Thanks for the reply. I think the Democrats deserve Nader. If they want to run a pro-corporate frat brother of Bush as the 'Candidate of change', then they are marginalizing a portion of their constituency that does vote, and votes loudly. I cannot see how Kerry represents any change from the status quo of Bush's 'steady-as-she-goes' re-election strategy.
I watched the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot for Clinton and Dukakis and ended up mariginalizing themselves because of the lack of integrity they displayed to Republicans that morality is not important to them. I'd rather stay in bed than support the Clinton's and Kerry's of this world.
If all we're going to hear is Bush say "We need to make the pie higher" and Kerry say "ditto", then we need a Nader to shake things up a bit. NOW, if Kerry tries to marginalize his own Party principles and mimic Bush, there will be a corresponding loss of votes they know they need to win. They are their own worst enemy for it and Nader is not to blame they are neglecting addressing the real issues.
I understand Nader is trying to get the shell of the campaign Dean was running to put back up to use for his own Campaign. I don't see Dean's votes going to Kerry given the choice. It's kind of like the head of the afl-cio saying he endorses Kerry. So what! The members won't support an anti-labor Candidate no matter how much they say they will.
I know a teachers Union in Rochester NY. The teachers hate the union and take every election as a way to pay it back for the constant betrayal by its elitist leadership, which uses corrupt power to entrench itself no matter how they want it changed. Not all Union heads speak for the members, it's just show for the 'controlled-media' to say it does.