Just some legislation passed because Nader got it through:

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Consumer Product Safety Act

Freedom of Information Act

As the nation's premier consumer advocate, he founded Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Center for Women's Policy Studies, Connecticut Citizen's Action Group, the Disability Rights Center, the Pension Rights Center and the Multinational Monitor magazine.

It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that the federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection Agency, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and a Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Nader is responsible for the existence of automobiles that have seat belts, padded dashboards, air bags, non-impaling steering columns, and gas tanks that don't readily explode when the car gets rear-ended. He is therefore responsible for the existence of some millions of drivers and passengers who would otherwise be dead. Because of Nader, baby foods are no longer spiked with MSG, kids' pajamas no longer catch fire, tap water is safer to drink than it used to be, diseased meat can no longer be sold with impunity, and dental patients getting their teeth x-rayed wear lead aprons to protect their bodies from dangerous zaps.

We've all heard the argument before, in one form or another, that Nader put Bush in the White House, and no one but Nader (not Gore, not the Democrats, not the millions of voters who voted for Bush) is responsible for the Bush presidency.

But for a number of reasons there is no way to calculate the impact of Nader's candidacy then or now. We can say that democracy has never been defined as a two-party system, even in this damaged republic where the Left was destroyed almost a century ago. We can also say that discouraging the number of candidates and parties (if we must have political clubs) is the practice of dictators and not of free peoples.

Ralph Nader's central thesis is that corporate influence on lawmakers is a greater danger to democracy than a second Bush term. There are many people who agree with that assessment.

There is no need for Nader supporters, of which I am one, to avoid the fact that Ralph acted badly in the last several weeks of the 2000 campaign. He shouldn't have campaigned in swing states, especially since he had told so many supporters that he wouldn't. Nader made some serious mistakes, and Gore made far more serious ones, and a rational analysis of the 2000 election requires acknowledgment of the deficiencies of both candidates as well as both of their virtues.

None of those facts, however, contradicts the fact that Nader was articulating the frustration and pain of millions of Democrats who felt abandoned like never before by the presidential nominee of their party, and that Nader was raising vital issues such as poverty, corporate influence on government, and the drug war which were completely absent from the Gore and Bush campaigns. Nader's errors in 2000 may tarnish his credibility, but he is still a towering moral figure in American politics whose actual accomplishments outstrip those of most elected officials.

So I hope that answers your question, artbrooks, since you apparently are having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between Nader and Louis Farakhan for Nader and David Duke.