Nader does not make any sense: on the one hand he echoes cries of 2000 that there still is no difference in the mainstream parties; on the other, he says his aim is to beat Bush! It sounds as though in throwing in the hat he thinks he can continue Dean’s aggressive criticism of “Washington Insiders,” disregarding the obvious that Kucinich and Sharpton are still in the race to do just that. Or is it that he thinks Kerry is getting too much of a free ride, and Nader has to be around to keep him honest — leading to the question who is going to keep Nader honest? He is no longer the heroic figure leading the Raiders against corporate corruption. New York’s district attorney is active in that field; and as for the environmental pollution control there are many powerful organizations. Nader would be much more valuable running for congress than thinking he can stir up a populist movement nationwide as though the nation did not have to worry about terrorism and world affairs, let alone the economy.

Nader is an affront to Kerry who is indeed a “Washington Insider” but very much differs with Bush on a ton of issues. For starters Bush’s 2005 budget proposal, in spite of huge deficits, continues to plague the nation with additional tax cuts while cutting some very important and needed programs. Kerry is clearly against the proposal. Bush’s proposal is designed not to offend his base anymore than he has already. The biggest winner in the budget is defense and to make matters worse does not include the military expenses of Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry has already been a target of criticism for usually being against increases in defense even though he is strong on defense but finds Pentagon requests questionable when it comes to additional weaponry added to an already well stocked arsenal. In this year’s proposal, he probably will question additional purchases for the air force, rather than items of necessary repair to those in operation, since the depletion of the wars, other than helicopters, has been nil. He certainly will not object to the pay raise of military personnel, if anything he might consider a 3½% increase insufficient. The problem with voting in congress on a budget is that members are usually faced with take it as is or not at all.

For instance, to give credence to the Kerry approach to budgeting, is that in the current proposal the Justice Department grows by $3.5 billion and understandably most going to the FBI, yet slash funds going to local enforcement and actually charge local police for the use of its national laboratory. Though the Energy Department is slated for $300 million more for research, mostly for cleaner coal emissions, $72 million is cut in research for alternative fuels and fuel efficient cars and trucks. Granted as an environmentalist, Kerry would indeed vote against a 7.2% cut in EPA, and most certainly challenge Bush over controversial and hidden cuts.

Keep in mind Kerry is in a way like the Nader of old who monitored implementation of policy. An example would be Kerry favoring NCLB, but which turned out to be more inclined to ferret out failing schools in behalf of the voucher wing than in actually solving existing problems in behalf of public education. Implementation is going to be a calling card for Kerry as a defense against his voting record. One at the outset, as was Kerry, could be sucked into the heralded benefits of NAFTA, but simply leaving trade up to the whims of unregulated corporations and humane indifference of foreign leaders is not the ultimate objective of free trade.

In short, Nader has outlived his usefulness and hopefully will not get the support to interfere with another national election.