GOP Imploding...but

Don't make the mistake of thinking they are dead.

Also, one must understand that the Democratic Party is made up of several groups, not all of whom would have even been considered Democrats 20 years ago. Can we spell BLUE DOGS?

We need to create more viable parties who are more honest about who they are and what their real agendas are!

For the past couple of decades, the consensus in the mainstream media was that the Democratic Party was in dire trouble: politically close to irrelevance and on the wrong foot demographically. Even Bill Clinton's eight years in power were considered a fluke: brought on by a third-party candidate, Ross Perot, and reliant on a centrist triangulating strategy that threw Congressional Democrats under the bus. Red states were growing the fastest, gaining congressional seats and electoral votes which would ensure a permanent GOP majority.

Obviously, it has not quite worked out like that. From Arizona to North Carolina, and Nevada to New Hampshire, the scope of the defeat for the Republican Party in 2008 is stunning. The very states that the GOP was counting on to build on its electoral successes of the past 20-some years turned against them the hardest. Much of it has to do with the ineptitude of the party's leadership, from the economy to the war in Iraq, but it is also about simple math: did Republicans really think that newcomers to Colorado, Virginia and a dozen other fast-growing states were of the same mind set as the backwards-looking social conservatives that had dominated local politics? Or were they more likely to be transplants from blue states with little appetite for fights about abortion, gay rights, and English-only initiatives?

The answer is in the numbers, and they are ugly for the Republican Party. On the presidential level, the fastest-growing state last year, Nevada, flipped to the Democrats, as did two others among the top 10: Colorado and North Carolina. Georgia swung 14 points, coming close to giving Barack Obama an unexpected victory, and Arizona actually voted more Democratic than four years ago, even with John McCain on the ticket. Rather than strengthening the Republican Party, internal migration and immigration have diluted its strength in some critical strongholds.

It is in the Congressional results that the scope of the disaster for Republicans is best illustrated. Democrats now outnumber Republicans in the delegations of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. Indeed, New Mexico's entire delegation, as well as its governorship, is Democratic. Among other Western states, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Montana all send more (often far more) Democrats than Republicans to DC. The GOP's Western front now consists of Utah, Alaska, Idaho and Wyoming, some of the smallest states in the country; and even those are showing cracks, with Alaska and Idaho electing Democrats to Congress for the first time in years.

The GOP's ambitions in the Northeast have long been limited, but they nonetheless managed to fall short of even the lowest expectations. New England's six-state, 22-person House caucus is now entirely Democratic thanks to the defeat of last GOP Rep standing Chris Shays in Connecticut. In New York, the Republican delegation now stands at three, less than 10% of the 31 members of Congress from the state.

The Midwest may remain a battleground, although one that was lost resoundingly by Republicans this year: only three of the twelve states in the region now send more Republicans to Congress than Democrats: Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri, the latter now having officially forfeited its bellwether status.

Even in the South, cracks are beginning to show. Virginia and North Carolina, in addition to swinging to Obama, both contributed to the growth in the Democrats' Senate majority and feature Congressional delegations dominated by Democrats. Victories in previously scarlet-red districts in Mississippi and Alabama may also prove problematic for the Republican Party. Overall the GOP has an edge in the region (80 to 62 in the House; 19 to 7 in the Senate) but that is far less of an advantage than the Democratic Party's in the Northeast and the West Coast, for instance.

Those members of Congress from the South represent nearly half the entire GOP representation, and it is not an exaggeration to call the current Republican party a regional one. This in itself is a severe problem for the GOP, especially as the West is actually a faster-growing region, but other demographic data from exit polling should be even scarier for party leaders.

Losing the youth vote is something most Republicans expect, but losing 18-29 year-olds by 66% to 32%, as McCain did this year, is a preposterously high obstacle to future growth. By the same token, the only age group the Republican candidate won, those 65 and older, is not one the party can rely on to stick around forever.

Ethnically and racially, too, the Republican party is in a bind, winning among the only group that is shrinking nationally: non-Hispanic whites. McCain lost by the GOP's usual massive margin among African-Americans, but also by 2 to 1 among Latinos and Asians, the fastest growing groups. The Republican Party lost among urban voters, of course, but also among suburbanites; it scored only among rural voters, a shrinking demographic group.

The loss of the suburbs remains one of the biggest challenges for the GOP, one that has been years in the making, and will not be solved overnight. Here too, a look at Congressional results over the years shows how, one by one, quintessentially suburban districts started falling to Democrats in the 1990s, culminating in this year's victory by Obama in the suburbs. It was not so long ago that places such as Walnut Creek outside of San Francisco, or Long Island, NY, were staunchly Republican bastions. Contra Costa County, where Walnut Creek is located, voted for Obama 68% to 31%, and both Long Island counties favored him too. Both regions are have solely favored Democrats for Congress in recent years. Entire swaths of suburbs around New York, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit and large California cities are represented by Democrats in Congress, who often win by massive margins. On the suburban level, GOP strength is concentrated around a handful of Southern cities such as Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta.

Beyond its regional concentration, the Republican Party's face is from another time. The party's only Hispanic Senator has just announced he is not running for reelection, leaving an entirely non-white, non-Hispanic GOP Senate. In fact, the party's Congressional caucus overall includes only three Latinos, no African-Americans, and just one Asian-American elected this week in a Louisiana district that is so Democratic he is sure to lose in two years. Republican women are a dwindling group in Congress: down to four in the Senate (including the two Senators from Maine), with one, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, likely to retire soon too. In the House, they are down to 18. There are three openly gay Democrats, but no Republicans. Overall, straight white men represent about half of the Democratic Party in Congress, but close to 90% of Republicans. Indeed, nearly half of the Republican caucus is composed of Southern white men.

The conservative remains of Republicanism are likely to yield an ever more right-wing direction, as evidenced by the current race for the party leadership. One strong candidate calls for change that emphasizes "commitment to be the party of [...] respect for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, the importance of family." It is far from clear that disgust with the Republican position on social issues is the sole culprit for the alienation a growing majority of voters feel towards the party: after all, majorities of voters in California, Arizona and Florida, defeated same-sex marriage recently. But it is certainly clear that right-wing campaigns that focus on the "sanctity" of marriage, life and guns are doomed for failure, at least nationally.

This surely means that in the long run, self-preservation will take precedence, and some form of reason will prevail, as it did, for instance, within the UK's Conservative Party. Drained of life post Margaret Thatcher, the party became increasingly insular, focused on older, native-born, white, male, rural voters, as the country became younger, more diverse and suburban. The current leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, has brought his party close to victory after 14 years in the wilderness, and his potential success bears some lessons for Republicans, even accounting for transatlantic differences.

The cultural warfare that exists in the United States does not define British political life in the same way, except perhaps on immigration. Nonetheless Cameron has aptly put behind him topics such as gay rights and abortion that are sure losers in the long-term because of cultural and demographic shifts. Indeed, he has co-opted some of the governing Labour Party's stances on these issues, and even taken what in the US would be considered a more liberal attitude than the Democratic Party's. He has also emphasized policies on the environment, for instance, that are of growing concern to suburban and younger voters. Even if the environment is not the top vote-getting issue in most countries, in the UK, at least, it gives Cameron a modern sheen that his party has desperately lacked. The recruitment of candidates who are not straight old white men has also been given a priority, and time will tell how successful that effort will be, but, again, at the very least (and quite cynically) it gives the party a contemporary look that has been sorely lacking. At the very least, Britain's Conservatives have developed a viable marketing strategy.

No one expects a Southern-dominated GOP to abandon its single-minded focus on social issues but, at some point, Republicans will want to win again. After all, many up-and-coming party members have staked entire careers and livelihoods on winning, and winning as Republicans. There are only so many elective offices in rural Alabama and suburban Houston, and they cannot satisfy even a dwindling group of ambitious Republicans. They will start to show more pragmatism, perhaps get lucky, perhaps the Democrats will overplay their hand on taxes and bailouts, but they will be back: the US electoral system is built that way and big business has too much invested in the party to let it fail (just call it the Citigroup of political parties).

For some perspective, two years ago, one mainstream conservative commentator described the Democratic Party as "imploding," "meaningless" and run by "crazies." Just one national election later, Peggy Noonan looks like the fool that she is. And even though we know that it is the Republican Party that is imploding, meaningless and run by crazies, we also know better than to assume it is dead.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Standing Amid The Ruin Of Regressive Politics

Of all the statistics among all the political polls released this week, this rather obscure one, from Pew Research, spoke loudly and, to me, most unambiguously about why the presidential race stands where it stands:

"Voter interest in the campaign remains extraordinary: fully 81% continue to say that they have given a lot of thought to the presidential election, the highest ever measured at this stage in a campaign."

There you have it. Like Samuel Johnson's observation about hanging, it seems that nothing concentrates the electorate's mind like an acute recession and the threat of a chronic depression.

We tell ourselves that foreign wars are indeed a matter of grave concern, what with all their bloody loss of human life and public treasure, but let's face it: one's own pocketbook trumps other people's far more horrendous problems any old election year.

And it's then that the electorate runs home to mommy, the Democrat.

If only we had seen rude upticks in the price of gas and crashing home values and creeping layoffs and etc., etc., etc. in 2004 rather than 2008, perhaps we could have spared ourselves this needless surfeit of economic pain.

But we didn't see it then, even though virtual platoons of high financial analysts were frantically clanging the bells of alarm. Hey, as long as we had what's ours, everyone else -- including our country's sons and daughters marooned in desert or mountainous wastelands of tribal conflict -- and everything else could just by-God wait on the sidelines.

Meanwhile, half-attentively we'd stick with old tough-love dad, the Republican.

I generalize and simplify -- but not, I think, oversimplify -- to highlight a distressing but demonstrable point: Americans are "exceptional" all right, just like Sarah Palin insists we are. But our exceptionalism isn't always in the form we'd care to confess: we are, that is, exceptionally self-interested, self-centered and self-absorbed.

It takes something like this -- a gargantuan global crisis of concentric design in which we, individually, are the bull's eye -- to slap us into that greater reality. Two insanely conducted foreign wars -- three, if you count the amorphous one against a tactic -- weren't enough to quite do the trick.

By and large we were willing to just stumble along with that apodictically clueless stumblebum in the White House, he of historic inattentiveness and downright epic in curiosity. Problems? What problems? Everything was humming right along. We could take his word for it. And we did.

Which, in 2004, forever painted the American electorate itself historically and epically irresponsible.

The question now isn't whether we'll change course (unfortunately, within the inexorable constraints handed to the next president). That, it would seem, is an arithmetical given. Mommy has daddy backed into an electoral-count corner whose already narrow territory continues to shrink by the hour. Talk about your concentric circles and the ultimate bull's eye.

No, that's no longer the question, or should I say, the trick. Because the trick is going to be whether or not we concentrate our minds to learn something from all this pain -- that of the past, present, and even predictable future if we don't.

In short, we have got to grow up. We have got to accept that we are not the biggest kid on the block or the smartest kid in the class any more. We forfeited all claims to those exceptional honorifics -- if real they were -- some time ago.

In fact we threw them away. We were too engaged in self-celebratory, infantile chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" to notice that the good old U.S.A. was going down the tubes. And it was headed south because we weren't paying attention to what our leaders were doing, or, rather, what they weren't doing -- looking down the track.

Because we -- most of us -- had ours. Everything was just peachy, as long as both we and our leaders kept our eyes tightly shut and our minds hermetically closed to that blinding light of that oncoming train. Just permit us our iPhones and cable tv and toss in the occasional "U.S.A.!" and all would remain well.

Or so we thought. But as the conservative intelligentsia (such as it is) began insisting decades ago, "ideas have consequences." And now we're paying the consequential price of years of mostly its ideas, which we fecklessly signed off on, because, simply, we weren't really paying attention to anyone but ourselves.

There were many a voice in the wilderness standing athwart our unfolding history, just as Bill Buckley encouraged us to do, "yelling Stop!" Excuse me, pardon me, coming through -- can't anyone else see that big ugly train speeding our direction down the track? We heard that aplenty, but shut it out.

Maybe, this time, we'll learn. There's always hope, however much hope itself stands athwart the history of human folly.

Maybe we will grow the hell up and not need Mommy or Daddy anymore. What are the chances?

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

AT&T And The Blue Dog Dems

Far be it from me to know what all is behind this AT&T/Blue Dog Dem. thing. Let's face it. American politics is all about money and very little integrity, these days. Actually, it has been that way for quite a long while.

Since I cannot really say what is behind the Blue Dogs and AT&T, allow me to simply express my own independent thoughts on the matter.

Allowing AT&T to be sued by millions of people in civil suits would have only hurt the consumers, the minority stock-holders (whom I can guarantee you were not consulted on the illegal domestic spying) and the employees who might have been laid off to pay off said civil litigants.

I believe I have a better idea. In order to get to corporate officers through civil litigation, we must be willing to sacrifice millions of innocent people. The various markets are now flush with what I call slave money. Money for pensions, trusts, 401ks and the like is nothing less than slave money. Rarely does the holder of such stocks, bonds, etc. have much to do with how their money is invested. Not everyone is a stock market analyst.

What I would suggest is to go after the "Deciders" at the helm of such companies.

How many times have we been told that CEOs and other corporate officers earn their exorbitant salaries by being in the hard position of making decisions. They are the corporate "Deciders." I say, let the "deciders" be held accountable with criminal charges when their decisions result in actions which are against the law.

When the "deciders, in and out of government, are held criminally liable just a few times, it will make the others thinks twice....or maybe more times, before they feel like godalmighty, free from justice.


Deciders should be held to account for their own corrupt decisions, not ordinary folks.


Published on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 by Salon.com

by Glenn Greenwald

Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.

Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.

Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.

It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.

The only other media which even attempted to cover the AT&T/Blue Dog event was Democracy Now -- they were also barred from entering. I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss what happened. They put together a 5-minute video montage, including our efforts to enter the event and interview the guests, which they broadcast before my segment. The video and my segment can be seen and/or heard here -- it begins at the 1:00 mark. A transcript will be posted shortly.

Jane Hamsher also filmed some of what transpired, and Salon has created our own video of last night, including the efforts by the private security teams and Denver Police to prevent us from standing on public property to interview the arriving members of Congress and AT&T executives and lobbyists. That will be posted shortly. There's nothing unusual about this event -- other than that it was more forcibly private than most and just a tad more brazenly sleazy. The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.

UPDATE: Here is the video from last night's festivities, with our attempt to interview various attendees and interactions with the private security forces and Police -- filmed by Jane Hamsher and edited by Salon's Caitlin Shamberg:

UPDATE II: The transcript for the Democracy Now segment I did this morning, preceded by the video they produced, is now here.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Has The GOP Lost Its Faith?

Seems once tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, the corporate welfare state and military-mania sours on the tongues of Americans, the GOP has nothing left to offer. They have done about all the damage they can do, this time around, to the nation. What's more is that they may have finally shot themselves in the head with one of there own big guns, leaving a mortal wound.

The media loves nothing better than a neck and neck presidential race, so they will try to create one, whether one actually exists or not. Witness the Democratic Primary, which for all practical purposes, was over months ago. To watch an evening of punditry on Cabal news is much like having night duty a on locked ward in a mental hospital. Nonsensical conversations abound. One pundit will say, "The numbers don't lie, there is no way Hillary can win this nomination." Then, everyone else, so-called experts and analysts go babbling on about how she can, in fact win. Hillary, herself, seems to have gone totally 'round the bend, comparing her campaign to everything from the civil rights struggle to women's rights to, now, the election in Zimbabwe.
Whats' next, Patton's Battle of the Bulge?

For me the real kicker was all the references to election 2000, after which we all called for the abolishment of the electoral college and to allow the popular vote to stand as the will of the people. I remember clearly the new junior senator from N.Y saying that she was against that. Well, of course she was. Abolishing the electoral college would make it almost impossible for the two political parties to play their electoral games of voter manipulation and electoral calculation by state rather than by voter, and rarely have we seen anyone play those games better than the Clintons and the Bushes.

I am still for allowing the electoral college to go the way of the horse and buggy (though the latter may be on its way back). I'm also for another blast from the past; pen and paper ballots. Who cares how much time it takes to count ballots, as long as the count represents the will of the people.

What no one wants is another 2000, because this one will not end as 2000 did, with fake vote counts, Brooks Brothers riots and unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings. We live in an entirely different political world than we did then. I honestly don't believe that the people will stand still for another "stolen election" be it real or imagined. Because of all the shenanigans in the last 4 elections, the American people are finally becoming suspicious of all kinds of elections weirdness, and I can assure my fellow independents that illegal aliens voting is the last of their concerns.

This country is as a powder keg. The tension is so think one could cut it with a knife, even though the politicians continue to smile and wave as if that were not the case. We are all living in something closely resembling the Twilight Zone. Tempers are flaring in the hintertlands, mostly at gas stations, but in other places as well. We, Americans, are all playing pretty fast and lose with what's left of our sanity, and the psychotics in Teevee news land are not helping.

We are headed for a full-blown, national break-down and the folks in the D.C. bubble are either as clueless as they seem or they just aren't reporting it or talking about it in the halls of power.

Sometimes, it is better to just stop resisting and hit bottom. Then, there will be nowhere to go but up. From the ashes the Phoenix does rise., or even better, a humble nation of can-do, courageous people, who long for the country we started out to be and finally see the evils of empire, will emerge. They will see the faces of the monster for which their sons and daughters are killing and dying and who will find their courage, if not their faith, and decide to pull the plug on the whole sociopathic government/corporate protection racket, a better word for which is fascism.

Fascism was not defeated in 1945. It simply moved.

It can't happen here?

It already has.

The only question for American voters now is who can lead us forward from here. Which way do we want to go? Toward peace, social and economic justice, beginning to really think outside the box, without destroying what makes us a people; our constitution? Or do we want to attempt to "shoot the moon" and continue down a path begun by some of the most idiotic people to ever gain power in modern day America with the most horrendous deception and fear-mongering, amounting to the most abject betrayal of the American people in history.

What's worse, it is a betrayal that threatens the whole world, in one way or another, very little of it good.

We, Dear Compatriots, are about to get smacked with the biggest load of karma to hit any nation since WWII. In my lifetime, I have found that when karma rolls around, it is far better to accept my due and be grateful for the profound lessons it offers. Karma is about balance, not punishment or reward. It is the correction of error; the error that caused the imbalance in the first place. Anyone care to guess what that error was? Think about it.

America had gone seriously off the rails. It isn't all that sudden. We have been careening back and forth on a down hill slide for the last 40 years, in many ways. Even in ways where we believe we have made progress, now we find that that progress may have been all for show; skin deep. Or perhaps, now, it is real, deep down, and the breathless reporting of an occult racism and/or sexism, possibly even more poisonous and than that which permeated this country back then, is just typical of today's idea of news reporting.

Sometimes I wonder, how divided are we really? Are we really in the middle of a cold civil war that could turn hot at any moment, or are we simply convinced of that, because it is far more entertaining than the truth of the matter, which is that we are all in the big ship of fools....er....state together, for better or for worse. Some of us who saw the writing on the wall early on have long since, quietly, left the country. Some of us may still leave. But many more will stay, ride it out and do the hard work to begin to turn things around, if that is still possible.

No decision is any better or worse than the other. For those who have left, America may well, one day, need her ex-patriots. For those who stayed, America needs her peacemakers and her conscious citizens, her independent thinkers and, especially, the generation coming of age now.

To them, I say only this, "Make peace with each other, but only an authentic peace; one that does not require that you trash your highest principles, park your brain at the door, or sell out to the highest bidder. Some things should not ever be trashed or be up for sale.

Democracy cannot exist where the people are unwilling to compromise. Compromise and consensus are as necessary to Democracy as oxygen and water are to human life. Nevertheless, when and where one group must always compromise, even their deepest held principles, Democracy does not live anyway, but is only a pretty word, turned into a most dangerous deception.


By P.M. Carpenter

If the Democratic Party thinks it has problems -- which it obviously does, what with its presidential-nomination process so clearly resembling Zimbabwe's and all, or so we're told -- it should pause for a moment and consider its blessings: chief among them, it isn't the GOP.

Now there's a party with problems, from its sitting president with Hooverian popularity to its larger image as "dog food" in need of mass recall.

It's panic time at the Grand Old Party, but I've got to give its operatives credit. "Mum" isn't their word, for they are airing their problems hither, yon and with stentorian force. He of last week's ground-meat metaphor is a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and then yesterday there was this honest assessment in the New York Times from a prominent Republican adviser:

The loss of a congressional seat in Mississippi was only the second most disturbing sign for Republicans last week. The exodus of lobbyists from John McCain’s campaign wasn’t even close. The most ominous warning for what the fall might be like for the GOP was the throng of 75,000 people that Barack Obama turned out for a rally in Portland over the weekend ... [which was] was roughly two-thirds the number of Republicans who participated in the Iowa caucuses this year.

This, as the adviser continued for the benefit of those few still lingering in denial, is "growing and irrefutable evidence of an enthusiasm gap between the two parties."

Something, most Republicans realize, must be done. But what?

Most fortunate for the nation is that they haven't a clue. They are simply stumped, void of new ideas and doubtful of old tricks. Even the House GOP's starting point of a new slogan -- "The change you deserve" -- hit a depressing snag right off the bat. And as anyone familiar with modern politics knows, if one hasn't a spiffy slogan, one can't possibly advance one's cause.

Yet the even bigger problem for the GOP is that the party no longer knows what its cause is, let alone market the bloody thing. This huge bump in the electoral road became blisteringly clear this week as Republican House members convened to consider the thematic fate of their party.

As The Politico reports, "Rank-and-file Republicans met to clear the air Tuesday in a crowded, members-only session on the fifth floor of the Longworth House Office Building. Members who attended said the summit was typical of previous meetings, with lawmakers offering their individual visions for the party but failing to come to a consensus about a way forward."

Upon reading the story, however, what struck me wasn't so much their inability to come to a consensus -- they were, after all, a recently stunned assemblage, meeting as they did on the heels of three special-election losses deep within GOP territory -- but the almost morbidly anemic properties of the ideas that members proposed.

One would think that after suffering such humiliating setbacks, and now clearly seeing the writing on numerous other walls, that Gingrichlike fire-eaters would be coming out of the GOP woodwork, bellowing the newest, latest and hottest in demagogic folderol -- you know, exactly what once put them in power to begin with. But that wasn't the case. No, that wasn't the case at all.

Instead, for instance, no less than the chairman of the oxymoronic Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, proposed the utterly nonrevolutionary ideas of "reform[ing] the tax code and a unilateral earmark moratorium." And those were the meeting's blockbusters -- tax codes and earmarks, two items around which no typically uninformed electorate will ever wrap its brain. What's more, even the chairman's colleagues were unenthusiastic, having rejected for obvious reasons "the moratorium proposal on two previous occasions."

And things went downhill from there, ideologically -- which for this party is to say, demagogically -- speaking. For example another House member dusted off his years-old plan for a "suburban agenda," the "new version" of which "includes many of the same policy prescriptions as the original -- college savings accounts and legislation to target online predators -- plus new items, such as a food safety measure." A what? We're talking Rome burning here, and the fire brigade is fiddling and piddling. It's almost sad.

If they really wanted to rouse the multitudes, they would flee from their incumbent party leader and his unrepentant policies with vigorous abandon. They would, that is, agitate for something completely different -- say, real "Fortress America" stuff such as a return to Taftian isolationism and Smoot-Hawley protectionism. They would, in short, turn on an ideological dime, since the electoral worm's sensibilities have already turned.

They wouldn't have to believe any of it or anything like that. After all, they never really have in the past. But need I remind them that this is politics -- Republican politics, which has always excelled at trumping sane or executable policy. So the nuts and bolts of it are entirely beside the point.

We want and we demand, for we have come to expect, nothing but the most spectacular of rabble-rousing from the Grand Old Party. It doesn't have to be calls for Taftian isolationism, if that fails to trip their trigger. They could even stick with some of the old. They could, for instance, insist on invading Ethiopia or something; you know, real empire-reinvigorating Mussolini stuff -- anything but, for heaven's sake, a food safety measure.

Come on, GOPers. Show us some of that old-time political religion.

For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

A Few Wise, Insightful Words From Digby

How To Play The Game

by dday

This is honestly the saddest news item I've seen in the whole of the Bush Administration.

So the Congress has taken the Bush Administration to court to enforce subpoenas of officials involved in the US Attorney purge. The Administration's lawyers have laid out, in an 83-page document, their opinion of the case, which (surprise) rests on the notion that the judiciary branch should stay out of a political dispute between the other two branches. And they conclude that the legislative has plenty of cards to play in such a battle against the executive.

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote [...]

As part of their argument, the administration lawyers cited Congress' considerable leverage as the more traditional means of getting what it wants. This is from the motion:

And the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers Congress has under the Constitution.

Here's the thing. These may be Bush Administration lawyers doing the talking here, but they're absolutely right. The Congress has all sorts of tools in their arsenal to force compliance from the executive branch. They can shut down the nomination process. They can eliminate any and all expenditures for the President and staff or executive agencies. They can refuse to enact spending bills for programs and policies prized by the executive. They can constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that may investigate the executive. They can use the power of inherent contempt to try those neglecting a Congressional subpoena, and imprison them. And they can, you know, vote to remove the President from office, or all civil officers of the United States, for that matter.

There are dozens of ways for this Congress to get the attention of the President, as the Justice Department's own lawyers recognize. But of course, they won't do that. They worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the Republican noise machine would say about them, and all the rest.

I'm certain that this reminder by the DoJ wasn't an effort to get the Democratic Congress to recognize their own power, or even an effort to get the courts to rule in their favor. It was an effort to get Republicans to recall what tools they can use in the event of a Democratic President. A committed minority in the Senate can make life more miserable for the incoming executive than this majority has ever made it for George Bush; executive power rollback is in some ways simply a matter of Congressional will. One thing is clear; the go-along-to-get-along nature of the Democrats over the past eight years will not be reciprocated.

And it's deeply embarrassing that it takes a bunch of Regent University grads or whoever they've got on the case at the Bush Justice Department to point this out.


.
There Is No They There

by digby

Steve Benen points to more self-serving media navel gazing:

Harwood explained that the McCain campaign, in a move that “many Republicans would find ironic,” is pushing the line that the press is friendlier to Obama. Harwood said, “John McCain’s benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he’s going to try to argue, which will have corollary benefit of rallying conservatives, if he can pull it off, of saying, ‘The press wants Obama to win. I’m pushing back, too.’”

Tim Russert added, “In 2002, John McCain referred to the press as his base.” To which Harwood responded, “They were his base.”

I guess somebody should have reminded them that the name of the show they were on is called ---Meet The Press. They are the "they" of which they speak. But then Russert spent two years pontificating on the same show about Scooter Libby pretending he wasn't a major playing in the investigation, so this isn't exactly new. He's the Village High Inquisitor, charged with ensuring that the one true conventional wisdom is adhered to for the good of all. He isn't a member of the press at all.


.
We're Chillin'

by digby

I realize that a good many people think I'm living in cloud cuckoo-land, but apparently a large majority of the Democratic party is drooling and delusional right along with me:

Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

Despite Obama's advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama's supporters, 42 percent say so.

That's not a majority endorsement of Clinton's candidacy; Democrats by a 12-point margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that's held steadily in ABC News/Washington Post polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out contest will hurt the party's prospects. Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent).

Those views correspond with opinions on Clinton continuing her candidacy. And in a related result, 85 percent of Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) are confident the party would come together behind Obama as the nominee though fewer, 45 percent, are "very" confident of it. That underscores the importance of the endgame for the party's prospects.

The second slot is one possibility: Clinton continues as the preferred choice as Obama's running mate, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they'd like him to pick her if he's the nominee. That peaks at 59 percent of African-Americans, 47 percent of Clinton supporters and 42 percent of women (vs. 34 percent of men).

I'm not necessarily endorsing the Unity ticket, but I don't see a lot of hate and division in those numbers. If nearly 60% of African Americans prefer Clinton on the ticket, it's fair to say that the party isn't irrevocably broken.

And McCain just looks sad;

In other signs of difficulties for McCain, Obama leads him in trust to handle the public's top issue, the economy, by 10 points; in trust to handle gasoline prices, by 20 points; and in trust to handle health care, by 24 points. On personal attributes Obama leads by wide margins as being better able to bring needed change, having the better temperament for the job, better empathy and a clearer vision for the future.

McCain also could suffer from the broader public discontent, generally and with George W. Bush in particular. Public disgruntlement neared a record high in this poll, with 82 percent of Americans saying the country's seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the past year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And Bush slipped to his career low approval rating, 31 percent.

In a related result, the Democratic Party in general leads the Republicans in trust to handle the main issues the nation faces, by 53-32 percent the biggest gap in favor of the Democrats in data since 1982. The question, again, is whether that fades in Bush's wake.

It won't unless the Democrats allow McCain to be a different kind 'o Republican. It's not a big window for him, but it's a window nonetheless:

There are significant areas in which McCain can push back against Obama. After a five-year decline prompted by the unpopular president and the war in Iraq, there's been a recovery this year in Republican affiliation possibly the precursor of post-Bush politics. The change is slight but bears watching: On average in ABC/Post polls this year 28 percent of Americans have identified themselves as Republicans, compared with a 24-year low of 25 percent last year. It peaked at 31 percent in 2003.

As you can see by the numbers, the Democratic party is doing fine. They have the most exciting politician in the country running for president at a time when the opposing party is falling apart. But they should not get cocky. McCain's base, the media, will help him distance himself from Bush with everything they have and that's his best hope.

It would be wise for everyone to heed this warning:

McCain has a credible brand with the public, who see him as a maverick and a reformer. If McCain succeeds on his current path, he may be able to use his own popularity to infuse the Republicans with new life and a new narrative--the "Change Republican." The risk is amplified because there are 34 open House seats and 5 open Senate seats. Unlike incumbents, these Republican candidates--who aren't from Washington--could seize onto McCain's "Change Republican" brand and ride his coattails to a Republican comeback. Democrats could lose the House and Senate, and the White House would be out of reach.

It wouldn't be all "change." They'd combine this with the usual scare tactics and terror-mongering--tired old tactics that failed in 2006.

Lest my fellow Democratic partisans worry, I'm not giving away any secrets that the Republican strategists don't know. In the last few days, a strategy memo on this same topic has been circulated by Republican strategists.

There is a big Achilles heel to this strategy. On the issues that the public will judge McCain he is not change. McCain's tempered approaches on immigration and climate change are small bore stuff compared to the defining narratives on the war and the economy. On the issues central to voters, McCain is not change. The media pundits who think the public will view him as a maverick still don't understand this vulnerability.

In many ways the emergence of a Democratic majority rests on whether John McCain gets away with becoming a "Change Republican."

The answer is probably "no" but let this serve as notice to all of us: the ball is in our court.

The Republican party is George W. Bush --- there is no daylight. They acclaimed him as the second coming of Winston Churchill and Alexander the Great just three years ago. They put him back in the White House and then swaggered around calling Democrats neutered farm animals.

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

They can run from that but they can't hide. Bush and the conservative movement he represents need to be tied around McCain's neck so tight he can't breathe.

AMEN!
.
digby 5/12/2008 04:09:00 PM

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hillary's High Negatives and High Poll Numbers, Nationally

Adds up to something no one really wants to admit? Maybe. As the primaries unfold, we will have to face it, if it's true

Zogby’s recent poll asking “Whom would you NEVER vote for president?” was kind of mischievous, wasn’t it? But if I were a member of the Democratic National Committee, not to mention a congressional Democrat, I’d be sweating bullets over it.

A neat 50% claim they would never, even under pain of waterboarding (kidding), cast their presidential vote for Hillary Clinton.

“Never say never,” Howard Dean or the Democratic Leadership Council’s Harold Ford might say. That may have been right seven months ago when 46, not 50%, claimed they would never vote for Hillary. But now, at a time, when other polls show her pulling ahead of Senator Obama in the Democratic race, it’s looking more like “Always say never.”

Worse, her campaign is beginning to emit the stench of Bob Dole’s 1996 Republican presidential run. You know — hand her the nomination because it’s owed her. In his case, likely payback for key votes he swung the way of congressional colleagues. In hers, out of appreciation to the Clintons for their magic touch raking in money.

Dole never had a chance because of poor funding, his caustic personality and, of course, because he was running against a popular president, Hillary’s husband. Meanwhile, she’s been polling well against leading Republican candidate Giuliani. But, as one commentator explained, it just may be because voters are becoming resigned to her.

The cynicism of such a strategy notwithstanding, Democratic leadership forgets there’s little margin of error because of the likelihood that Republicans will engineer widespread voter fraud again.

Can anyone BE so stupid? That would make the Clintonites and/or the Democratic leadership dumber than a box of Bushites.

I can't figure this one out either.

Chairmen of a number of House and Senate committees have made it very hard for the most IQ challenged among us aware that the Republicans know, deep in their rotten little souls that they cannot win with smart or even acceptable policy; foreign or domestic, especially if they tell the truth about it. They know that in order to ever obtain one party rule in America, after the hellish years of Junior and Dick, they have to steal election and election.

If nothing else, the Dems have made it crystal clear that the GOP is being watched by huge bevies of hawks (not war hawks), both in and out of government and to that I can testify.. Their world is going to fall on them in 2008. If they try to steal one more election, the whole damn galaxy will squash them like the despicable cockroaches that they are. There can be nothing more despicable that election theft in a Democracy, with the obvious exception of assassination.

Why is it that we hear so little about election theft in the MSM, including the press. There has been a bit of a fire storm about the attempt by the GOP to change the way California counts its electoral votes, no longer giving all to the winner, obviously splitting up the vote, giving the GOP a very good chance of winning that heavily populated state. California is not as tru-blue as some commentators would have us believe. Southern California is heavily Republican, though far more moderate that those who are representing them in Washington now, with the exception of the immigration and border security issues; more fear/hate issues, the GOP can always count on those two lovely character traits, it seems.

So why are the Democrats committing suicide, dragging our nation right along with them, if that is, indeed, what they are doing? Is it possible that the Clintons own the touch-tones this time. There are quite a few GOP movers and shakers who seem to have suddenly developed the wildest crushes on Hillary. Bill has spent more than the required amount of time with America's Number One Crime Family. WTF is going on with that any how?

I would be willing to bet that if Hillary wins, even by a landslide, not likely in today's politics, all investigations of the Bush administration will go away, just as Iran/Contra did, even when the investigators knew that Poppy was the one who was really responsible for most of that horrible skulduggery. Bush I was also the first president to pardon members of his predecessor, Reagan's, and his own administrations that could put the finger on him and everyone knew it.

With the exception of Brad Blog, there just isn't much coverage between elections, even in the blogosphere, though there has been more since 2005 when it became clear to most of us who were following ElectionTheft 2004 that Kerry had been had, along with John Edwards and every American who voted for Kerry or against Bush.

It's hard to figure out what Democrats are thinking these days. Maybe they are hoping that the GOP will self-destruct. That is a very dangerous strategy...putting politics and party above country and constitution, because if it becomes evident that that is what they are doing, the Donkey will implode as well. Even worse, if it becomes obvious that there is collusion between the Bushites, NeoCons and the Clintonite/DLCers, they will all be lucky to get out of the country.

Hillary’s campaign seems to have developed a mind of its own. Is there any way to stop it before it leads the Democratic party over a cliff only to be dashed to pieces on the rocks below?

Sadly, I doubt it.

For more like this: sandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/following-hillary-over-a-cliff/#more-1038

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Lincoln Was The First Republican President.

......will Bush be the last?

It would be reason for great celebration if both national parties broke into smaller, more honest entities. Who the hell knows what it means when someone calls himself a Republican? One must wonder: Is he religiously insane, a corporate sociopathic thug of some kind or a garden variety conservative/libertarian.

The Democrats are just as bad. They may be the oldest political party, but they have morphed again and again. I think that is why they can't get their message out now. Do they have one?

As an over-the-hill American who still believes in our founding principles and who also believes that America should be about realizing those principles; manifesting them, right here, and now. Of course, we haven't managed to accomplish this feat yet, but we must never stop trying, let alone declare war on them, as this administration has done.

If the GOP actually implodes in 2008, I'll do my best to see that the Democrats follow shortly. Neither of these political parties have shown that they know what the issues of the masses are let alone are inclined to do anything about any of them other than pay lip service.

They whine about the coming insolvency of social security, yet fail to mention hat it isn't working now. Do you know that there are disabled people in this country who are required to lice n slightly more than $400/month. That's right. I said month, not week

We need several political parties that better reflect what its members really believe when it comes to governance.

The only way to get there is through public financing of campaigns. Why, pray tell, must our campaign for president, in particular, resemble a drunken circus rather than the most important, sober and responsible thing we do, every two years. Less money, less circus. (While we are at it, let's shorten the campaign considerably. Less money, less circus time.)

Who won't be sick and tired of everyone of these candidates for president by the time November 2009 rolls around, even the ones we like might like today?

As with the Republicans, one never knows with whom one is dealing when someone says they are a Democrat. What the hell does that mean, anymore? One must ask oneself, OK, is this a nanny-stater who is more busy trying to save me from myself or who gets it and knows that huge business cannot be left to self-regulate, as they are bottom-lie-feeders, who could care less if your toddler gets led poisoning or your whole family get wiped out by an exploding tire while your gas-guzzling Urban Assault vehicle is clipping down the highway at 80MPH like a fireball straight out of hell?

Is this a Blue-dog Democrat? I'm not sure who these guys are, but I think they are against the war in Iraq or the way it has been prosecuted. Other than that, they are every bit as conservative as their hero, Saint Ronnie.

Is this a cult-of-Clinton Democrat? These people are either mesmerized by the Clintons, for reasons I have yet to figure out or they fondly remember the relative calm, prosperity and peace of the Clinton years after 6 1/2 years of the Bushites, or they would love nothing better than to see Hillary win and jam it down the throats of the miserable Goopers who hate her with a hatefulness I can only term pathological.

I don't concern myself much with the so-called Bush-haters, because I really don't believe there are many of them. Fox Noise would have us believe that there are thousands of psychotic Democrats frothing at their mouths, while trying to scale the wall around the White House grounds, but that is not true. There are millions who despise his policies and to such a degree that they can in no way support them, but not so many can muster the energy to hate George W. Bush. It is a waste of time and energy; hate makes you sick after awhile. It rots your heart.

Then there are the liberal Democrats. They should be in a party by themselves. What in hell do they have in common with the Blue dogs over the long haul. They may agree on Iraq, but that's about it.

I'm not sure what I am anymore, except independent. I came of age at another place in time when we were lied into a war of aggression by a Democrat and kept in that horrid quagmire by the lies of a Republican. The current quagmire will be just the opposite I fear, except worse. Bush got us into it. Is Clinton the Democrats' Richard Nixon; will she keep us in it, while pretending to get out. It won't work, Hillary. There will be too many eyes upon you.

You see, there are very good reasons why I don't trust either of the current major political parties and have remained independent all these years.

October 6, 2007

The Death of a Political Party

By Mike Kuykendall

I have posted a few times on how I believe the Republican party is in dire trouble, and without modifying their base of support, it is possible they could reduce themselves to a minority party for decades to come. That is if they don't disintegrate completely.

As you can expect every post in that vein has drawn freepers out like cockroaches when the lights go out. It infuriates them for me to even hint that the GOP is fallible, much less mortal and thus able to die.

As a history lesson to those who may not have been awake during American Government (for me it was Social Studies) I'd like to present a couple of American political parties that have gone down the same road. Take a look and see if you can catch any similarities between the demise of these parties and current goings-on;

Federalist Party- Formed by Alexander Hamilton and pals, this party started in 1793 and met its end anywhere from 1816 to somewhere in the 1820's, depending on which historian you talk to. In a sense this party died when Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel;

After John Adams, their candidate, was elected president in 1796, the Federalists began to decline. The Federalists' suppression of free speech under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the assumption of closer relations with Britain instead of France, inflamed Jeffersonian Republicans. In 1801 Jefferson, with Vice President Aaron Burr at his side, assumed the presidency.

The Federalists feared and hated Jefferson, but partly due to infighting, they were never able to organize successful opposition. A last great hope -- that the New England states would secede and form a Federalist nation -- collapsed when Jefferson won a landslide reelection in 1804, thanks to the Louisiana Purchase. Alexander Hamilton was left with little power -- and with no choice but to meet Aaron Burr on the dueling ground in hope of reviving his political career. But Hamilton was doomed, and so was his party. The Federalists would never again rise to power.

Whig Party- Formed to oppose the policies of President Andrew Jackson in 1832, this party lasted until 1856;

In its 26-year existence, the Whig Party saw two of its candidates elected President of the United States—Harrison and Taylor—and saw Harrison die in office. Four months after succeeding Harrison, Whig President John Tyler was expelled from the Party, and Millard Fillmore was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office.

The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories. Deep fissures in the party on this question led the party to run Winfield Scott over its own incumbent President Fillmore in the U.S. presidential election of 1852. The Whig Party never elected another President. Its leaders quit politics (as Lincoln did temporarily) or changed parties. The voter base defected to the Republican Party, various coalition parties in some states, and to the Democratic Party.

The main similarities here are elitist parties suffering after huge nationalized failures (pushing secession to avoid Jefferson or trying to expand slavery.) Not too different than driving the country over a cliff following ephemeral and constantly shifting policies justifying the war in Iraq, or any of the other issues the Bush administration has been pushing.

One thing to remember after today's history lesson; even political parties don't last forever. Well, strike that- maybe some do (emphasis mine);

The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, the other being the Republican Party. It is the oldest active political party in the world today.

The party of Jefferson, formed in 1792, carries on today fighting for the rights of everyday people. Any other interest is transitory; only progressive movements will stand the test of time.


Authors Website: http://indigentahole.blogspot.com

Authors Bio: Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Now That Both Political Parties Are On The Verge Of Destruction...

What's Next?

Provided there isn't total destruction: Get rid of the outdated electoral college, Publically finance all campaigns, build more political parties.

September 28, 2007

By W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

NEITHER party will survive the now totally successful Bush/fascist coup d'etat.

The Democratic base is now predominantly liberal/progressive, but the "Democratic Party" is a DLC beltway nightmare. People like the DLC Hillary Clinton Doll are quite literally HATED by most of what used to be called Democrats. At great expense, effort, and sacrifice, progressives elected a 2006 Democratic Congress, but cowards and traitors like Nancy Peloci and Harry Reid converted this passionately hard won advantage into toilets down which they eagerly flush the slightest trace of liberal values and policies.

The "lunatic fringe" of the Republican Party has castrated the loyal opposition to what were formerly mainstream Democrats. The creative polarity between these two parties has ceased to exist. "Radicals" (that dirty word Republicans used to call Democrats) have eaten the Republican Party alive, with pathological religious fanatics babbling about Armageddon (the Baptist Big Bang) and vampire Texas energy companies raping Mother Nature to the verge of extinction. Said differently, it has been wisely pointed out that we rescued Europe from fascism twice, but now the fascists are HERE and no one is going to rescue us.

Other variables must include the neocon cabal which has direct associations with similarly lunatic fringe right wing Israelis. Hence, via this cabal, our national policy has been reduced to the tail wagged by the dog of another country. Indeed, this cabal is now virtually a 3rd Party in American Politics. The irony that a successful American 3rd Party is not based in America is infinite. At the very least, it utterly dominates what used to be the Republican Party, contributing to the inevitable death of the "American" Republican Party.

What happened to the Democratic Party is still something of a mystery. It has been obvious for years that the Democratic "Leadership" Council is a lapdog of America's Dictatorship of the Rich, but even with their limitless funding, the TOTAL disconnect between the DLC and the great majority of passionate progressives is a wonder to behold. And here again, the dog is wagging the tail, since DLC Democrats (a contradiction in terms) have tons of money, but relatively few members. A nearly exact comparison between the DLC and most Americans is that of the fascist collaborators in France during WW2.

It will take the highest quality poet combined with the highest quality historian to do justice to the boggling fact that the Neocon "Third Party" is all of a piece with the American 4th Reich -- a direct, and perhaps inevitable, extension of Germany's WW2 3rd Reich. Perhaps we should call our would be fascist masters the Neocon Reich.

It's interesting to speculate that since the neocon cabal has killed the Republican Party and the DLC has killed the Democratic Party, and since "establishment politics" is the modus operandi by which America's elites (1% or less) manipulate all the rest of us, one wonders what will happen now that establishment politics will no longer be a millstone around our necks.

*****************************************************************

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

Authors Website: www.theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com

Authors Bio: A liberal American, PhD mathematician, bipedal Earthling.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

A Pox On Both Their Houses

Our Politics are and will remain one huge lie until there is a multi-party system which better describes what politicians stand for.

Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 06 September 2007

This letter sent from then DCCC Head Rahm Emanuel to Democratic House hopeful Jan Schneider underscores a DCCC policy of remaining "neutral" in primary races. Schneider soon came to doubt the letter's sincerity.

It was the day after Christmas 2005 and Christine Cegelis sat alone at her dining room table, trying to figure out how to tell her campaign volunteers that she was going to drop out of the 2006 Democratic primary.

The next evening she was to meet with friends and colleagues who had organized around her candidacy for the House of Representatives in the 6th District of Illinois. Her volunteers had walked block after block of the suburban district and spent hours making phone calls to solicit donations and promote the campaign. Many of these people had been at Cegelis's side during her 2004 campaign and witnessed the fruits of their labor when long-time Republican Representative Henry Hyde decided to retire instead of facing Cegelis again in 2006. This was their shot to have a national impact.

But pressure coming from the national Democratic Party was too great. The Democrats had found a challenger for Cegelis, an Iraq veteran named Tammy Duckworth. Contributions were pouring into the opposing campaign and Duckworth was shuttled into the national media spotlight. Cegelis began receiving calls from Democratic members of Congress informing her that they were planning to support Duckworth.

Some of Cegelis's own paid campaign staff implored her to drop out; and she had every reason to listen. She had only $40,000 in the bank, her campaign manager had given up on the campaign and given her office staff two weeks' paid vacation without Cegelis' permission, and her media coordinator had recently quit. Rumor had it that Illinois Senator Barack Obama was going to star in television commercials for Duckworth - star power the Cegelis campaign could never match.

The next day when she sat down in her campaign office with her twelve closest volunteers, Cegelis prepared herself to admit defeat. She laid out the worst-case scenario: The Democratic Party was willing to spend millions of dollars to defeat her in the primary. If she did manage to beat Duckworth, the party would not help her in the general election, leaving the campaign on its own to face a Republican candidate who was hand picked by the national Republican Party.

Instead of agreeing to quit, every one of her volunteers looked her in the eye and said, "We are here to fight."

In May 2004, a former candidate for the New York State Legislature named Cynthia Pooler founded November Victories and Democrat Unity, online forums for new candidates who were running for Congress as Democrats.

"Before you knew it, candidates started talking about the difficulties they were having with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic leadership," Pooler said.

According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.

Appointed as head of the DCCC by then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel spearheaded the Democratic Party effort to regain control of the House of Representatives during the 2006 election cycle. Emanuel claimed credit for the Democratic takeover and was promoted to chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in the House. But his election tactics have been criticized by progressive activists and former Congressional candidates.

According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries.

According to Doug Thornell, spokesperson for the DCCC, "The policy of the DCCC is not to get involved in primaries, unless there is an unusual circumstance that demands it. I cannot speculate on what those circumstances might be. The majority of these cases [2008 primaries] will be left up to the voters on the ground. Meddling hasn't taken place this cycle, and for the most part last cycle. That isn't an accurate way to describe what happened. We are cognizant of having local support for our candidates."

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, would not comment on the DCCC's alleged interference.

However, a source close to the DNC indicated that there was disagreement between Dean and Emanuel over election tactics. In his recent book, "The Thumpin'," Naftali Bendavid, a journalist who spent months inside the DCCC operation and at Emanuel's side, reported a heated conversation between Dean, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) regarding election strategies of the DCCC and the DNC. At the time, Dean was focusing on helping local organizations across the country to mobilize their communities to support Democrats. Emanuel wanted to focus the resources of the national party on specific races that were the most likely to be competitive for Democrats. According to Bendavid, Emanuel said to Dean, "You're nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's fucking bullshit ... I know your field plan - it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There is no plan, Howard."

How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff. Emanuel declined direct comment on this story. But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Illinois's 6th District: Christine Cegelis vs. Tammy Duckworth

A well-documented instance of interference by the DCCC during a Democratic primary occurred during the contest between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth. Cegelis, a strong proponent of withdrawal from Iraq, encountered unexpected and effective opposition from the DCCC.

Cegelis challenged former 16-term Republican Congressman Henry Hyde in 2004. An information technology specialist, Cegelis had no previous experience in politics, but decided to face off against an entrenched incumbent Republican. Her 2004 campaign, run on a meager budget with mostly volunteer staff, was able to create a tightly knit grassroots infrastructure in the Illinois 6th Congressional District. In 2004, Cegelis received just over 44 percent of the vote. The 82- year-old Hyde decided to retire rather than face another reelection campaign in 2006. This seat became a top target for the Democratic leaders and a microcosm of a much larger battle for the future of the Democratic Party.

Emanuel, himself a congressman from the neighboring 5th District of Illinois, apparently tried to recruit six different candidates to run against Cegelis. According to Kevin Spidel, campaign manager for the Cegelis campaign, all of Emanuel's attempts failed because the potential candidates "all said 'hell no!' They knew the resentment they would face. If you were in the district, you knew how much Cegelis was loved. She built her own machine."

Eventually, Emanuel found a candidate who lived just outside the district, Tammy Duckworth. Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who was severely injured in combat in Iraq, was convinced to run against Cegelis by Emanuel and two Democratic heavyweights, Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama.

Duckworth was not a proponent of a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. The Los Angeles Times, quoting Duckworth, reported that she believed the military should not "'simply pull up stakes' in Iraq because it would 'create a security vacuum' and 'risk allowing [Iraq] ... to become a base for terrorists.'" According to the same article, Duckworth supported "a pullout of US forces on a schedule based on the training of Iraq's armed forces."

Expedited withdrawal from Iraq was a main plank of the Cegelis campaign platform.

According to Bendavid's book, "Duckworth quickly became the center of a nasty fight over Emanuel's tactics." According to Bendavid, "Emanuel, Durbin, and other Democratic leaders did not believe Cegelis was working hard enough or raising sufficient money ... [Emanuel, Durbin, and other Democratic leaders] used their clout to persuade Duckworth to run and to direct money, attention, and endorsements her way."

Tim Bagwell, a grassroots activist and Cegelis campaigner, said that Duckworth was "hot-wired" into the national media and fund-raising circuit by the DCCC. George Stephanopoulos, who served in the Clinton administration with Emanuel, interviewed Duckworth on his Sunday morning ABC News program, elevating her to national prominence.

According to Spidel, the Cegelis campaign was prevented from accessing Democratic fund-raising and Political Action Committee lists held by the DCCC. Cegelis said that many of the potential donors she contacted had been instructed by the DCCC not to give her campaign money. She felt that she was locked out.

"To tell you I didn't take it personally is wrong," Cegelis said, adding, "this was the wrong way to choose a representative. It is wrong of parties to exclude people from the primary elections. The primary is the time for the people to choose who is on the ballot; those decisions should not be made in back rooms."

Bendavid goes on to quote Emanuel saying of Cegelis, "If she would only work as hard as she would goddamn whine.... She's the only one who says, 'What can you do for me?" adding, "[Cegelis] could absolutely win. She's just not doing it."

Emanuel's assertion about Cegelis's work ethic was hotly contested by members of her campaign.

Cegelis said that she woke up at 4 a.m. every day to go to train stations in the district to shake hands with commuters during the morning rush hour. Then around 9 a.m. she would get on the phone in her campaign headquarters to try and bring in contributions. She would walk to a volunteer's house near her headquarters, where she would nap on the couch from 4:30-6 p.m. After dinner she would get into her car and drive to different neighborhoods for "Coffee with Christine," small gatherings in the homes of constituents of the 6th District where neighbors would gather to share their ideas with Cegelis.

According to Spidel, Emanuel worked against Cegelis because of her support for withdrawal from Iraq and her outspoken opposition to "free trade" legislation like the Central American Free Trade Agreement. "In 2006 the DCCC was Emanuel's personal weapon. He executed based on his needs. He needed votes on 'free trade' legislation that he supports, and he knew that [Cegelis] was one of the Democrats who would vote her own way," Spidel said.

Spidel said that Emanuel worked to defeat Cegelis because she represented a threat to the established Illinois Democrats and because she did not seek their approval before running. "Chicago politics is a family. If you didn't go into the city and kiss certain rings, you were not given certain resources like Political Action Committee lists and donor lists. Cegelis' success hurt some egos and the party didn't like their lack of control," Spidel said.

While Cegelis maintained strong volunteer support, the DCCC-backed Duckworth campaign spent close to $1 million in the primary. The race was extremely close, with Duckworth receiving 44 percent to Cegelis's 40 percent.

"Cegelis was the reason the district was in play in the first place," Spidel said. "If a candidate was able to grow a serious grassroots campaign, especially in a district that historically favored Republicans, it seems illogical to try and challenge it from outside the district. If a Congressional district was completely off the radar before 2004 and the only reason the DCCC was looking at it as a pickup opportunity in 2006 was because of the work a grassroots candidate did, to have come in and discredited the grassroots candidate undermined the entire effort. The DCCC just threw their money away."

Duckworth was beaten in the general election by a right-wing Republican, former State Senator Peter Roskam. One of Roskam's main criticisms of Duckworth was the fact that her home was not located in the district. Roskam won with 51 percent of the vote to Duckworth's 49 percent.

Florida's 13th District: Jan Schneider vs. Christine Jennings

Dr. Jan Schneider, a graduate of Yale Law School and a Ph.D in political science, ran as the Democratic challenger in Florida's 13th Congressional District against Republican Katherine Harris in 2004. In 2004, Schneider was the most competitive Democratic challenger in Florida, garnering 45 percent of the vote against Harris, but Harris won.

Harris vacated the seat in 2006 in order to run for the Senate. Harris' departure was an opportunity for Schneider and her locally mobilized campaign to win a seat for the Democratic Party.

Schneider was an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and made the war a central issue in her campaigns. Schneider said recently that she "supports the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq to begin within the next 120 days," a plan approved by the United States House of Representatives in July of this year.

Schneider faced a primary challenge in 2006 from Christine Jennings, a former Republican banker and businesswoman. According to a candidate information page hosted by The Sarasota Herald Tribune, "Jennings doesn't have a specific direction for conducting the war and says she needs more information." Regarding the withdrawal legislation passed by the House in July 2007, Jennings said that she was "not sure whether she would have voted for it." According to Congressional Quarterly, "many Democratic officials thought Jennings's business background would make her a more viable general election contender."

Schneider defeated Jennings by nine percentage points in the 2004 primary.

Schneider became concerned about possible interference from the DCCC during the 2006 primary because, according to Schneider, Jennings had a very wealthy Democratic contributor on her side. Frank Brunckhorst III, a well-known donor to both the Democratic Party and to powerful Democratic members of Congress from Florida, accompanied Jennings to the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Schneider sat down with Emanuel in 2005 to address her concern that Jennings might get preferential treatment from the DCCC during the primary. According to Schneider, Emanuel told her that the DCCC's policy was not to choose sides during primaries. On May 26, 2005, Emanuel wrote a letter to Schneider reiterating the policy of the DCCC: "You expressed concerns about the DCCC getting involved in party primaries. While our preference is to avoid having them, our policy is to remain neutral," stated the letter, signed by Emanuel.

Schneider claims that Emanuel broke this policy during the 2006 primary race. "Emanuel caused the Schneider campaign to be removed from the DCCC website and circulated solicitations for contributions to Democratic candidates indicating that there was no [Democratic] primary in the Florida 13th," according to a memorandum Schneider prepared.

Schneider blames the DCCC for misleading Senator John Kerry (D- Massachusetts) into thinking that Jennings was running in the primary without any competition from within the party. Kerry gave a $1,000 donation to the Jennings campaign, which was publicized by Jennings as an endorsement. When Schneider confronted Kerry about this donation, Kerry apologized and said that he donated based on assertions by Emanuel that the race was "a targeted race with no primary," and that he never meant to interfere with an intra-party contest, according to Schneider. Congresswoman Shelly Berkley (D- Nevada) says that the DCCC sent her a letter asking her to contribute to races where there was no primary. The letter listed the Florida 13th as a race with only one Democrat pursuing the party's nomination.

Appearing on the satirical comedy central program, "The Colbert Report," in May 2006, Schneider expressed her frustration with the Democratic Party. "I'm pretty disgusted with both parties these days - the Republicans for what they stand for and the Democrats for what they don't."

In 2006, Jennings received 62 percent of the primary vote and defeated Schneider. Jennings went on to lose to Republican Vern Buchanan by 373 votes in a district with electronic voting machines that did not produce a verifiable paper record. More than 18,000 ballots recorded no votes for either Buchanan or Jennings. An election challenge filed by Jennings is making its way through the House Administration Committee.

Cegelis and Schneider, outspoken anti-war candidates who ran competitive campaigns in 2004 against incumbent Republicans, were challenged and defeated from within their own party in 2006. Both races ultimately ended in extremely close losses for the Democratic Party.

California's 11th District: Jerry McNerney vs. Steve Filson

One grassroots campaign that made withdrawal from Iraq a central issue was able to defeat a DCCC-backed candidate despite direct interference during the intra-party primary.

Democrat Jerry McNerney, an engineer and wind energy expert, had previously challenged incumbent Republican Richard Pombo in 2004. With a late start and little organization, McNerney's 2004 campaign only received 39 percent of the vote in a district that voted 45 percent for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. McNerney's effort put the 11th District back into play, and his campaign was revamped in order to mount a serious challenge to Pombo in 2006.

McNerney was a strong critic of the occupation of Iraq and publicly supported Congressman John Murtha's "redeployment" plan for US combat troops serving in Iraq. According to A. J. Carrillo, campaign manager for McNerney, this position on the war made McNerney seem like a fringe candidate to Democratic leaders in Washington. "In the fall of 2005, candidates who were in favor of enforcing a timetable for withdrawal were considered 'liberals' who couldn't win in districts that trended Republican," Carrillo said.

In a move that seems to run contrary to Emanuel's stated policy that the DCCC was to "remain neutral" in primary contests, McNerney's primary opponent, Navy veteran and former Republican Steve Filson was, according to Carrillo, endorsed in the primary by the DCCC. In contrast to McNerney, Filson did not campaign in support of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

According to Carrillo, Filson was on Emanuel's short list of top-tier candidates, a designation that helped steer early campaign donations to the Filson campaign. "Party insiders were calling and asking that McNerney drop out and let Filson take on Pombo," Carrillo said. According to Carrillo, when McNerney refused to step aside, the DCCC went to work on behalf of his primary opponent.

Carrillo saw DCCC press secretary Sarah Feinberg assisting the Filson campaign at a debate between the two candidates during the primary. Carrillo claims that he received word from a Congressional source that the DCCC was advising Filson's campaign on messaging and strategy. Carrillo's source leaked the information from the DCCC to the McNerney campaign.

Apparently the DCCC ordered a company that prints and distributes campaign mailings to targeted voters not to work with the McNerney campaign. According to Carrillo, he had spoken to the company and faxed them a contract, when a representative from the company called him and said that there was "a minor issue with the DCCC but it shouldn't be a problem." The next morning a company representative called back and said the company could not do business with the McNerney campaign. "The company said that they got an ultimatum from the DCCC. They did a lot of business with the DCCC, so it wasn't worth risking it all just for our campaign. We had to scramble to find another company," Carrillo said.

Despite the primary interference, McNerney did not get discouraged. "Jerry was not bitter or angry about the experience," Carrillo said, adding, "he just went out and decided to prove them all wrong. He really is Mr. Smith goes to Washington."

The campaign received a boost from an old-school Republican, former Congressman and veteran Pete McCloskey, who came out of retirement to challenge incumbent Congressman Pombo in the Republican primary. Pombo beat McCloskey, but the fight left Pombo damaged. McCloskey, one of the authors of the Endangered Species Act, attacked Pombo for his assault on environmental protection regulations and his association with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. After losing the primary, McCloskey supported the McNerney campaign. McNerney ended up winning the seat with slightly more than 53 percent of the vote.

Florida's 16th District: David Lutrin vs. Tim Mahoney

Wealthy businessman Tim Mahoney, a self-described "fundamental Christian," was recruited by the DCCC to run against then-Congressman Mark Foley in Florida's 16th District. According to The Palm Beach Post, Mahoney switched his registration from Republican to Democrat in July of 2005. Mahoney did not support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

David Lutrin, a school teacher, union activist and staunch supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, decided to run against Foley before Mahoney entered the race. After Mahoney declared his candidacy, Lutrin was contacted by field organizers for the DCCC who asked him to drop out and let Mahoney run unopposed.

Lutrin said that he also met personally with Mahoney. During a three- hour breakfast meeting, Mahoney offered Lutrin a higher-paying job if he agreed to drop out of the primary. "Mahoney tried to get me to run in a different district. He offered me a job at one of his non-profit organizations where he said that I would make more than I was making as a teacher. He said I could campaign full time while working at his non-profit as long as I agreed to drop out of the race," Lutrin said. Lutrin declined the job offer.

According to Lutrin, when he refused to step aside, the DCCC shored up local political support for Mahoney. The local AFL-CIO chapter, of which Lutrin was a member, came out with an early endorsement of Mahoney's campaign. According to Lutrin, the union told him that "they would like to back a fellow union brother, but Mahoney has more money and more political support from the party." Lutrin eventually dropped out of the race when the local teachers' union decided to support Mahoney.

Before it was revealed that then-incumbent Mark Foley had engaged in sexually explicit conversations with a teenage Congressional page, Florida's 16th district had been considered a safe seat for Republicans.

It has been reported that the DCCC knew that Foley was engaging in inappropriate communications with Congressional pages before the story made headlines. According to CNN, a Democratic House staff member sent copies of suggestive email correspondence between Foley and an teenage Congressional page to the DCCC communication director, Bill Burton, in the fall of 2005. Burton later said that he had informed Emanuel of the emails when he received them.

On October 8, 2006, Emanuel joined Republican Congressman Adam Putnam (R-Florida) on ABC's "This Week," hosted by George Stephanopoulos to discuss Foley's conduct. Emanuel dodged multiple questions about when he became aware of the misconduct by Foley. Democrats were decrying the lack of action taken by then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert on the issue.

The exact date that the DCCC became aware of the Foley emails that resulted in his losing the election and the exact date that the DCCC's recruitment of Tim Mahoney to switch parties and run as a Democrat against Foley are not yet known at the time of this writing.

Mahoney won the seat in 2006 and joined The Blue Dog Coalition.

The New Democratic Majority

While Emanuel is given credit for turning power over to the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, the majority is fractured.

Many of the candidates that Emanuel helped elect have joined with a group of self-styled conservative Blue Dog Democrats and have cast key votes with Republicans and stymied Democratic efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Thirteen of the Democratic members of the House elected in 2006 joined The Blue Dog Coalition; a group that, according to its spokesperson, has no official stance on withdrawal from Iraq or the president's warrantless wiretapping program. However, 30 out of 47 of the Blue Dog members broke with the majority of Democrats and cast votes in favor of the recent Protect America Act, a bill that greatly expanded the power of the executive branch to spy on Americans. The caucus also broke with the majority of Democrats when 40 of the Blue Dog members voted to continue funding the occupation of Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal.

In an interview shortly after his election, freshman Blue Dog member Tim Mahoney told the Charlotte Sun, a local paper from his district, that he attended a meeting with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism."

-------

This story is based on a month-long investigation by Truthout into the practices of the DCCC and scores of interviews with Congressional spokespeople, political activists and former candidates for office.

---

Matt Renner is an assistant editor and Washington reporter for Truthout.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.