WE have five political parties, not two

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

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.

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?

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.