Hi Mark,

Just wanted to point out that the US is a federal republic, not a democratic republic. Common misconception.

Democratic Republic of Vietnam, anyone?

Are you serious? You have absolutely no idea how to bring the left and the right back together again? You are just go to pray and hope something good happens?

With hopelessness like that, I can certainly see why you are worried.

And I wouldn't just worry about what might happen if a Republican gets elected. The radical right wing opposition was much more violent during the last democratic reign than any liberals we see today. Remember the militias? Waco? Timothy McVeigh? What's do you suppose these wackos are going to do if Hillary gets elected?

It's going to take more than just praying to get this country back together again. My best hope would be that a group of practical centrists come to power who can find common ground and mend old wounds. It's the polarized "winner takes all" mentality that will further us down the path to ruin. And if that's the best you can come up with, maybe the left and the right do need to go their separate ways.

Ahh, silly B4Bers, there won't be a 2008 election... This is how it's going to go down.

They started preparing the American people for it in Novermber 2004. A few days before the 2008 election, there will be a terror threat, and because of this threat (and the US invading Iran in the year before the election), the election will be postponed for a "few days."

Then, after election Tuesday in Nov 2008, the Bush people will start to say that the US Constitution only allows for elections on that given day, and that the election can't take place. That's if the dems are in charge of the HoR.

Other stunts we could see... the Republican Congress could cut funding to the courts, and that would shut the Supreme Court down, and then they couldn't be over ruled, and because I don't think they take the law seriously right now, they could then do whatever they want (like crown an emperor), and not really have anyone who could stand up to them... the Congress could pass a law saying the Courts can't rule on issues dealing with religion, or war, or security, or the President, or whatever...

Stuffs getting scary, and it seems like this dude is right.

Wow.... Here comes Jomama, proving Mark right. If the Dems were afraid of us trying to steal an election by regestering dead people or something like that. Atleast then it would make sence, since that is what they do. Or by slashing tires of vans that are going to carry elderly voters, that might make sence, since that is what they do. But Jomama, he doesnt make ANY sence. Wow.

After running into a brick wall head first and smoking way too much pot, I am now ready for a lberal prediction of my own.

In 2008 George Bush will take off his suit (did you see men in black, libs believe movies are real you know) and in reality it wont be Bush. It was actualy hitler re-incarnate, wearing a Bush suit. And hitler will say that since Bush was elected twice, not him, and since he is re-incarnate he is considered an American, than he can run a 3rd time. Then, A few days before the 2008 election, there will be a terror threat, and because of this threat (and the US invading Iran in the year before the election), the election will be postponed for a "few days."

Then, after election Tuesday in Nov 2008, the Bush people will start to say that the US Constitution only allows for elections on that given day, and that the election can't take place. That's if the dems are in charge of the HoR.

Calvin said...
libs believe movies are real you know

Not true... But it's true that you believe that the liberals believe movies are real.

Really, why would they steal the election? It's much easier to just stop holding elections. The people don't vote the way they want them to anyway...

Mark,
You have done more that your share to poison american politics.
You've used this blog to drive a wedge between the right, and left at every opportunity, and helped to "dehumanize" the members of the different parties. (You may not be aware of this, but an important part of military training is to "dehumanize" the enemy, this makes it easier, even acceptable for you to kill them.)
Now you seem suprised to find many Americans have taken your words to heart.
Hate is a powerful force Mark, and you've generated a lot of it.
My question is: why would anyone think it would only be college professors manning the ranks of the Blue Army?
When I was in the Marine Corps, all my buddies were democrats, very large, well trained, angry, inner city delling, democrats, and they are much more angry towards the Reds than I ever will be.

Remember....Ohio was stolen because the GOP won there. But Wisconsin with a Kerry win of 12,000 votes and already criminal convictions of voter fraud PROVEN was not...oh, because Kerry won there.

It truly is amazing sometimes.

The Dems keep forgetting, if only Al Gore won his own damn COUNTY...his own STATE...he would have won the Presidency. He didn't.

The AP, USA TODAY, Miami Herald, etc, etc all examined the election along with a blue ribbon committee and all determined Bush won the election.

I keep forgetting which party has dead people voting, claims race intimidation at the polls, Tammeny Hall, Union intimidation, etc, etc.

I keep forgetting which party that would be and has historically been actually CAUGHT stealing an election (1960 JFK - Texas and Illinois anyone).

Hmmm...which party would that be.

Mark,

Although the conflict between the two sides has definitely increased, I do not think that either side will have the backbone to start a war over it. Quite honestly, most people do not care as intimately about politics as some would have you believe. Sure, anyone can spout off an ill-informed "death to bush" slogan or claim that Bush is the greatest man on earth occasionally, but most people only pay attention to politics every once and awhile, and are generally more concerned with their own personal affairs than ones that are on a federal level. The worst I can see are a few riots that require police action.

Jomama,

Your paranoia is so blatant that I'm having trouble believing that you yourself believe what you're saying. Unless your entire post is an attempt to bring attention to Republican partisanship and corruption through some weird theater of the absurd for blog posts, then I'm afraid that you've lost contact with reality. You make an illogical assumption that the Republicans are as desperate as Democrats to retain their power. Rest assured that we will not stoop to your level.

Stunts the Democrats can pull...I don't know, how about circulate unsupported theories about corruption and crime in the opposing party, and tricking people into believing it and propogating the fallacies in comment sections of blogs?

I especially liked the end of Barnett's article:

But if Harvard professors want to storm the Bastille--or start a civil war--they'll have to do it themselves. And that's not very likely.

After all, they don't even want Army recruiters on campus.

I especially liked the end of Barnett's article:

But if Harvard professors want to storm the Bastille--or start a civil war--they'll have to do it themselves. And that's not very likely.

After all, they don't even want Army recruiters on campus.

Uh, Jomama, Blitzer's sidekick, Cafferty, is a left-wing, conspiracy-theorist kook. Nobody, other than Wolfie, and the kook-fringe left, listen to him. We don't honor (DN)CNN here at B4B, unless they're reporting sports.

Now step away from the bong, kook...

Extra,

Jomama and Mike are a bit of Q.E.D. to my point, I think.

The reason I resort to prayer is because of this:

If people believe what is demonstrably false - ie, that the 2000 or 2004 elections were stolen - then there is no way for me to meet with them and come to an amicable arrangement. To sit down and talk to such people is akin to trying to sit down and debate a man who really thinks the Moon is made of green cheese.

Mike,

I dispute that notion - I have gotten heated at times, and I am sorry for it: I really don't want to engage in invective, but I will state what I believe is the true case. That said, poison in the body politic is the knowing transmission of a lie - what many on the left are doing is retailing not just lies, but lies they know to be lies. There is no informed observer who can, say, assert that there was anything untoward in the 2004 Presidential election results on the part of the GOP - anyone who is an informed observer and is making such suggestions is lying, and knows he's lying. This is poisoning the body politic - it is bamboozling un-informed observers into believing a falsehood to be true.

Who else here wants to bring Clinton back?

"On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

Maf....ahhh, too friggin bad.

There's a reason why it's been 31 years since a DONK got 50% of the vote. Once people actually hear what they are going to do they get rational again.

Do they want Clinton to create another Internet Bubble too that he was never responsible for in the first place? I'd love to see the Clinton response if the Internet bubble which landed in his lap had never occurred.

A civil war between blue states and red states. Now that would be funny. What are the blue states going to do?

They don't believe in guns rights. They won't be praying to God for strength. They abort their offspring at an alarming rate so their troops won't be replenished.

Seems to me they would be in a world of hurt.

maf,

Given that Clinton never got 50% of the vote, the results of that poll just prove that it is massively overweighted in favor of Democrats...but, please, keep believing those polls...they are surely more important than the votes on election day...in fact, don't even show up on election day...all you'll need is a new CNN poll the day after election day, right?

I just got wind of 2 unbelievable pieces of news: Rove will be indicted tonite and Michele Malkin supports VDARE.COM,even writes for the racist site. She also employs one Jaun Mann the head Klansman at that blog. This can't be true? Peace

Mark I personally do not think bush stole the election, but i pose this question to you, is it any different than people claiming chavez stole the election (even though its clear he has a huge majority in his country)?

Mark,

Mike sez... "You have done more that your share to poison american politics. You've used this blog to drive a wedge between the right, and left at every opportunity, and helped to 'dehumanize' the members of the different parties."

I don't think you are poisoning American politics; the liberal left is doing that!

You are helping to expose the liberal left and their agenda, rhetoric, propaganda, views, opinions, lies, hatred, and anti-Americanism for what they really are. You must be having an effect, and obviously, they don't like that!

Keep up the good work!

AAR

maf

When I saw the poll results, I felt a tremendous wave of nostalgia for the peaceful, prosperous, tolerant Clinton years. To have a centrist leader again, to have a budget surplus, to have international alliances ......oh Calgon take me away!
I know Bill was a sinner, I know he wasn't very ethical, but he was a leader, and a leader beloved by the world. As a former president he has raised money for the tsunami, raised money for Katrina, raised money for Aids and worked to decrease childhood obesity. What will George W. do in three years? Go back to the ranch and cut brush?????

Extramedium---I loved your post. You told the truth better than anyone else on this blog. If you treat people in your own country as unpatriotic, or sympathetic to the enemy because they do not share the exact same views, don't be surprised when they become your enemy.

It took a lot for GWB to turn 80%+ approval ratings after 9/11 into 29% approval ratings, but he never questioned any of his decisions all the way down. Winning has always been more important to his team than listening to opposing points of view. He wanted no input from the opposition, or even from members of his own party, and he punished those within his administration who didn't stick with the program.
Let the evangelical fly back to Crawford, and give our battered country a chance to heal its wounds. If we are at each other's throats it is because of Karl Rove's wedge issues. Look for a whole slew of them to come to a vote in congress before the election: gay marriage ban, stem cell research ban, flag-burning amendment, etc. You see, he's got to stir up the base----he's their president not the 2/3 of us he's forgotten about.

In order to be taken seriousl people (libs) have to offer some kinds of alternatives to their constant negative bashing of the ideas on the right. They seem think just because they say Bush is stupid, a nazi or some other stupid remark makes it so.
Readers go to the bibliography of a book written by a conservative vs a liberal. the thickness os a conservative author is 5 to 1 over a liberal. I say it (maureen is great at it) so it must be true.
Dindy

Did you know that the NY Times reported today that John Kerry has a 26% approval rating and Al Gore 28%.

Bush would still beat both of them...simple fact is that people are anti politicians all over the place right now.

Interesting that Warmongernation would quote a NYT article. Do you happen to have that link?

Clinton is the man - you couldn't beat him then, and you wouldn't be able to beat him now, either.

OMG- The drive by media. Say it ain't so.

W. is more popular than, uh...used car salesmen? Dentists that don't use anesthetics? Pedophiles? Dick Cheney?

Mark, how can you sit there and refute what Mike said, that you do not spew your own breed of hate, continuing to fuel the fires of a possible civil war?

In every post (almost) on this site I have ever read, you ALWAYS blame the left for everything bad and you NEVER seem to take responsibility for the fact that Conservatives make mistakes too. I have tried on countless occasions to get you to admit this, yet you never do. It is ALWAYS only the left's fault. Read your own writing once in a while and you will see this is true.

Mark, the only way to avoid a civil war is for BOTH sides to come to the agreement that each have flaws, and work TOGETHER to make a better America.

People like you, who ABSOLUTELY refuse to see that there are two sides to every story, ARE poisoning the body politic, and just as badly as those who are so consumed by hatred for the Bush administration that they will do anything to prove their point.

Mark, your hatred for Liberals is the EXACT same type of thinking - how can you not see this?

Isn't it interesting that the far left and the far right have the EXACT same mentality, just at opposite ends of the spectrum, and both sides refuse to see how ridiculous they are?

Civil war between the red and blue states..
what are the blue's going to use..
torches and pitchforks at the gates.....

Interesting concept, that civil war might be in the offing. And even more interesting, by reading these posts, it seems that people on both sides of the aisle seem to buy into that theory for their various and sundry reasons. Even more interesting is that no one thus far has explicitly suggested, as I am about to, that there is a far more likely third scenario which might resolve the obvious estrangement that is so clearly occuring between competing political philosophies. It lies in the fundamentals of Hegelian dialetics. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is what it's all about.

For my two cents, here's how I see the scenario playing out. Everyone else has had their say, so why not me...?

I accept the premise, for the purposes of this discussion, that the Dems will cry "foul" when once again they lose in 2006 and 2008. I also accept the premise (again, for the sake of this argument only) that the Republicrats "steal" one or more elections. That's where it is likely to become an issue of repudiation on a massive scale on the part of the public against BOTH failed and corrupt parties and ideologies.

Let me put it another way. Mark used the concept of "poisoning" of the political process. I strongly concur with that analogous construct. As I see it, both parties play a part in the corroding and poisoning of public confidence and trust in our political institutions.

For their part, the Demublicans offer the public a political cyanide pill. They would seemingly go to any length to tear down the President and his Administration, taking no prisoners and ruining the lives and careers of as many Republicrats as possible in the process of regaining power. They would seemingly even sacrifice our national security by retreating in the face of a belligerent Islamofacist enemy and a defeatist and discouraged Western Europe. For them, it is clear, that "any means necessary" to regain power means exactly that. It is not a pretty picture.

For their part, the Republicrats offer the American public a cup of Hemlock in the form of unchecked illegal immigration, a potential usurpation of power in the single-minded administration of our government, choosing to vigorously enforce - or ignore - certain laws, while blatantly refusing to enforce others. Free trade and borders at the cost of social cohesion isn't really progressive, either. And if the accusations that they are willing to ride roughshod over our shared values and constitutional protections proves to be true, then they are really no better than the Demublicans, are they?

When push comes to shove, the American public will inevitably vote - or fail to vote - based upon their own self-interests. Those interests will inexorably be based upon things like where their 401Ks are heading, how their personal employment and financial situations are going, and the condition of their communities. Therein lies the saving grace. Despite all the idealogues on the right and left, most people will choose some middle path, despite the extremes. And, in the scenarios discussed above, I believe lies a middle ground - the "synthesis" of Hegelian dialectics.

It is increasingly clear to me that both political parties have come up short in delivering to the American public on their respective promises. Call me cynical if you will, but I believe that the time is ripe for the massive defection on the part of the public from both parties. Instead of a civil war, I see the American voters looking to the few alternatives that are out there, and deciding that instead of shooting holes in our common boat (thus ensuring a common drowning), the pragmatism of the population, voting in its best individual self-interests, will give the nod to whatever alternatives that are able to get on the ballots in the local, state and national level. Instead of a civil war, I predict a civil insurrection - a defection to an alternative to both Republicrats and Demublicans.

For well over two generations, we've swung from this poor option to that poor option (the lesser of two evils). Given the new opportunities for the dissemination of information that is presented to us today, we are more than likely to shrug our shoulders and admit that BOTH PARTIES have failed us in delivering the solutions to which they give lip service. I believe that more than ever before in our history, we are willing to take a chance on an unknown political movement. This movement is rooted in not only a denunciation of the "politics as usual," but also in a belief that there is a better way to move beyond the rhetoric and empty promises that have been so casually thrown out to an un-analytical public. In part due to the information revolution, we are less likely to swallow hook, line and sinker, the promises of the same old tired parties. We are ready for a seminal change in politics. The only problem is, the two dominant parties don't seem to be of the same accord. That will be their downfall.

Even as the news media seems obsessed with following some cookie-cutter template about the latest (ratings based) accident, murder, mystery or scandal - and forcing their coverage upon the apparently willing public, the viewing/listening audience seems to be more and more acutely aware of what is NOT being covered about "the man behind the curtain."

The coverage of the Natalie Holloway mystery can only spike ratings so far. People are hungry for more relevant news to their lives - and they seem more savvy about interpreting the news as it's being "fed" to them at the same time. The effect of that paradox is hopefully that people are becoming far more critical of the news media and hopeful for a better way to inform them. But given the drive-by media's apparent obsession with scandal and news-making versus factual reporting of the events in a critically objective manner, it is not beyond the realm of plausibility that their partisan efforts will be dismissed in the final analysis by the American public as we move beyond the headlines and into the sphere of sincerely asking, "how does this affect me personally."

Civil war as a result of our political differences seems remote to me. There are always the "ties that bind" that go beyond political and ideological camps. As a nation, this country has a base of people who are compassionate, flexible and willing to offer space to competing differences. Although I cede that point that partisanship seems more pronounced than ever before in our lives, I am also keenly aware that this is not the first, nor is it likely to be the last, manifestation of this phenomenon. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of the 1850s might be a good comparison. In trying to defuse the clear conflicts within our society, the political leaders of that era attempted to move the issue beyond the clear partisanship of that time. The end result was a definitive dissatisfaction on all parties' parts with the "compromise" reached. The result: a war between two competing ideologies that resulted in the demise of one of the major parties and the rise of the a third option. Such are the challenges and opportunities facing this nation today.

The question in my mind is - as a nation, are we willing or able to take the courageous steps toward progress that will move us beyond the current stalemate and bankrupt policies that are currently being offered by two competing, yet failing and corrupt political parties?

That's my two cents. I trust that it moves the argument forward. We have everything to gain, and little to lose, by moving beyond the current choices offered by Deumblicans and Republicrats alike.

I second the call for a centrist political force to rise in this country. Both of the main parties in this country have been hijacked by the fringes of American politics (who, ironically enough, both see themselves as "center right" or "center left").

You'll see, as soon as the parties of the status quo get the courage to reform electoral law (specifically the laws governing federal funding of political parties), you are going to see a powerful, moderate third party rise.

Soon, it will no longer be simply, left v right. It will become left and right versus the center.

More and more, I feel as though I no longer have a party which fights for my values and beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are becoming more and more like Democrats each day. They are afraid to speak out and take a stand on issues that are important to me and to their conservative base because they are afraid they will be voted out of office. Rather than supporting those who voted them into office in the first place, and the issues that got them there, they continue to pander to the liberal left. They will never please nor gain the support from the liberal left either; they will only alienate more of their base and eventually find themselves out of office wondering what happened.

Ultimately, it is the Vocal Minority and Special Interest Groups who have the drive and passion for their beliefs who steer and move America. For the most part, the "Complacent Majority" are like fallen leaves which are blown around by the political winds from those Vocal Minority and Special Interest Groups.

Yes, the Complacent Majority votes, but they vote based on which way the latest political wind has influenced their thinking and has blown them at the time of the voting. They don't really think about issues. They are swayed by the polls. They let others do the thinking for them, and right now, it is the liberal Democrats who are influencing their thinking. Republicans are too busy trying to figure out how to protect their office. If the only ones speaking out are the liberal left Democrats, that's the political wind that will have the most effect on the Complacent Majority.

Republicans have lost their voice, their direction, and are working on losing my vote!

I don't have a good solution yet; although, I am doing a lot of thinking.

I don't really want to vote for Democrats, but would it be better to do that rather than keep some of the RINOs in office? Should we go ahead and have a major house cleaning and get them out now? That might make the rest of the Republican party wake up from their slumber!

I don't want the Republicans to lose control to the Democrats, but if they won't support my values and views, why should I continue to support them with my money and vote? If they are going to act like Democrats and vote like Democrats, why not let the Democrats do the voting and take the blame? The Republicans would at least start fighting again for traditional and conservative values!

Maybe the only way to get the attention of Republicans, get them energized again, and get their voice back is to let them sit on the minority side for awhile. At least I would get some fight and support for my money and vote again!

I don't really want to go down that road though. I am hoping Republicans can locate our road map, figure out how to read the directions again, and get back on the "right" path before that happens.

The other alternative that I have mentioned before is to start and vote for a third party again - a conservative one that would most often probably vote with the Republicans, but which could help guide and push the Republicans along and do the heavy talking, vocalizing, and fighting for them. I don't think I would want them to run a third party presidential candidate, but I would like them to take control of some House and Senate seats, at the federal as well as the state level.

I wonder too, do any of the Republicans in Congress or the White House read these blogs?

Anyone have any good ideas on how to get the Republicans motivated, fighting mad, and moving in the "right" direction again?

AAR

"Clinton is the man"

Thanks, man, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!

Georgia Frawg,

RE: "I second the call for a centrist political force to rise in this country."

If by "centrist political force" you mean everyone STEP TO THE LEFT, and...

More anti-American ...pro-UN ...pro-terrorist ...higher taxes ...activist judges ...socialism ...gay marriage ...anti-Christian ... no "under God we trust" ... no Christmas ...no English language amendment ...more tax dollars poured into welfare to those who can work ...no ANWR ...open borders ..."y'all come" policy toward illegal immigrants ...taxpayer abortion and condoms on demand ...etc., etc., etc.

NO WAY, JOSE (HO ZAY)!

Not Interested... PERIOD!!!

A third party? Yes...

THE FIGHTING CONSERVATIVES!

AAR

Robert,

RE: "In every post (almost) on this site I have ever read, you ALWAYS blame the left for everything bad and you NEVER seem to take responsibility for the fact that Conservatives make mistakes too. I have tried on countless occasions to get you to admit this, yet you never do. It is ALWAYS only the left's fault. Read your own writing once in a while and you will see this is true."

That's because the left is where the blame belongs. Yes, Conservatives make mistakes too, but it takes a liberal lefty to really mess things up!

As for taking responsibility for one's own actions, the liberal left is THE champion of "it's not my fault, someone else is responsible, I'm not responsible for my own actions, I was insane, I was profiled, I was on drugs and can't be blamed for their effects on my mind, I grew up in a bad home, my parents are responsible for my actions" etc., etc., etc.

If anything, Mark tries to be a little too diplomatic and tactful toward the liberal left!

AAR

Sounds like, if we turn over the congress and the presidency to the liberals, AAR is going to be one of those right wingers that barricades himself in a compound with assault rifles to protect himself from the gays, the flag burners, the commies, the IRS, UN spooks in black helicopters, illegal mexicans, heathans and the atheists. Face it guy, you want a separate country that admits only conservatives. You have no interest in reconciling, compromising or even living with liberals.

Keep driving that wedge...

Robert,

Part of the problem would be that some things you consider a mistake a conservative needs to 'fess up about is something that a conservative considers a success. The largest case in point these days it the liberation of Iraq - I'm not going to apologise for a signal victory in the War on Terrorism. If what you want, is a list of some mistakes I think President Bush has made, here ya go:

1. Campaign finance reform.

2. Pulling back from Fallujah in 2004.

3. Seeking UN sanction for the liberation of Iraq.

Those are the three mistakes of the Bush Administration - as far as I can see, there have been no others. Of course, you should define what a mistake is: it is the making of the wrong decision based upon the information available to the decision maker at the time of decision. In other words, you can't go back with 20/20 hindsight and say something was a mistake when what happened is a decision based upon poor and/or incomplete information.

One other thing - some times, there really aren't two sides to a story: there wasn't, for instance, two sides to the story of the Holocaust; nor two sides to Cambodia; nor two sides to Gulag. Some times there is only one side to the story, the right side...fairness does not require that we accord incorrect people the same respect and deferrence we give to correct people.

This is why I won't give equal time to the BUSH LIED!!!! meme, nor to other liberal/left absurdities. People who believe such things are WRONG, and I'm fairly well uninterested in being fair to them...

Hey Stevo, what happend to that Rove endictment yesterday? Talking out yourbehind again?

AAR stated,
"More and more, I feel as though I no longer have a party which fights for my values and beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are becoming more and more like Democrats each day..."

That feeling as expressed was precisely what I believe is the core of why civil war will NOT occur! It could just as easily had the political parties' names reversed, and coming from the left end of the spectrum.

It's the radicals on both extremes who are most active, but represent the fewest number of people who would theoretically be willing to engage in open warfare - political or military. But anyone who isn't truly a so-called "kool aid drinker" from the right or left seems more aware of their sense of estrangement from what at one time, they believed to be "their party." Civil war would be more likely to occur if massive amounts of constituents were highly energized SUPPORTIVE of their respective parties, instead of being bitter and ESTRANGED from their parties.

The last time that I'm aware of that this nation moved into militancy with civil war as an end toward its ambitions without a strongly commited majority on both sides was manifested by the Weather Underground Collective, during the late 1960s and into the 1970s. Their numbers were extraordinarily small. They got really far in achieving their goals, didn't they? The overwhelming reaction from the public across the board to their calls for an uprising and subsequent series of bombings was horror and disgust. The radicals that weren't obliterated by their own bombs hurridly went underground to escape the wrath of law enforcement, eventually resurfacing when they grew up (literally and psychologically) years later. There's a great documentary about this group that I recommend anyone who has an interest in the subject of political radicalism take the opportunity to see. It's called "Weather Underground" and the home page can be found at:

http://www.upstatefilms.org/weather/main.html

"The Weather Underground is a feature-length documentary that explores the rise and fall of this radical movement, as former members speak candidly about the idealistic passion that drove them to 'bring the war home' and the trajectory that placed them on the FBI's most wanted list."

There are many parts of this documentary that have a chilling sense of deja-vous. Some of their statements could have come from the keyboards of posters on B4B like Ash, maf53, Barneyg2000, SickofLies, and a host of their comrades that I've read over the last year or so... There are lessons to be learned about how following up words of acrimony with acts of militancy can lead to certain consequences.

Our common history has seen great discord and even a civil war, but the conditions we're facing today offer alternatives that didn't exist during the 1800s. There are numerous political options out there, each of them filling a quirky little niche, but none of them to date, being able to capture significant numbers of disaffected voters to make their presence known in state and federal positions. GeorgiaFrawg hit the nail on the head by pointing out the biggest challenge facing third party options in today's political climate:

"You'll see, as soon as the parties of the status quo get the courage to reform electoral law (specifically the laws governing federal funding of political parties), you are going to see a powerful, moderate third party rise."

To expect either the Demublicans or Republicrats come up with electoral procedural reform is utter folly. Why would either be interested in opening up to the competition!? It benefits both parties to keep things the way they are. It's up to US - the disaffected voters - to energize our bitterness and work to comply with the laws as they are - ballot petition requirements in particular - to show the rest of the public that there is a serious movement against the failed policies of the Dems and Reps alike. Given a choice on any ballot, voters should attempt at every opportunity to vote for whomever is not a Dem, not a Rep, and not an incumbent. Meanwhile, check out this Wikepedia listing of third party options as a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Current_third_parties

There is also an excellent listing and brief history of third parties to be found at Politics1 website:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

It's time for a revolutionary departure from today's "politics as usual" approach currently embodied by the Republicrats and Demublicans. The opportunities are there. It remains to be seen if a commitment to work to take advantage of them and elect a third alternative will be forthcoming by what must surely be the vast majority of Americans who desire such a change...

Seek out third party ballot petitions and SIGN THEM! Become active in a party that more closely reflects your specific interests. Work to give them visibility and credibility. Talk them up and make the candidates work for your support!

I hope to see the rise of such a third political option before I die, which hopefully will be many years hence. In the meantime, I'll work closely with the tools (pun intended) that are currently in place to represent me. I'll continue to be highly critical and demanding of them to either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Our votes is all they really seek, but as long as I am forced to pay taxes to support them, I'll demand accountability and responsibility. It is my right, it is my duty as an American.

In the meantime, how do we get all those people who are obsessed with "American Idol" to become similarly obsessed with working for change politically?

Georgia,

I totally agree that both parties have been hijacked by extremists. Unfortunately, though I've seen this idea floated a lot on the internet, most party activists are extremists. The moderates are usually too busy working and raising families, and may have no ideological axe to grind. In the meantime reason and common sense are no longer the rule of the day, and we are becoming increasingly polarized. The two-party system doesn't usually support third parties. Third party candidates usually have to use their own funds, and build their own organizations. In 2000, the Greens ran Ralph Nader, which is how we ended up with Bush in the first place.

I think Moderates should change their party affiliation to Independent and only support centrist candidates. I'm not going to do it this time, because right now we have a one-party system, which is why there is no congressional oversight and so much corruption.
Hopefully, we will be able to move towards the center before we annihilate each other! Peace.

extramedium,

RE: "...AAR is going to be one of those right wingers that barricades himself in a compound with assault rifles to protect himself..."

Now that would be really dumb and wouldn't do a thing to stop the liberal left and their political agenda for America. It's nice to know though what your stereotype is of people who don't agree with your liberal agenda and philosophy though.

RE: "You have no interest in reconciling, compromising or even living with liberals."

I take it this means that if everyone will just roll over, play dumb, and agree to do it the liberal way, we can all reconcile and be happy... doing it the liberal way!

Well... I don't believe in the liberal way. I want Americans to wake up before the liberals completely destroy this nation.

Now, let's see if I've got this right...

If I encourage, energize, and motivate conservatives and moderates to oppose your destructive liberal agenda for America and stand up for America's traditional views, values, and lifestyle... I'm "driving a wedge."

If liberals, on the other hand, continue to spout their vile hatred, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, anti-everything propaganda and agenda 24/7... they are being progressive, open minded, and trying to "reconcile" and "compromise" with the rest of America.

Interesting....

AAR

dbogdan,

RE: "... Become active in a party that more closely reflects your specific interests. Work to give them visibility and credibility. Talk them up and make the candidates work for your support!"

That's what I want to see -- a strong, vocal, and active "real" Conservative Party, not the current Republican party which is pandering to the liberal left and which has lost their "direction and voice".

"The Fighting Conservatives" -- now where can I find their petition and e-mail address?

AAR

AAR - Yes you have it completely right. You can't stand liberals and you want nothing to do with them. You want to "fight" them, "expose" them, "stop" them. You take compromise to mean surrender. Hell, the Republicans aren't even conservative enough for you. The compound you are living in may be merely figurative, but you're in it. Your disdain for everything left of the extreme right comes through loud and clear.

There are certainly equivalent folks on the far left and I don't advocate their positions either. I stand with folks who seek unity by finding common ground and at least attempt to find the positives in folks on the opposite side of the aisle. I don't think you have any use whatsoever for folks on the other side of the aisle. I think you would prefer that in one way or another, they would just go away. That's my only point. And while civil war would be an unlikely extreme outcome, that's the sort of sentiment that pushes us further apart.

"Civil war between the red and blue states..
what are the blue's going to use..
torches and pitchforks at the gates...."

Except in your case xangoA. We'd probably need to drive a stake through your heart. LOL

extramedium,

Whatever you say.

After all, liberals do know best and are always right... I mean left!

In case you missed it, I repeat my comment: Liberals continue to spout their vile hatred, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, anti-everything propaganda and agenda 24/7, but claim they are being progressive, open minded, and trying to "reconcile" and "compromise" with the rest of America.

I also need to add some "pro's" to the list for balance -- pro-terrorist, pro-criminal, and pro-illegal-aliens.

It's the liberal way or no way!

AAR

AAR, Mark, do you not both see that you have the EXACT same mentality as those on the left you claim are so wrong?

AAR - "the Liberal way or no way"

What AAR means is that he wants ONLY Conservative's opinions to matter. Yet he claims that Liberals think like that. You BOTH DO!!!!

Mark - "some stories have only one side - the right side."

Right to who, Mark? You? Your God? Mark,it is ALL relative. Many Nazis wholeheartedly BELIEVED they were doing the RIGHT thing in WWII. You and I see see that as wrong, but the Nazis who supported Hitler thought they were right. Just as the Islamic terrorists think they are right.

Do you not see that? it is quite SIMPLE logic. Both sides at opposite ends of a spectrum think that they are the right one. That is why no ground is ever made up, because neither side considers itself wrong.

Just for a moment, put yourself in the place of a "BUSH lied meme" type of person. Ask yourself WHY they might believe such a thing. if you can do that, you might have a chance to help others.

However, if you ARROGANTLY REFUSE to even try to see why someone else thinks the way they do, then you are not only contributing to the problem, you ARE the problem, Mark!

I know that you will refuse to try to see things another way, and just arrogantly assume you are the only opinion that matters, that you are the only opinion that is right.

But, Mark, by doing that you are doing the EXACT same things you accuse Liberals of. You ARE exactly like them!! Think about it, and reply without some smug and know-it-all comment.

Maf, pick up the NY Times from Thursday. The link is right there about Gore and Kerry.

--------

Clinton is the man? It's sad that even now these idiots say this. A man that has been dismissed from the Bar. A man that has at MINIMUM 2 rape accusations against him and SIX sexual harassments including two which he had to settle.

A man that never got 50% of the vote....TWICE. A man that pardoned criminals at a rate that would make Stalin proud. A man that let Osama Bin Laden go not once, not twice, but three times.

A man that preached to us about public school education but sent his kids to a private school. A man that decided that military was the place to practice societal engineering with gays in the military all the while neutering the military with cutbacks.

And still he is their hero. Nothing, I repeat, nothing could be more appropriate.

Robert,

But there you're wrong - the Nazis knew they were doing wrong when they did it, a few hate-filled fanatics aside. If you really, sincerely believe you are doing the right thing, then you don't end up fleeing to Argentina, biting down on a cyanide capsule, or shooting yourself in your bunker.

I can't put myself in a frame of mind of someone who thinks that Bush lied to get us into Iraq because such an assertion is in direct contravention of easily established fact - you might was well as me to get into the frame of mind of someone who believes in astrology. I can't do it - its not possible; I can't pretend what I know to be false is true.

"Two sides to a story" is something that applies to whether or not we should have liberated Iraq - it does not apply to why we did it. Why we did it is clearly established in the public record, and no one lied at all about why we needed to go in - you can disagree with the choice, but if you are asserting that lies were used to get us in, then you are essentially saying that water doesn't get you wet.

Robert,

RE: "However, if you ARROGANTLY REFUSE to even try to see why someone else thinks the way they do, then you are not only contributing to the problem, you ARE the problem, Mark! ... I know that you will refuse to try to see things another way, and just arrogantly assume you are the only opinion that matters, that you are the only opinion that is right."

Your assumptions are totally wrong!

I fully understand the liberal left's opinions and agenda. I don't agree with them or it. There is no arrogance to it. I DO NOT AGREE with [most of] the liberal agenda... period!

You [incorrectly] assume that I do not understand the logic, reasoning, rational, or [perceived] "good" behind the liberal left's opinions -- to which I object. In your view, obviously I must not understand because [you believe] that any "reasonable and intelligent" person who does understand the liberal agenda will surely see that it is the ONLY path to take and will embrace them with open arms!

On the contrary, I DO UNDERSTAND the liberal left's opinions, reasoning, [perceived] logic, objectives, and your agenda. More importantly, I see where the liberal agenda is headed and where will likely take this country. I'm sure the Romans though their ways and lifestyle were good at the time, and it was for some, but it ultimately destroyed them... as will the liberal agenda ultimately weaken and destroy this nation!

It is not enough for you and the liberals that I have listened to your views, that I understand your opinions, and I know what you want. I must accept them; I must embrace them; I must sit back and allow the liberals to force their views, opinions, lifestyles, and agenda on America without a fight. Anything less is arrogance, intolerance, and unwillingness to compromise on my part! Right?

It is the liberals who refuse to compromise and who refuse to settle for anything less than total capitulation and surrender to their objectives and agenda! We have tried compromise on many issues. Liberals will not have it. Liberals will not accept anything less than total surrender to their demands! The liberal way is the only way!

How about you liberals stop trying to force your agenda on America through activist judges. How about you liberals stop trying to force your social programs, lifestyle, and values on America. How about you liberals stop trying to change and remove what has been American's values, traditions, and lifestyle since the birth of this nation over 200 years ago and even before that.

How about you liberals stopping your incessant hate campaign against President Bush and America.

How about the liberal left try understanding conservative views.

No! I won't just sit back, be silent, and welcome the liberal roadmap and agenda for America.

RE: "Just for a moment, put yourself in the place of a 'BUSH lied meme' type of person. Ask yourself WHY they might believe such a thing. if you can do that, you might have a chance to help others."

I fully understand why people believe that "Bush lied"... the question is DO YOU? And don't give me something like "because it's true" or "because he did". That is the lie! We've gone over that many times on other threads in case you want to re-read the posts.

AAR

Although I doubt that it would happen as soon as 2008, it is clear that unless some serious reforms are made soon, then this will become a very possible reality.

Many are realizing and many more are slow to realize that your republic is being replaced by a new century style fascist rule. Part of the reason for this is that the fascists are unlike those of old, such as Nazi Germany. Instead, you have an American Corporate Fascism where the biggest companies are richest people in the country are working very closely with the government to maintain control. Another reason is some people still hold to the belief that "Something like that could never happen in America"

1) In a true democracy, the people are the ones that hold the power and the government is afraid of the people and need to govern appropriately to avoid being booted out in the next election.

2) In a fascist regime, the people are afraid of the government that lies, manipulates and spies and controls the people slowly and gradually.

Its clear that this administration has no fear of the people at all and they have gotten much worse since the 2004 election. Currently they rule with absolute impunity, no accountability, knowing they have no one to be accountable so long as the congress continues to rubber stamp all that they do. Their only fear is that they will lose the house in November, which will likely cripple their agenda and could cause investigations into many of their highly questionable activities. Their fear is that congressional oversight that Americas founding fathers intended to be in place will return.

Now what’s wrong with that picture? After all, an administration that has no skeletons in the closet would have nothing to fear from oversight. The reason for fear is that there has been wrongdoing, and a lot of it. Likely a fair bit of criminal activity as well.

I am a Canadian, but am dual national with a close connection with the U.S., which has given me a perspective from both countries, which are dramatically different despite their close proximity.

I am in agreement with some of the comments here which describe the blue-red hate which is running rampant and getting stronger.

Part of the reason for this is that people are seeing the abuses and corruption in the current administration and the hardline red's like the owner of this blog will purposely ignore all of these and focus only on liberal hate.

People are seeing abuses that are running unchecked. Congress has a constitutional DUTY to provide oversight to the white house and the other agencies of government. This is to prevent abuse of power and corruption such as when Nixon abused his presidential powers to spy on Americans, in particular, political opponents and activist groups.

This oversight is NOT happening because it is stuck in a partisan rut. The old saying "Absolute power corrupts" is true and perfectly describes this situation.

People see that this is not happening and that their system of government is failing them, which is creating anger and hatred.

Both sides, blue and red are at fault here, however the red has a bigger burden because they hold the white house and both houses of congress. The Dem's have tried many times to get some oversight going, but it has been blocked every time by the Republicans.

You have an administration in power that openly condones, but does not publically admit to torture, rendition, signs statements on laws stating that it does not apply to the president, spies on its citizens and much more that has not been openly revealed yet.

Democrat voting people in the country see this happening and see the red's accepting it without problem and so they are left to conclude that this is the new "Republican ideals"

The truth is that the "Republican" that is currently in power holds very few of the ideals of the true Republican party. Bush and Cheny are "Neo-Conservatives" but are crowded under the Republican umbrella due to the flaws of the 2 party system and also partly because of the strength of the federal Republican party.

If the founders of the Republican party saw what they are doing and what they stand for, they would have tossed them out of the party and branded them for the fascists that they are. Neo-cons are not real "Republicans", but are instead Wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This is a big problem because traditional voters tend to stay either red or blue because thats they way they always have voted. So you have moderate or traditional Republicans, then you have the Corporatist Republicans that always favor the filthy rich and then you have the religious right neo-cons.

Moderate Republicans are also tired of this administration because it is clear to them that the neo-cons does not hold to their ideals. These people are concerned about what’s happening to them, their families, ensuring they have good jobs for decent pay and what’s happening in their towns and states. Most have little desire to attack and control the middle east like the neo-cons do.

As a result, you have a fractured Republican bas as well, so your problem is more complicated because if all should go to hell, you will see a lot of moderate republicans stepping across the lines to side the the Dem's because they see clearly that the neo-cons are a far bigger threat to national unity than the Dems could ever be.

Truthfully, the Neo-cons or religious right should be an entirely different party altogether.

The resolution to this problem is to slowly convert the 2 party system to a 3 or multi-party system. This is the only way to get rid of the wolves hiding in among the sheep. Toss them out and force them to start their own party.

If America wants fascist rule, in this case Corporate fascism, then the people should vote them in, not be tricked into it by fascists posing as Republicans.

Here in Canada and many other countries, we have a socialist government and a parliamentary system of government that has multiple parties and an election system that is mush harder to rig. No crooked voting machines either.

This has an advantage as you have a Liberal Party (formerly in power until early this year), a Conservative Party (Currently in power), you have a centralist party known as the NDP and then a fringe party that represents only French speaking Quebec voters.

This eliminates the possibility of a fringe group sneaking in under one of the parties umbrella as they would be promptly tossed out. This is common when members of the party are involved in corruption or hold radical ideals that don't reflect the rest of the party.

Clearly the American electoral college system is seriously flawed and needs reform or overhaul. It it commonly fails to represent the overall true will of the people, rather tends to come down to the will of one state, which is a serious problem when a close election can be stolen with as little as one crooked state. Crooked voting machines also add to the problem.

Once a president is sworn in, even if the election was rigged and even if it is found out after the executive is sworn in, its too late. This has happened before in American history in the 1800's and nearly lead to a second civil war.

A multi party system is the only real way to bring the country together, it will take a while to get it going, but it needs to get started ASAP.

Voters need real choices, having only left or right to choose from leads to frustration and people need to choose the lesser of 2 evils. This leads to a low turnout at the polls because people are disgusted that they have no choice that truly reflects their views. Instead they are forced to choose left or right and make concessions.

Axis

Why is it always corporate fascism with you guys? Don't you ever come up with something new?

Warrior, I call a piece of manure a piece of manure.

You may choose to rename it a rose, but it still stinks lime manure no matter what you call it.

Keep your head in the sand long enough, and maybe all your troubles will just go away...

Fits the bill quite well. Remember that conversion to a fascistic society takes time, however those with a open mind and capable of free thought can read between the lines and see what is happening. Those that can't will need to wait until its too late.

As I said, this is a new style of fascism, unlike those in years previous where Government and big business work together to oppress the people.

The first step is to crush the middle class so you have only the elite and the poor. Record housing prices and wiping out your chances for a fresh start by going bankrupt is a great way to get things started. Raise interest rates a few points, mortgage payments double and even if you go bankrupt, you lose everything and still have to repay most your debts. Inescapable debt.

It will happen bigtime in a few years, but you can already see the trickling effects from the people devasted by Katrina. Lost everything, bankruptcy won't help and then a dig developer buys up their land for pennies on the dollar and raises condos for the rich

Eminent Domain changes, now any government, federal, cirty or state can take your land and all they need to prove is that more people will benefit from them taking it then not.

Not good. Time to open up those peepers, cause while they may not come for you first, they will eventually

fas·cism (fshzm)

n.

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

axis,

RE: "Here in Canada and many other countries, we have a socialist government and a parliamentary system of government that has multiple parties and an election system that is mush harder to rig. No crooked voting machines either."

And you think your system in Canada is better that America's? I don't think so!

I'll take the American way over the Canadian way any day!

I was really hoping all of the American liberals who said they were moving to Canada if President Bush won a second term moved up there to help run your government. I guess they were all bark though, because they are still here!

RE: "Clearly the American electoral college system is seriously flawed and needs reform or overhaul."

I disagree! It has worked quite well and has no more "flaws" than the other proposals. It recognizes the popular vote while providing some weight to the role and importance of individual states. It even provides potentially more stability that a nationwide popular vote. Everyone wants instant gratification, but that is not usually the best for individuals or for a nation!

There are many disadvantages and faults with an American-wide popular vote count as there are with the Electoral College. There has been more voter fraud and ballot rigging by the Democrats than by Republicans. The only reason Democrats want to change to a popular vote count is because their non-thinking, robot voters would have more of an impact on the vote at the national level. They are already working on various schemes at the state level to maximize their vote count. There is no more voter fraud in the Electoral College system than there would be in a nation-wide popular vote -- maybe less. At least with the current system, we can limit the liberal court challenges and vote recount after recount after recount to a few states.

Besides, a national level vote would only reflect the voter opinion at that moment in time and would likely be mostly influenced on who ran the best (or worst) ads at the time and who got the most people to the polls, not necessarily what the majority of people want. If the vote were held the next day, next week, or next month, the vote would be entirely different. How do we handle that? We want to be absolutely fair, right? Perhaps we should take a daily vote? No, that could change with the latest liberal news release. Perhaps an hourly vote would be better? Oh, and we could just switch to a popular vote on each and ever law. That would assure that the will of the majority were really considered. Considering the way people flip-flop from minute to minute, that should really mess up the nation.

The founders of this nation knew more about human nature and what they were doing than all of today's experts. They built a system that recognizes the popular vote (House) but provides a some stability and resistance to change (Senate). I guess you would abolish both of those too? If the Electoral College is so bad, then a House and Senate -- with different term limits -- must really be an abomination!

RE: "Fits the bill quite well. Remember that conversion to a fascistic society takes time, however those with a open mind and capable of free thought can read between the lines and see what is happening. Those that can't will need to wait until its too late."

How is it that to a liberal everything related to a capitalism is fascist? I certainly don't want a socialist system like Canada, France, and the other liberal model nations. I've seen how Canada works. That's the last thing I want to see in this country. I want America to remain strong , not a weak third country nation.

The only thing you said that I do agree with is that we probably do need more than two parties. I want to see a strong Conservative Party formed. They will be willing to speak out and fight for conservative values. The way it is now, the Conservatives help elect the Republicans, and then once in power, the Republicans become more like Democrats, unwilling to take a conservative stand for "fear" of losing the moderates and liberal left. The liberal left will never support them and they only irritate the Conservatives. If there were a Conservative party, it could shift it's vote and support around to whomever and wherever it was needed.

AAR

Is the Canadian system better? In some ways perhaps. Not all certainly. Out income tax threshold is too high, but we have a great health care system that offers the same care for all citizens and does not favor the rich.

We have many great government programs to help the citizens as well.

We have no election fraud at all and people can trust that their votes do count and are not going to be found floating in some bay somewhere.

By your comments, you know very little about canada or our way of life, so its rather pointless to debate on this subject.