...Ok I had a good time last night, Stoli and cranberry. MMMMM! Anyways Nader and Dean. They debated on NPR radio. You can listen to the full debate here. Basically it was a debate on the role of third parties in US elections. You can read a short review of the debate here. or www.alternet.org/election04/2004/07/002168.html

Anyways apparently Howard Dean asked Nader to bow out of the race for the good of the United States, but Nader refused. At one point Dean claimed that 46% of the required signatures to get Nader on the Ballot in Arizona were from Republican supporters. Nader deflected the charge and continued to rip apart both of the ruling parties.

Dean brings up a good point. When there is a third candidate such as is the case right now, and that third candidate does not really have a chance to win, AND that third candidate is more likely to appeal to people who would otherwise support another candidate, what effect does that have. I mean you see the situation right now, we have Republicans actively trying to get Nader on the ballot and supporting his candidacy, even though they want Bush to win. While my immediate response is one of anger, I pause now to propose this idea.

If things were completely switched around and there was a third candidate who might pull votes away from a Republican and we knew the race was likely to be close, would I applaud Democrats who tried to underhandedly support that third party candidate?

Yes.

Most likely, anything to win. Would those democrats get away with it, or would the Republicans quickly jump on it and go after these Dems for misconduct?

No and Yes.