Are not the last eight years of history enough? Or have you completely forgotten that if you had not run in 2000 there would have been an entirely different president (and party) in the White House for no less than four of the past four years - arguably the most critical of those four years, no less.
That type of question hardly warrants a response. Perhaps you haven't read a newspaper in the past 78 months, but the corrupt fuckwad who stole the office in 2000 has made a real hash of things since... you did read about the events of that sunny Tuesday in New York one September, right?
I challenge you to put together a list of positive gains that have come from a result of your act of diluting the votes of the Dem's in 2000. Here I'll even give you a bit of help: Al Gore won an Oscar last year. (C'mon, you ought to be able to come up with one more - I'll give you a hint, it also involves Al Gore having more time on his hands than he would have as President and thus winning an award of some significance.)
Okay, now does anything on that list come close to matching the other side of that coin?
That being: Throwing the world into further religious and political instability and putting your own country into financial ruin in the course?
"Oh yes, but this is different. Not even the Republicans would vote for a candidate as right-wing as GWB this time around. How do you think John McCain became the apparent nominee?"
You're missing the point. Even I agree that when it comes to Elephants, McCain is about as good as it gets - you are right that is how he managed to get to where he is and he has the current climate to thank... I guess you could say he has you to thank. I 'get' that you think that there is political value in a third candidate - an option. I totally believe in a 3+ party system. I think it works quite well for us in Canada... and our third party is WAY closer to having a snowball's chance than your independent ass.
But as 'decent' an option as McCain is, your country NEEDS to change. The Democrats are already hell bent on leveling the playing field. Perhaps no one has pointed this out to you, but they're taking advantage of the nearly sure-fire-win situation that they are in and are on the verge of nominating either a woman, or a black man (and it's really looking like it's the latter). The Republicans have fucked things up so much that the Dem's feel totally comfortable taking an apparent surefire win and making a bit of a race of it by putting a historically earth shattering candidate up for the big office.
So let's look at this...
The Republicans are putting up a guy so moderate he's practically a Democrat on some issues.
The Democrats are, one way or the other, going for the hail mary.
There might actually be a race going on here as a result.
What if that race is as close as 2000? What IF Ralph?