Botnst and dculkin, I agree (mostly) with the both of you.

My original point centers on 'marketing' the message, and public perceptions of the four principal parties on the American political landscape. You've successfully pointed out the depressing realities behind the rhetoric, but I want to get back to the issue of marketing and perception...

While the RNC/DNC political machines are morally and ethically bankrupt entities, the RNC alone has consistently and effectively marketed its 'brand' image to the American public. Of course they've been helped along the way by a coterie of rightwing thinktanks and talking heads (Heritage Foundation, AEI, Grover Norquist, Fox News, etc.).

Bottomline--the RNC as a partisan marketing tool has worked quite well, while the DNC has languished, mired in a muddled message and peculiar fixation with morphing itself into a version of RNC-lite. I don't think the public gets too 'pumped up' by this kind of stale bureaucratic shell game. I'm amazed Al Gore actually won the 2000 election by mainly presenting himself as 'not George Bush', despite agreeing with GW no less than 32 times during the second 'debate'. A pathetic marketing strategy...


The two smaller political parties rally their troops by marketing a coherent set of principles and approaches to governance and social order. They're both largely untested, but if we had a truly free 'marketplace' of political ideas and values, these two would surely grow exponentially, if not at the expense of the other two, then by bringing new voters into the fray.