Keeping a candidate off a ballot and keeping his supporters from voting for him are two different issues.

Nonsense. Keeping a candidate off a ballot is simply one way of keeping his supporters from voting for him (the preferred way, for non-major-party candidates), presumably in the hopes they will then vote for someone else (Kerry, in Nader's case).

It is simply challenging Nader to make sure he has enough votes.  Yes it is a little underhanded, but then with all the invalid signatures that have popped up, I actually agree with it.

Sorry, but not all challenges to Nader are based on not having enough valid signatures. Many have been based on technicalities, such as filing paperwork a few hours late. In Arizona whole rafts of signatures from valid voters were tossed because the signature gatherer wasn't qualified (due to a drug conviction or some such nonsense).

Of course, the Rethugs haven't played fair with respect to Nader either, helping him get signatures even though they oppose everything he stands for, etc. Florida's SoS was especially egregious, defying a court order to place his name on absentee ballots.

Given that the Rethugs are going to play dirty, we may be justified in playing equally dirty to cancel them out. (Kind of like trying to find "blue" states to redistrict, to cancel out what Tom DeLay did in Texas last year.) That would make an interesting ethical discussion, but pretending we're being complete angels isn't helpful.

One more thing. It's not fair to give someone a '1' rating just because you disagree with them. Keep that in reserve for real trolls.