OK, I'm glad you agree that these should be "core concepts." That was not apparent to me from your initial remark, at least in part because I'm not sure all progressives would agree that either opposition to government per se or opposition to globabalization should be a goal of progressive organizing. (Doug has made clear his disagreement with the latter, for example.)
In any case, I agreed with you that Nader is making a mistake if he is building the cozy relationship with the parade of right wing demagogues as you claim. However, the real tactical question here is whether denouncing these groups wholesale and avoiding any contact with them is the most productive strategy if one's real objective is not to make alliances with their leadership, but to reach and begin the slow process of educating their rank and file membership. If progressives simply write off this constituency as hopelessly tainted by "racism, homophobia, antisemitism and sexism" as you seem to be doing, you need to provide some idea of constituencies which progressives might succeed in reaching and mobilizing.
Do you, for example, also write off catholics because the church leadership has a history of "racism, homophobia, antisemitism and sexism?" Its not obvious to me that alliances with the catholic church are any less tainted that those with the right wing groups you mention. Any movement which, for whatever reason, writes off catholics, however, pretty much guarantees its own marginalization. In short, what price are you willing to pay for ideological purity?
John