One of these things is not like the other

"They're all a bunch of crooks!"
"Two sides of the same coin!"
"I can't tell one party from the other anymore!"

Well, you're not paying attention, if you believe these things.

In a perfect world we should barely be able to tell the difference between the two parties. In a country like America, should two parties be so ridiculously disparate? If you answered "yes", why? Why should a major party in this country be stopping just short of calling for bloody revolution while still espousing this country as "THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" ?

Why isn't Elizabeth Warren a republican? There's no one in the GOP even close to being like her. Or Bernie Sanders. He's an independent and an actual living, breathing socialist  but he's aligned with the democrats. By the same token, could Louis Gohmert or Bobby Jindhal be democrats? Can you think of any GOP congressperson who could pass for a liberal or progressive democrat?

Fifty years ago you probably could. I saw recently where John Fugelsang described himself as "an Eisenhower republican" and, though he IS a comdeian, I don't think he was kidding. Ike was an old school republican, the kind they don't make anymore. He led the Allied Forces to victory in WWII and, upon completing his second term as President, warned us of the danger of the military industrial complex. Fifty years later we had VP Dick Cheney, Haliburton/KBR and the Iraq war. Ike probably wasn't a republican or a democrat, having been a General and all, but, it was the GOP that convinced him to run.

I'm no expert but, I read and pay attention and I don't think Ike would make the cut in Iowa as a GOP presidential candidate. His opponent in WWII, Hitler, would have a better chance. Yep, I went there. I didn't say that he'd win. He was no friend of Israel, ya know. He'd have to be now. You never hear today's republican's sing the praises of Eisenhower though. One reason might be that he taxed the wealthy and corporations at a rate of @90%. That was the time of Beaver Cleaver, a time that today's GOP claims to want to get back to, just not at such a tax rate. They think they can do it without taxing the wealthy. They can't. They're giving America the business when they say so, the Eddie Haskel's....

And as much as they love to love Reagan, he would not get the nomination either. Mind you, he's the guy that started all this divisive nonsense in the 80's. Did you know that, except for the eight times he raised taxes, Ronald Reagan never raised taxes? There are people who believe he never did raise taxes. They write this stuff down, folks. What Reagan was was an actor. He was very quotable. I think he had cutesy writers like Clint Eastwood did. With that Go ahead...Make my day... spiel they both used, they might have shared writers, maybe an agent.

But, I think Reagan was the last of the republicans whom democrats could accept when it came time to give the republicans their turn at running things. Technically it was GHW Bush (daddy) but people tired of him after one term. His boy- let's face it- was appointed by the Supreme Court and barely won his second term. They only talk about him to condemn democrats for talking about him.

A lot of experts say it could be 20 years before the GOP wins the White House. And that's if the party survives itself. Numerically there are more registered democrats than their are republicans. The way republicans won in the past was by running candidates that were acceptable to democrats or preferable to democratic candidates. There has to be some crossover voting from people with a sense of fair play. These people might have voted for GW Bush, for example, after eight wonderful years of Bill Clinton, thinking: "How bad could the Bush guy fuck things up?"

Well, now we know.

Once upon a time in America it might have been correct to say there was little or no difference between the two parties. That would be a good thing. Back then, they all had the welfare of all American people in their hearts and minds. Republicans backed unions when Ike was president. Not anymore. What was the difference between the two parties then? Actual fiscal conservatism maybe? Republicans had a sharper pencil? Fiscal conservatism now means taking the money that would go to feed and clothe poor people and giving it to people on Wall Street who already have money so they can make more and make America greater. But, to make matters worse they say don't give anybody anything when you can teach them through starvation to invent a better mouse trap if you're hungry.

Greatest country in the world but, we can't- we won't- take care of our own? Saying you are THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is not being great- that is an advertising slogan. And saying you are the greatest while do nothing to make it so and so much to prove the opposite, is just insane.

The parties aren't the same. They are not even twin sons of different mothers. They're not even close, not anymore. That's too bad.