When the other side is 'green'er...

If you thought Dean's getting ousted from the democratic presidential race because of his "primal scream", or Clinton's infidelity being compared to Watergate or the infamous Florida ballot of 2000 (to borrow Dave Barry's eloquent style, ‘[where the voters] apparently voted for two presidents, or no presidents, or part of a president, or, in some cases, simply drooled on the ballot') were the funniest, most ridiculous things that happened in American politics, you haven't heard of the new-found alliance between the former green party face and --surprise, surprise-- the GOP itself.

Much as 'My enemy's enemy is a friend' works wonders in the uncomplicated life of a layman, it takes the already comical world of politics to new heights of absurdity.

Why would two conservative groups that oppose same sex marriages and abortion rights support the farthest left-wing candidate in the nation?

Kibbe, the president of one of the groups, the Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy says ----Nader "forces John Kerry to explain where he is on things". Unless I'm grossly misinformed, this surely is the first instance of nominating candidates to explain what OTHER candidates stood for. And if the theory of painting black to make the white look whiter were true, how about a far-right candidate on the spectrum? After all, doesn't Bush support civil-unions and fund stem cell research?

And if I were to go a little further and suggest a candidate, Ann Coulter would fit that role to a tee. You don't get any "righter" than that. I think she comes closest to balancing the scales with Mike Moore on the other side (Not literally, of course).

She should be able to exemplify all the Republican mantras: "Do you actually BELIEVE that Bush is more dangerous than Saddam? Do you actually believe that Scott Peterson is innocent? Do you actually believe that Iraq did not train al Qaeda terrorists?" When will the grand old party learn that you don't run a country on belief? That's religion; but I guess we can’t blame them for not knowing the difference; after all, they oppose gay marriage and abortion and euthanasia because religion tells them to. Apparently, supporting someone that supports all of that doesn't count.

And their excuse for helping Nader: they want to "provide more choice".
Republicans --- those members of the political arena that are always intolerant to the liberal viewpoint, that NEVER let the democrat be heard in a talk show, that scream 'media bias' when the NY Times publishes more stories about Abu Ghraib than Nick Berg, that would move mountains to block distribution of a movie that represents the opposite side, that are ready to attach the label "traitor" the moment you oppose a single act of the president want more choice?

IMHO, they’d be better off allowing people that choice in choosing their life partner or making a decision about their unborn baby.