WE have five political parties, not two

I am sorry to hear you wasted so much time writing this drivel.

That was rude.

Nice effort.

I notice you didn't include the libertarians as their own party. They really aren't so much a party as they are a smug chaos. There is more firmness, stability, and moral clarity in a cup of tepid bilge water.

And also to keep the concept of freedom from creeping "IN"to the Soviet fiefdoms.

Walls and inward-facing border guards aren't emplaced to protect against a concept. That was the job of the Soviet press, such as it was, and the internal arm of the KGB. To stay on point here, your use of the Berlin Wall as an analogue for an enforcement of our border with Mexico is seriously faulty.

The leftists finished hijacking the Rats in 72. Even though they were slaughtered in the general election, they accomplished their goal of destroying the Humphrey wing of the Democrats. Reagan came back and took the disaffected Democrats and forged them into the modern Republican party in 1980, over the objections of the party hierarchy. To this day, many of the country club Republicans would rather sit around a swimming pool and snuffle about the religious nuts and social conservatives than win elections.

Functionally, what happens is that the two parties change fundamentally over a period of time, but there's usually a face you can attach to the breakover point in the change. McGovern for the Rats, Reagan for the Pubbies.

Since the Republicans in the 1800's no "new" political party has managed to do anything other than ensure the defeat of the party closest to them in attitude. Teddy Roosevelt did this with the Bull Moose party, Nader seriously helped Bush last year, etc. I think the primaries is where you move political thought, and that's one of the reasons that people are more ideologically polarized during the primaries. Your overall point of multiple political parties within the two major parties is very valid. When parties split off to form their own, such as the greens or the libertarians, they generally fail.

These third parties are generally formed by people who are willing to give up winning elections to make a point. Second, they're generally formed by people who are unwilling to hammer out deals. The reason Pat Buchanan left the Pubbies was because he was too inflexible to modify his politics to create a large enough coalition to win. Whether he was right or not on every issue, it really doesn't matter. He won't get elected.

Second, the parties are generally formed by people with confrontational personalities. I tend towards libertarian beliefs, but many of the libertarians here at FR p!ss me off, even when making points I agree with. "You WODers little tyrants can go back to licking Bush's fingers and thinking you're free" is not going to win many people over to your side.

While there are many theories as to the best way to get political power, I subscribe to the one that says you select the party which is most similar to your beliefs and work from there.

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.

Well, until you remember that politicians are craven and cowardly, as a rule.

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

Interesting analysis, I like it.

Parties are organized structures or on-going institutions. Clintonistas, Bushites, Deanites, Buchananites, McCainites, Naderites, Chomskyites, the Kennedy crowd, etc. are more fluid, less organized factions or the personal followings of individual leaders. Socialists, neocons, and paleocons fit somewhere in between. Such factions are less tied to individual leaders, but don't have the organization and continuity of actual parties. There will always be moderate-conservative Republicans and center-left Democrats, but if the "Bushite" and "Clintonite" labels have stuck, it's because these families have become dynasties.

Yet American politics are more complicated and confused than the two party system and most partisan arguments indicate. For one thing, divisions on economic issues don't line up exactly with the the fault lines on social and cultural questions. For another, people tend to assume that those on the other side are more united, more organized, and more passionate than they really are. In any random sample of people who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, one's apt to find a wide variety of opinions and views on current issues and very different degrees of political committment.

Clinton pardons 124 or 14 FALN members?

I thought the number was 124. Regardless of the actual count, what Clinton did is disgusting.

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.

Thanks for the book offer . I will probably get one for Christmas.

I have no doubt that the planning probably was decades ahead of the 60s. It is that to me, the obvious assault and takeover of the democrat party by the socialists began in earnest in the mid 1960s.

Prior planning is always necessary, and I have no doubt some right wingers are planning how to use the military in a governmental coup if an economic depression comes and social unrest gets out of control, and things are up for grabs.

But that's another subject. -tom

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.

Your time frame is off again or maybe their are so many to choose from. My money is on Woodrow Wilson in 1912 as the starting point of Socialists/Communist infiltration in American politics.

First World War (1914-18)
Russian Civil War (1917-22)

All of the murdering started here for some reason. What was the reason in the world that caused all of this killing to start?

I don't personally know any libertarians.

Or anything about them...