WE have five political parties, not two

self | Sat. Dec. 6, 2003 | Capt. Tom

[Capt. Tom]

I believe we have 5 important political groups involved in today’s Presidential politics and not just the two usual suspects called the Democrats and Republicans.

These 5 major groups are Democrats, Bushies, Republicans, Socialists and Clintonistas.

You can only get to the Presidency through the Republican and Democrat parties and no other way. The other 3 parties the Socialists, Clintonistas and Bushies have infiltrated these two established parties to get elected. They have obviously been successful in doing this.

If you intend to rise to the Presidency there are only two ladders. The Democrat ladder and the Republican ladder. So if you are neither a democrat nor republican and have a different agenda you have to pass yourself off as one or the other. This is a very common practice in the House and Senate. Trying the Ross Perot approach of building your own ladder to the Presidency is expensive and futile. You have to use an established national machine, and there are only two.

Let’s look at the so-called Democrats, and Socialists first. The Socialists started to infiltrate and take over the Democrat party in the mid 1960s, and today the so-called Democrat party is the Socialist party. The Democrat party today is not the party of John Breau, Zell Miller or Harry Truman. This Democrat party is for communists, socialists, America haters and sexual deviants. People who could never get elected without a 'D' or 'R' after their name. This is the party of Michael Moore, Barney Frank and Barbara Streisand. And unfortunately it still has the confused remnants of the Democrat party; many of who are good hard working Americans who love this country, who would defend it with their lives and want it to be successful. They don’t seem to realize their party has been hi-jacked by the Socialists. The option of voting Republican for many democrats is too revolting to consider. It takes a long time to get the message.

The Republican Party in my opinion is correctly stereotyped as ignoring labor and being pro big business. (You don’t get a job from a poor person) Some of the right wing Democrats (like me) have left the anti- American socialists, and now vote Republican because the Republicans are perceived as being pro- American, and pro family. The same values many democrats hold. It’s a hard thing to do: to vote for the “lesser of two evils” or as some say “the evil of two lessers.” And besides there is no longer a democrat party.

If only the Republicans weren’t so stupid and politically inept, and would stand up to the Socialists who are ruining our country. The good news for the gutless inept Republicans is the Clinton haters, the pro Bushies and ex-democrats (like myself) have been united against the Socialists and Clintonistas because of their anti- Americanism and shenanigans. The Republicans are presently in charge of the House, Senate and Governorships - no thanks to the political acumen of the Republicans. The Bushies have the Presidency.

The Bushies didn’t repeat Ross Perots very expensive mistake. They used the Republican Party ladder to get to the top. Actually fooling Republicans isn’t very difficult.

The Bushies push their agenda, which leaves the Republicans confused. For example: Some Republicans are totally bewildered by Bush’s not securing our border with Mexico, and allowing thousands of illegals to cross every day. And the President making stupid statements like “Islam is a religion of peace” or ‘’we worship the same God.’’ A major example is the Bushies incredible socialistic Medicare spending bill just passed, that robs the young to pay for the olds medical bills. Well if you think the Bushies are Republicans you are bound to be confused.

The last politically important group is the Clintonistas. They came up the Democrat (socialist) ladder, and hi-jacked the party at the Presidential level. The Clintonistas will do anything to stay in power. They bewilder the socialists (Democrats) by signing welfare reform bills and being pro death penalty. Then amazingly they use the Socialist party apparatus to stay in power. I.e. Terry McAuliffe.

The Clintonistas stay on the presidential political stage to the detriment of the socialist candidates; who can’t get any attention, and are now described as the 9 dwarfs.

Its one thing to battle your own party candidates for the nomination; it is quite another to also have to battle the influence of the Clintonistas who have infiltrated your party and rose to the top level-and seem to want to stay there. Howard Dean, if he gets the socialist nomination might dent the control the Clintonistas have at the DNC.

The Bushies defend this country and kill our enemies. They don't kow tow to the UN. That’s good.

So in this presidential election cycle of 2004, it’s the Bushies vs. the Socialists with the Democrats,Republicans and Clintonistas looking on.

I hope the Bushies get re-elected in 2004. If they do I hope they can field a candidate like Jeb Bush, Condolezza Rice etc for 2008. If the Bushies are out of the picture I am afraid in 2008 it will be the politically inept Republicans vs. the Clintonistas. And we know how that works out.

Meanwhile, if only we can get the Bushies to secure our border with Mexico, stop outspending the Socialists on domestic programs, and stop making asinine religious statements; then the Bushies would be a political party both democrats and republicans could support. The remaining active parties the Socialists and Clintonistas would die on the vine. - - Tom

[Joe Hadenuf]

Actually, in reality, there are only the two. And the differences between the two are for the most part, inconsequential. One day, when enough people get fed up, there will be another.

[luvbach1]

Astute and clever.

[Mr. Mojo]

Some Republicans are totally bewildered by Bush’s not securing our border with Mexico, and allowing thousands of illegals to cross every day.

Nothing bewildering about it. Politicians care far more about staying in power than they do about preserving and protecting our nation.

[RJCogburn]

A major example is the Bushies incredible socialistic Medicare spending bill just passed, that robs the young to pay for the olds medical bills.

While you are correct in your characterization of the Medicare bill, it was the votes of REPUBLICANS that passed it.

Your analsis of the party breakdown is not correct, IMO. While there are some loyal to Bush personally, I think most of the inhabitants of Bushbotland are people who would rationalize the actions of almost any President of their party

[Servant of the 9]

Actually fooling Republicans isn’t very difficult.

Seems that way, but you have forgotten the 'Reagan Democrats' AKA 'The Religious Right' AKA 'The Fetus Party'.
They are the primary reason moderates have trouble voting Republican.

So9

[luvbach1]

With due respect, it would need more than enough people being "fed up" to allow a minority party's candidate to gain the presidency. The main reason that third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties don't get off the ground is because loyalists of the major parties rightly fear that supporting a splinter party will only ensure that the candidate and party they loathe gain control. The Perot example leaps to mind. He got 19% of the popular vote and there is no question in my mind that he sent Clinton to the White House.

[Dane]

While there are some loyal to Bush personally, I think most of the inhabitants of Bushbotland are people who would rationalize the actions of almost any President of their party

And in the converse, there are people on FR who "rationalize" that any political success is verboten.

If a bill passed is not 100% idelogically correct it is automatically bad, even though that bill gives Ted and Hillary fits which don't resonate in the general electorate.

[ChadGore]

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a felow Republican"
--
Reagans Law

[Lunatic Fringe]

I disagree with the conventional wisdom that we are a two-party system.

Of course, the Republicans and Democrats are the two major political parties of this nation. However, there are alternatives out there. How many Presidential candidates were on the ballot is 2000?

George W. Bush (Rep)
Al Gore (Dem)
Ralph Nader (Green)
Pat Buchanan (Reform)
Howard Phillips (Constitutional)
Denny Lane (Grassroots)
Harry Browne (Libertarian)
John Hagelin (Natural Law)
Earl Dodge (Prohibition)
David McReynolds (Socialist)
James Harris (Socialist Workers)
Monica Moorehead (Workers World)

Not to mention the dozens of write-in candidates:

A.J. Albritton (American Republican Party-Mississippi)
Thomas Bentley (Progressive Party-New York)
Alan Caruba (Boring Party-New Jersey)
Clifford R. Catton (Church of God Party-New York)
Fred Cook (Christian Alliance-Georgia)
Ernest L. Easton (Veterans Industrial Party-Indiana)
Jack Grimes (United Fascist Union-Delaware)
Michael Jenkins (Priorities Party-Virginia)
Temperance Alesha Lance-Council (Anti-Hypocrisy Party-California)
Bradford J. Lyttle (US Pacifist Party-Illinois)
Mike B. Martisko (National Sovereignty Party-West Virginia)
Isabelle Masters (Looking Back Party-Kansas)
Bruce S. Nelson (Optimization Party-Europe)
Jeffrey B. Peters (We The People Party-New Hampshire)
Raymond K. Petry (interParty-Hawaii)
Don Rogers (American Party-California)
R.U. Sirius (The Revolution-Illinois)
Mike Strauss (Mike's Party-Massachusetts)
Jeff Sturk (Buffalo Party-Virginia)
Da Vid (Light Party-California)
Jim Watkins (Tupperware Party-Indiana)
William L. Wallace (The Church-Alabama)
Tom Wells (Family Values Party-Florida)

There are all kinds of choices out there for just about every political point of view.

[Joe Hadenuf]

That is a problem. No doubt. Personally I think it will take some historical, major event to change that. An event that may not be wanted, but probably inevitable and much needed.

[Dane]

He(Perot) got 19% of the popular vote and there is no question in my mind that he sent Clinton to the White House

Yep. But some on FR will not listen or remember recent history. Their goal in life is to incessantly rant.

[Michael.SF.]

The Socialists started to infiltrate and take over the Democrat party in the mid 1960s, and today the so-called Democrat party is the Socialist party.

Your time frame is off by about 20-25 years. Do a little research on Henry Wallace Vice president 1941-45 or read Ann Coulters book: Treason.

[Capt. Tom]

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican" -- Reagans Law

I'm not a Republican.
I am a right- wing democrat who has no one to vote for because the socialists took over the democrat party. I voted for Reagan and Bush. -Tom

[nickcarraway]

What party is Lincoln Chaffee in, according to your system?

[Joe Hadenuf]

He(Perot) got 19% of the popular vote and there is no question in my mind that he sent Clinton to the White House Yep. But some on FR will not listen or remember recent history. Their goal in life is to incessantly rant.

Just curious, what major actions has Bush taken that Clinton didn't, to stop the millions of people that continue to pour into our country, people that are choking off our system, creating nationwide fraud, chaos, straining our social services to the breaking point. And to compound this crisis, it is now a national security threat in more ways than one.

If you could list these actions, I'd appreciate it.

[Consort]

We know that the Democrats are not the answer and any third party that attains power will do whatever it takes to keep and grow that power — just like the two major parties are now doing. So, why complicate the issue any further?

The purist Ideologically Correct Right is just as bad, and probably worse, than the Politically Correct Left. Right-wing whackos are scarier than Left-wing useful idiots.

[Hank Rearden]

The Bushies and Republicans are setting up hyperexpensive vote-buying scams right and left, and making Big Stupid Republican Government bigger and dumber by the day.

How is this different from the 'Rats and Socialists?

[Cicero]

There are a lot more differences among the various Republicans and Democrats than that. For instance, you use the term "Bushie," but GWB is considerably more conservative than his father, GHWB. I notice that you avoid the term RINO. GWB is not a full conservative, but neither is he a RINO. He is far to the right of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Lincoln Chaffee, not to speak of Jim Jeffords.

There are RINOs and RINOs, too. There are the RINOs who vote with the party when they think their constituents will allow it, and so are only as leftist as they need to be to get reelected from liberal districts. Then there are RINOs like Lincoln Chaffee who seem to take special pride in voting just as far to the left as they can get away with, which is quite a different thing.

I'm willing to support a president like GWB if he does the right thing on what I consider to be the important issues, and compromises on the less important ones. You, of course, may have different priorities and think different issues are the most important. For me, the crucial issue is the right to life, and the most crucial job Bush has to do is to start appointing some decent, law-abiding judges. Next after that is national security, which at the moment mostly means dealing with Islamists and China in the right way. So far Bush has done a good job on that, although I'm a bit nervous at the moment about China.

I too would like to see our immigration laws enforced. But it has to be approached in the right way or Bush will be thrown out of office like Pete Wilson. He needs to prevent the Democrats from getting a lock on the Hispanic vote, for instance, like their current 95% lock on the black vote, or else the Republicans can forget accomplishing anything at all. The Democrats have learned to pander to the illegal immigrant vote. It's a form of corruption that needs to be fixed, but it won't be fixed by charging at it like a bull in a China shop.

Finally, Bush is soft spoken. He enrages the leftist voters, but he seems like a nice guy to the swing voters. Bush understands that the important thing is DOING things, like the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Bill after so many years, or the tax cut bills, or the successful invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Better to DO things than to mouth loud conservative slogans. That was Newt's mistake. And I credit Newt with doing some great things. But he brought himself down with his big mouth.

[Dane]

Just curious, what major actions has Bush taken that Clinton didn't, to stop the millions of people that continue to pour into our country, people that are choking off our system, creating nationwide fraud, chaos, straining our social services to the breaking point. And to compound this crisis, it is now a national security threat in more ways than one.

If you could list these actions, I'd appreciate it

Instead of ranting on FR why don't you send an e-mail to the White House?

But what the hey that would get in the way of your simplistic ranting.

JMO, Mexico is our next door neighbor and no, IMO, good fences don't make good neighbors in this case. We have to deal with a country of 100,000,000 people at our doorstep. Is it easy, no, but it is a lot better, IMO, trying to mend differences than build walls. Hey remember that is what the Soviets did. I guess you admire Stalin/Khruschev(Berlin Wall).

Keep on ranting Joe, it's your trademark.