nader says former Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt was useful because he was a "provocateur" for change, according to a Jacob Weisberg article that appeared November 7, 2000 in The Guardian, titled It's Sectarian Idiocy, Weisberg quotes LA Times coverage of a Nader speech in Orange, California: "After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.'"

The pro-Nader Nation magazine quoted a Nader speech in Madison, Wisconsin, "We want [Democrats] to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes." David Moberg interviewed Nader for In These Times. Moberg said Nader vowed to lead "the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic Party." The Progressive and The American Prospect - both pro-Nader magazines - reported even with the Senate hanging by a thread, Nader is carrying out his plans to defeat even the most liberal and progressive Democrats, for just these reasons.

For Nader, Nothing is more important than punishing Democrats - even though that empowers right wingers and reverses years and decades of progress. Don't take my word for this. Take Nader's own words - and actions - as proof. This appears to hurt the Green Party and the progressive movement. Personally I think the Greens and progressives can do much better, but I have learned Nader supporters hate to be told what to do - unless it's by Nader. Each will have to choose for him or herself. I hope they do so with wide open eyes.