Although here in France "republican" doesnt have the exact meanong as in UD ( here a républicain is someone who favors values of French Republic)

here in the States under the 'Labour' banner.

As made famous by Will Rogers' comment, the Democratic Party was once notorious for not uniting--until it lost the Solid South and went right. (That timing was no coincidence, IMO). . Now, ironically, it's Republican politicians, once famous for lockstep, who are less unified than Democratic pols.

Putting aside the brainwashing misnomer "third" parties, the left could unite behind the Green Party. For one thing, though not very large, it's nonetheless the largest leftist political party in the US. For another, it's the only leftist party in the US with international affiliation. But, noooooooo.

I find it hard to take the Green Party of today seriously, though. I take it less seriously now than I did in 2000, when I actually worried about Nader. (Seems so long ago.) However, if the Green Party of today had greater numbers, the reasons why I find it hard to take it seriously might well change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

But that brings me full circle about the difficulty of unifying the left. And, without very significant funding, it's beyond difficult.

First, Nader poisoned the brand, when, after getting a mere 5% in 2000, he openly boasted about 'being a spoiler'. (Was he? No, although people here love to revile him for it.)

Second, Americans by and large aren't really all that strong on environmentalism, which is what, if they even know about the Green Party, they associate it with. Climate Change might be the crucial issue of our times, but in American politics, it takes a back seat to the economy of the 99% and jobs.

So 'Labour' can be pushed as the party of higher minimum wages, job training and job placement, unionization... all of the 'kitchen table' issues that both larger parties talk about when campaigning, but do too little about the rest of the time.

For whatever it's worth, the Greens already at least have name recognition, some infrastructure within this country, an international affiliation and some loyal followers and history in a few lower offices. None of that came without time, money and effort.

If the Greens had greater numbers of people and much more money, they could make it plain that environment is both important and not their only issue. In fact, if the left could unify behind them in large enough numbers, the newbies to the Party could change a lot.

As for Nader having poisoned the brand, I'm not sure that was permanent. I'm only one example of someone who was furious with Nader some years ago and is now saying, "I wish I had paid more attention to what he was saying." Also, his history probably brought as much to the brand as it took away. Besides, he has not been associated with the Green Party for a long time. (I don't take the vitriol directed at him by some--but not all--DUers as reflective of the nation.)

But, what was that I saying about leftists being notoriously unable to unify?

The are currently four Neonazi-parties in Germany, I think: NPD, DVU, Republikaner and Die Rechte. But they are all contesting for the same voting-bloc and the same donors. (Sound familiar?)
And they are categorized by deep distrust towards democracy/government (Sound familiar?), by egomaniac party-leaders (Sound familiar?) and by vicious infighting (Sound familiar?) because no party-leadership has the right to make decisions just like that just because the party-leadership was democratically elected.

In the 1980s, a former SS officer wanted to form a Neo-Nazi party in Germany. Since anything resembling the Nazis is forbidden in Germany, they had to find another name. They looked around for an inspiration and found it in Reagan's America: "die Republikaner."

Our Republicans used to scream and howl when I pointed this out. "Are you calling us Nazis?" they would ask with righteous indignation. My reply was always, "No, I'm only saying I find it regrettable that a bunch of Nazis, not allowed to use that name, find your party inspiring enough to use your name."

Sarko does have an argument that in French, "républicain" can indeed be interpreted to have a milder connotation. After all, the Revolution was to establish "la République" to replace the monarchy. But considering how far OUR "Republikaner" have drifted toward the modern German version, and that the French are avid readers of newspapers, I don't think Sarko is doing himself any favors with this move. It's been a long time since 1789, and the French (both pro and con) have been watching Obama's opponents closely.

By the way, the modern German "Republikaner," who never had much of a following in the first place, have practically faded from the scene, capturing less than 1% of the vote in those places where there are enough of them left to even field a candidate.