Some moral dilemmas are less immoral than others. The one morally dubious action on my part that stands out in a year chock full of them was the time a man petitioning on behalf of Ralph Nader stopped me in front of a bookstore in Squirrel Hill. He had the glassy-eyed look of a true believer and a slightly twitchy moral fervor to match.

"Ah, you're Tony Norman," he said with an inappropriately wide smile. It has always been my fate to be recognized on the street by the wrong people.

"I enjoy your columns," he said, trying to disarm me with flattery. He quickly extended a clipboard. "As you know, Ralph Nader is campaigning for president," he said. "The dominant political parties are determined to keep his name off the state ballot, a move that would restrict your choice in November.

"We want more democracy not less," he said.

Well, not exactly, I thought. It wasn't clear what dominant political parties he imagined were locked in a conspiracy against his candidate, but surely he couldn't have been counting Republicans among them. As much as conservatives may hate Nader's politics, they love what he stands for: a divided vote against George Bush.

Given all the money from conservative grass roots operators that was then pouring into Nader's coffers in places like Michigan and Florida, the GOP was doing all it could to make sure his name made it onto as many state ballots as possible.

So, who was in this coalition of dominant political parties out to stop Nader? The American Socialist Party? Lyndon LaRouche's boys? The Greens? Jews for Jesus? The Sierra Club? The Crips?

Honestly, it's the Democrats who were being obstructionist, and rightly so. The party watched in horror as Nader siphoned just enough votes from Gore in 2000 to throw a few closely contested states into the Bush column. To allow such a distraction on the 2004 ballot, even in the name of an abstract ideal of fairness to third-party candidates, is to invite a thousand years of Republican hegemony.

As much as I hate weaseling and maneuvering, I'm even less happy about the prospect of four more years of George W. Bush. So dealing with a Nader supporter trying to get my signature on a petition became a moment of truth. Nader may be right on most issues, but I couldn't support his candidacy in good conscience. The petitioner's clipboard hovered ominously. Would I be true to a progressive politics of inclusion or would I be a Democratic stooge?

"I signed a petition already," I told the man, lying through my teeth. A look of palpable disappointment crept across his face. He knew I was lying. "Good luck," I said, uttering a second lie before heading into the bookstore.

Any guilt I may have harbored for lying evaporated once I read Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins reasons for knocking Ralph Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania two days ago: "I am compelled to emphasize that this signature-gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetuated upon this court."

Ouch! And the judge was just getting started. Of 51,000 signatures Nader submitted, only 19,000 were valid. Nader needed 25,697 to get on the ballot.

"In reviewing signatures, it became apparent that, in addition to signing names such as 'Mickey Mouse,' 'Fred Flintstone,' 'John Kerry,' and the ubiquitous 'Ralph Nader,' there were thousands of names that were created at random and then assigned either existent or nonexistent addresses by the circulator," Colins said.

As if accepting millions of dollars from Republicans wasn't bad enough, the nation's foremost consumer advocate allowed tens of thousands of bogus signatures to be submitted in his name in Pennsylvania. Judge Colins said the conduct of Nader's campaign "[shocked] the conscience of the court."

Maybe somebody ought to open an investigation into what happened to Ralph Nader's ethics before its too late.

First Published: October 15, 2004, 4:00 a.m.