Posted on 12/06/2003 11:30:12 AM PST by 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
I don't think I can ever hope to even have a RINO unless I move. I have thought about Texas as a future destination, and now that I look, it just so happens that Dr. Paul's 14th District would have the coastline I would be looking for....Hmmmmm.....
My slogan will be "If it was good enough for Lincoln, it's good enough for me".
The Constitutional Union Party ran John Bell of Tennessee for president in 1860 against Lincoln. I think you mean the National Union Party, on whose ticket Lincoln won the presidency in 1864. (National Union Party)
He could be Dean's running mate - after all Baathists are Socialists too!
It probably is idealogical. I dislike the socialists who hi-jacked the democrat party because they are more interested in furthering an anti- American idealogical agenda than in protecting this country, following our Constitution and trying to make Americans the best educated and armed people on the planet.
To me, the party closest to those sentiments are the gutless inept republicans who I have voted, for over 20 years.
A right wing democrat named Ronald Reagan figured that out too and took the republican ladder to the top. And I think we benefited from his Presidency. -Tom .
1950 - Reagan campaigns in support of California Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas in her race against Richard Nixon for U.S. Senate.
1952 - Reagan leads a movement of Democrats for Eisenhower during both of Eisenhower's presidential campaigns, in 1952 and 1956.
Some freepers would say but Douglas was a lefty. However we saw how Reagen operated as President and I wouldn't consider that leftist.
As an aside; Reagan made a little noticed statement that resonated with me when he said. "We have to stop thinking about these Russians as though they were 10 feet tall." I loved his international politics as I do Bush's. Domestically I have problems with both. But they both got my vote. -Tom
I was using Perot as an example of trying to get to the Presidency on your own without using the democrat or republican apparatus.
What his motivations were to run for president is another matter.
I was using Perot as an example of trying to get to the Presidency on your own without using the democrat or republican apparatus.
What his motivations were to run for president is another matter.
So say the Greens, the Libertarians, the Socialists, and apparently now the Know-Nothings.
"Actually, in reality, there are only the two. And the differences between the two are for the most part, inconsequential. Both Parties will not mandate the toleration of evil. One day, when enough people get fed up, there will be another." -- Libertarian Party
"Actually, in reality, there are only the two. And the differences between the two are for the most part, inconsequential. Both Parties will not overthrow wage-slavery. One day, when enough people get fed up, there will be another." -- Socialist Party
"Actually, in reality, there are only the two. And the differences between the two are for the most part, inconsequential. Both Parties will not call for the machinegunning of women and children at the (Southern) border. One day, when enough people get fed up, there will be another." -- Know-Nothing Party
Have you ever looked into the Republican Liberty Caucus?
FYI, in case you've forgotten: The Berlin Wall/Iron Curtain were to keep people IN, not out.
And also to keep the concept of freedom from creeping "IN"to the Soviet fiefdoms.
Henry Wallace was VP under FDR. He was a Socialist. He later ran for President as a "Progressive." Then later renounced his previous pro communist positions.
Although your statements are very true, that in the 60's the tactics used by them changed. Your time frame is off.
The planned undermining of the USA, by legal and illegal means goes back much further then the 60's.
I do not mean to be argumentative, or repitive, but, read Ann Coulter's book and take a look, especially at her resources for backing up her statements.
I think you will be surprised. If you do not have a copy I will loan you mine. Take care Michael
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.