Nader and McKinney both signed on to Ron Paul’s four point plan, so I think that alone was a good reason to invite them to the press conference. It was also a good way to get leftists to pay attention and to be exposed to libertarian & constitutionalists ideas.

That may be true, but the whole point of voting for a 3rd party is to get away from the “lesser of evils” mentality.

It reminds me of the determination of some people to portray Palin as a libertarian. While she’s not quite as bad as McCain, she’s far less of a libertarian than even the much maligned (and often with good reason) Bob Barr.

It seems to me that Ron Paul supporters had basically 4 choices in this election: Barr, Baldwin, some sort of write-in vote (either for Paul or for someone else, like Charles Jay), or not voting at all.

If they chose to vote for Obama, McCain, Nader or McKinney, then I think they were making a mistake – either in the general election or in the primary, when they voted for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did not endorse Nader, he endorsed the concept of voting for candidates who are outside of the Democrat & Republican boxes.

Ralph Nader – with all of his faults of which there are plenty from a libertarian perspective – is still less toxic than Barrack Obama and John McCain.

When he talks like this, it makes me wonder why some libertarians seem to be such a fan of this guy, and why Ron Paul would bother to “endorse” him (or McKinney for that matter).

Ugh…

The problem is with it being mandatory.

I’d also like to say that this is the Ralph Nader that should have been around since 2000, rather than the divisive presidential candidate. And was this printed in the WSJ?

We need to stop this globalized-citizenship bullcrap and let the greenies have all the ice countries.