WASHINGTON - You'd have to be nutty, naive or Republican to cheer for Ralph Nader.

He's run out of new things to say, reasons to run for president and good works to promote. No self-respecting Democrat will go near him.

He claims he's not seeking to bring down the Democratic presidential nominee, as he did in the 2000 election by siphoning just enough votes in key states from Vice President Al Gore to hand the election to Gov. George W. Bush. So why's he doing it?

President Truman used to say that too many public figures who come to Washington leave wearing a hat two sizes bigger than when they arrived. The aging consumer advocate is a perfect example of that swelled-head syndrome, posturing as a reformer long after he lost his public appeal, his credibility and his usefulness to society.

Nader turns 70 on Friday. Ronald Reagan proved that age need not be an insurmountable handicap in a presidential race. But Reagan had a sunny character and Nader has the personality of a platypus.

Age isn't his problem. Relevance is. The much-admired crusader against faulty consumer products gradually has become just another left-wing crank.

In 2000, he got 3 percent of the vote, not enough to qualify for subsequent federal matching funds. But in the extremely tight election that year his votes totaled more than Bush's margin of victory in Florida and New Hampshire.

Mere mention of his name at Democratic events invariably elicits angry boos. Even Nader conceded, "This candidacy is not going to get many Democratic party votes."

Nader says his candidacy will draw more votes away from Bush than the Democratic nominee. But corporate-bashing, Nader's favorite theme, is not big among core Bush supporters.

The GOP loves the corporate culture; Bush, after all, is the nation's chief CEO.

But campaign contributions to Nader might be a different issue. His candidacy can't hurt the GOP, only the Democrats. Therefore he's more likely to get money from Republicans whose goal is to hurt the Democrats.

It's not clear just who Nader thinks is breathlessly waiting for his leadership. He claims that there are millions of people who want a third choice because there's no philosophical difference between the two major parties. This is insane. The voters already have a clear choice.

In 2000, both candidates muddied their differences - Bush with his clever but shallow "compassionate conservatism" and Gore with his reluctance to embrace President Clinton's policies. That is not true in 2004. President Bush has taken a clear path to the right - pushing hard for pro-business, anti-abortion judges; catering to business interests with big tax cuts and weakened environmental regulations, expanding government secrecy and surveillance powers; recklessly generating huge deficits; pressing for the privatization and eventual destruction of Medicare and Social Security.

And, of course, he threw another bouquet to the right with his Tuesday endorsement of a constitutional amendment that would criminalize same-sex marriages.

Any infant can see this is not the direction Gore would have taken us. Can anyone imagine that Gore would have named that intolerant icon of the religious right, John Ashcroft, as attorney general? Or invaded Iraq on the basis of shaky intelligence without waiting for official backing from the United Nations or our traditional allies? Or appointed an education secretary willing to call the nation's major teachers' union "terrorists?"

Ex-Gov. Howard Dean, driven from the Democratic contest last week, issued a strong statement begging his former supporters not to shift to Nader. If Bush wins re-election, he warned "it will be government by, of and for the corporations - exactly what Ralph Nader has struggled against."

Nader's official rationale for running is goofy. He has no new message of reform that the country is dying to hear. And he has no reasonable expectation of actually winning. His support is likely to be lower than it was four years ago. Good thing, too; if he reached the White House as an independent he could never impose his radical notions on Congress, whether it remains in GOP control or shifts Democratic. He couldn't govern.

So there must be something else going on here. As his fame has declined, are his speaking engagements and fees in need of a publicity boost? Does he want to punish Democrats because he resents their turning against him? Or does he simply miss all the public attention he used to attract?

Whatever. He's doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time. He's making a fool of himself. But we can't let him make fools of us.