Did Nader sink the USS Gore or did Gore torpedo himself (With a large assist from Rove)?

Here's a still-provocative argument about Nader and the 2004 election - made by Andy Ostroy on his The Ostroy Report - with which I fundamentally disagree but I think raises some very important issues that are well worth thinking about.
My response follows.
"We Can Thank the Nader-ites for "Scalito" Alito":
"Rewind, if you will, back to the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore vs George W. Bush. Oh, and Ralph Nader, remember him? You know, the one who pulled all those votes away from Gore, especially in Florida, and in the process prevented him from becoming president and sent Bush to Washington instead. The guy who refused to drop out of the race despite desperate pleas from the Left that his spoiler act could change America in ways unthinkable. Well, his colossal ego and supreme narcissism won out and he stayed the course. And the rest, as they say, is history.

"But it's the naive, "message-sending" followers of this selfish fool who we now have to thank for the past five disastrous years of Bush, and worse, for the nomination Monday of staunch conservative jurist Samuel "Scalito" Alito to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. For those of you still in the dark, that's "Scalito," as in, "little Scalia." Alito's nomination has sent the far right wing of the Republican Party into a euphoric state over this solid pro-lifer who's record strongly indicates he'll jump through hoops to overturn Roe V. Wade. The Rehnquist-for-Roberts swap had little consequence. The O'Connor-for-Alito trade, however, has the potential to dramatically and dangerously shift the high court to the far right. The Democrats must come out in full body-armor on this one and fight to the death if we ever intend to preserve personal freedoms; the right to privacy; separation of church and state; and other constitutional bedrocks.

"This nightmarish scare is the work of those misguided Nader-ites who, back in 2000, said there was "no difference" between Gore and Bush; who said they felt disappointed and betrayed by the Democratic Party; who said they needed to "send a message" of this frustration through their "protest vote" for Nader. They sent a message alright, and that message was..."Welcome to the White House, Mr. Bush." Want to talk betrayal? How about how the Nader-ites now feel having lived through five years of the Bush betrayal on humanity? Their unfortunate protest vote just might result in the conservative Taliban of this country setting back judicial progress 30+ years.

"Oh how it was so clear to the rest of us what the stakes were. Why couldn't these reckless folks see it too? Did they really think Bush would serve their interests and ideals as well as Gore? Could they have been that naive? Many on the left even desperately tried to "swap" votes with Nader supporters through web sites that were set up in an attempt to minimize the impact of his candidacy. I am proud to say I was one of them. But that effort failed as well. The Nader-ites were on some sort of sanctimonious, self-righteous mission to prove they were more worthy of the political process than the rest of us who were simply trying to keep a dangerous, unqualified moron out of the White House.

"If I sound angry, I am. Damn angry. Punch my fist into a wall angry. You don't play games with people's lives. With people's freedoms. With constitutional rights. Nader's supporters knowingly and willfully rolled out the red carpet for Bush through their wasteful protest vote. Funny how there are no more Nader-ites. The 2004 election proved that. Sadly, they've learned their lesson in the most unfortunate way. Let's just hope that for the rest of us, there's still time to wage a holy war on these religious fanatics who've highjacked the country from the founding fathers."

Here's my response as posted on The Ostroy Report:

"Hey Andy,
"I'm really glad to have come accross your blog. I intend to add it to my links www.contestedterrain.blogspot.com.

But I can't agree with your argument about Nader. Although I didn't vote for him, most of the people I know who did would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run. I simply don't believe that the way to strengthen democracy is to reduce the number of people speaking out. Running for office is one way to be heard (but, unfortunately, not in the mainstream media). Much of what Nader had to say, particularly about fair trade and the global economy are essential to any left understanding of the world today.

"Blaming Nader for the newly resurgent right-wing capture of the institutions of power in the U.S., simply ignores the long history of the Democratic Party's strategic mistakes and abandonment of the principles that made it what it was. It has always been an amalgam of disparate forces that can only be held together by a very strong candidate (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton). Neither Gore nor Kerry could manage it. Although it's a mistake to overlook the fact that Gore actually won the 2004 election and then it was taken away by the machinations of brother Jeb in Florida and Scalia on the Supreme Court. If that had happened in any other country, it would be called a coup, not an election.

"Had Gore sat down with Nader during the campaign and either offered him the vice-presidency (instead of the extreme right-wing choice he made) or at least incorporated most of Nader's issues into his campaign - Kerry never did either - then things might have been different, but I'm not certain even of that.

"I think the time has come for us - on the left - to realize that we can't depend on either party to do our work for us, we have to do it ourselves. If that isn't clear from even a superficial reading of U.S. political history, it should be obvious from the recent behavior of the right-wing in it's dealings with Bush and the Republicans. They certainly understand the dynamic.
Ah well, I've gone on far too long. But I really am happy to have found your blog. I will come back to it often. Good luck, peace."