[ the actual title of this page:]

( for ComputerIcon   or   SmartPhone-Icon )
this page was viewed 57,940 in a single year )


" No significant difference
Democrats and Republicans? "

There may not be enough,
but there's still plenty !

Before I present my own views, which I formulated some time ago, I want to offer my readers an article which may express my views better than I have. I've tried in vain to communicate with the author, so I'm assuming his permission. The faint blue section below comes from the end of his "http://conservativemyths.com/meet-the-conservatives-FauxCons.html" page :


There has long a strain of belief among many that equates the parties, and even the ideologies. This belief goes something like this: There is no real difference between the parties. They both are (choose as many as you wish): lame, corrupt, bought-off, evil, puppets of the illuminati, etc., etc.

This, of course, is not even black-and-white thinking; it's gray thinking. It cannot discern, and thus dispels, the real, and deep, divisions between the ideologies which fuel the two major parties in American politics. Although popular amongst people who think they are thinkers, it is essentially a nihilistic, pessimistic, lame, dark and hopeless worldview, based on no real factual data, just flimsy axioms and conspiracy theory. What an ignorant and meaningless way to walk in the world.

The crux of this belief is interesting, however, and contains more than a morsel of truth in itself. The belief presumes some "master manipulator" of politics and all politicians. Someone, or something, is bringing down, corrupting, buying off, carrying off to the dark side our elected representatives and, thus, the government itself. If there are puppets, there has to be a puppeteer somewhere.

This is technically not true: there is no "puppeteer" or any small group that serves as a unified controller. In fact, there are trillions of puppeteers! You probably have a few of them in your pocket right now. The puppeteers are dollars.

Of course, the puppeteers (dollars) are concentrated in the possession of a tiny sliver of humanity. The simple, myopic mind will perceive this sliver as a whole. A closer, more accurate view sees this tiny sliver as not at all homogenous; rather it is comprised of thousands upon thousands of wealthy people and their corporations, often vying against each other for influence. The commonality among them all is that their money controls the strings of politics and politicians. But the causes they choose to support, and the side of the political spectrum they favor can be polar opposites.

As always, resist seeing the world in black-and-white or shades of gray, and look for the spectrum. Black-and-white is almost always false, while the spectrum reigns supreme in the Universe. There is a spectrum of manipulators, and they would certainly range from very good to very bad, depending upon your individual worldview. The perception of this good-bad spectrum will be diametrically opposed for liberals and conservatives.

The reason we know there is NO single controlling entity is because of this manipulator spectrum. The manipulators are all over the map when it comes to the intent of their manipulation. There are millionaires and billionaires on just about every side of the any particular social and political issue, including whether or not millionaires and billionaires should have the ability to use their money to buy influence.

Now conservatives need not a shred of "justification" for using money to buy influence. That idea is built into their DNA; it is one of the foundations of conservative belief. Conservatives wish desperately to "conserve" an unfree, unequal, unjust, biased system. So, of course, they are going to do everything they can to manipulate everything they can manipulate in order to "conserve" this dominator hierarchy that works so well for them.

It is also true that most people who find themselves in positions of wealth and influence like that situation very much, and are inclined to side with the side (conservative) which promotes the legitimacy of such selfishness. So we can agree that most wealth and power tends to promote conservative ideology.

But not all. There are some who come into wealth and power who remain committed to higher ideals, including liberty, equality, justice for all, love for one another. These people are called liberals. And, thank God, there have been many liberals throughout history who wielded tremendous power and influence. Not always with their money... their ideas shine like beacons through the ages, while conservative ideas lies like muck on the deck.

When it comes to the political fray, we liberals are routinely outgunned financially, but we OWN the true ideological highground. That's why we are able, on a regular basis, to defeat the conservative moneyed powers. Take the 2012 election when the conservative manipulators spent a BILLION dollars to defeat Obama and other Democrats... only to get firmly spanked. That's not pocket change. Those CorpCons, like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and Karl Rove have a very different view of America, and the world. They want to impose that stark, unequal, unfree, unjust corporatist utopia upon all of us. They are frustrated and angry when they can't do that. So much for the "They All are the Same" ignorance!

It is, of course, disheartening when we witness liberals succumbing to the influence of money. Partly, they have no choice. That's the way our system is rigged... take money or be defeated. The conservatives (mainly) make sure it stays that way. Over and over again, liberals have attempted to constrain or do away with this rigged system, and again and again they have been thwarted by conservatives (most egregiously in the titanic "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision). Eventually the liberal idea will prevail, and money will be banned from politics. But that day is not yet, so we play to win the game that is on the table.

Sometimes, sadly, we see theoretically liberal politicians sucking up to CorpCon masters or various stripes. Obama is an example. He campaigned as a liberal champion, but then selected not a single true liberal for his original cabinet (while adding two true Republicans), and has shown little hesitation to hobnobbing with some of the fattest CorpCons (particularly those from Wall Street). The desire to "conserve" grows stronger with the acquisition of power and advantage. Tapping into the money stream available becomes a temptation that few politicians can resist.

It is not our job as citizens to accept this current reality or to nihilistically tune out. We must keep the pressure on so as to hasten the day when outside money will be banned from politics. The way to do that is to VOTE, and to otherwise participate in the system. Examine your real values, choose the side of the spectrum you are on, and get involved.

The pessimistic, hopeless "They All Suck" belief system encourages the opposite. If they all suck, then why vote, why get involved? It's all rigged, why bother? But the truth is they are not all the same. And it's not ALL rigged. Some of it, yes. But not all. And that's our opening. If We the People are to prevail, then we must step into our power... wherever we can find it. That power is there waiting... in your consumer choices, in your free speech, and most potently at the ballot box. You have a voice. Use it! Promote positive change in the world, not nihilistic, self-defeating pouting.

There are HUGE differences between the parties and the ideologies that fuel and fund them. Even a cursory look at history reveals this. Liberty, Equality, Justice for All, and Communion between the disparate peoples of the world has done nothing but RISE for the past 300 years, at least. The conservatives, with all their wealth and power, fought against all of this every step of the way... and still LOST! Some "illuminati." The evolution of human culture is clear to see for those who open their eyes. A glorious future awaits... but we must make it happen. There are many who wish to "conserve" the old ways. Choose the correct side, and get into the game."
       by "Rusticus"


"Vote-Smart" is the premier, non-partisan organization in a America dedicated to collecting and disseminating objective data to enable voters in America to be as informed of possible in their voting.  In order to best answer the question as to how similar or dissimilar the Democratic and Republican parties are, I know of no better source of information than the reports for every major special interest group listed at www.Vote-Smart.Org. protest.gifThat great, impartial organization brings together, side by side, all kinds of group's individual ratings of the Congressmembers of the two parties.  The whole purpose of these groups is to know the two parties inside and out, to try to influence the votes of their congress members, and to keep score as to which congress members their own groups members should be told to reward and supported and which which need to be opposed and punished.
        Now, if I were a wealthy organization, I would be able to update all of the information on this page every year or so. But since I am simply a single retired person with no funds and no staff, all I can offer the reader is work that I did a decade or so, with the assurance that over the past decade or so little has changed when it comes to what each of the two major parties represent.

Job Growth Rates
under recent presidents:
President % Growth
in # years
BEST records :
Johnson (D) 3.8% in 5
Carter (D) 3.1% in 4
Clinton (D) 2.4% in 8
Kennedy (D) 2.3% in 3
WORST records :
Nixon (R) 2.3% in 5
Reagan (R) 2.1% in 8
Bush-I (R) 0.6% in 4
Bush-II (R) 0.1% in 8
( Bureau of Labor Statistics )

Of particular interest is whether the average ratings for the parties fall above or below fifty percent for each group – that is, whether the party votes with the wishes of a given special interest group more often than not or whether the party votes against that group's wishes more often than it does with them.
        After combining these ratings in this way, the question then becomes whether any difference can be seen in the way the two parties vote.  Do the numbers reveal any useful information about the parties' voting patterns?  Is there a reason for those disillusioned with the political process to hope?
        And the answer? A profound, emphatic, resounding, definite: YES!
        Yes, there is a huge chasm between the way most of the members of the two major parties vote on many issues.  Vote-Smart.org lists 107 different ratings.  Of these, fully 93 found the parties stratified on either side of the fifty percent mark, one supporting a particular interest, and the other opposed to that same interest.
        Furthermore, not only did an overwhelming majority of groups find the parties to be on opposite sides of their issues, but the difference between their positions is normally huge.  The average spread between the ratings that any group assigned to the parties was 55 percentage points.  The parties do not simply differ slightly on the issues – they often differ like night and day.
        What's most instructive are the particular groups that found the parties to be voting with their wishes.  Looking at those groups, together with their self-described missions produces a composite view of the positions of the parties.
        I have not updated the figures on this page since the year 2002, but there hasn't been any need to do so because the purpose of this page is to highlight the contrast between the two parties, and if anything that contrast has only grown in the period since this study was made.
        The most glaring disparity between the parties is regarding organized labor.  Sixteen different labor unions provide ratings of Congressmembers' voting, and all 16 – every last one – found that the Democratic Party voted in favor of the interests of the working men and women that they represent, while the Republican Party voted against those interests.  In fact, the most common rating individual Democrats in Congress received from labor unions was a perfect 100 percent – voting with that union every time.  In stark contrast, the most common rating any individual Republican received was a perfect zero, never voting with that union even once.  For example, of the 261 Democrats in Congress that the United Food and Commercial Workers union rated in 2001, 206 received a perfect 100 percent rating.  In contrast, of the 269 Republicans in Congress the UFCW rated in 2001, 232 received an unqualified zero.  It's as if the Republican Party has declared outright warfare on working people in this country.
        "But what about business?" might come the rejoinder.  When that general charge has been expressed more narrowly, it translates to: "The Democrats and the Republicans are just two branches of the Business Party."  The facts show how totally untrue that charge is, and coming at this matter from opposite points of view, business and labor both say the same thing, i.e. that Republicans favor business interests, while Democrats favor workers interests.
        Five different special interest groups are listed as representing business on Vote-Smart.org, and all five found the Republicans to vote with their interests while the Democrats vote against them.
        As demonstrated by their voting records, Democrats are viewed by working people, women, seniors, African-Americans, Hispanics and consumers as the advocates for just and equitable working conditions, for civil rights, for protecting the environment, for reproductive freedom, for gun control, for education, for public health, and for humanitarian social policy.
        And the Republicans?  The Republicans are viewed by big business opponents of taxes on business, or those who benefit most from business and opponents of government services to any entity other than businesses, as services require taxation to pay for them.  Perhaps they can best be defined by what they're against, rather than what they're for: they are against all those groups and all those social aims that the Democrats serve.  However much they might protest this characterization, their voting record speaks for itself.

It is the business of all of the groups below to know
which political party best serve the interests of their own members,
and to guide them as to which candidates to support and which to oppose.
And these experts all agree on one thing :




Dems vs GOP

There is a   HUGE   difference between the two major parties !

Special Interest Groups
which see Democrats as their friends :
        The following are groups that rated the Democrats as voting in favor of their interests much more often than the Republicans, along with the year(s) which the ratings cover.
Special Interest Groups which
see Republicans as their friends :
        The following are groups that rated the Republicans as voting in favor of their interests much more often than the Democrats, along with the year(s) which the ratings cover.
American Federation of Government Employees, 2001
(labor) [ www.AFGE.org ]
93 % for Dems. vs. 8 % for Repubs.

American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations, 2001
(labor) [ www.AFLCIO.org ]
93 % for Dems. vs. 16 % for Repubs.

American Federation of State, County, &
Municipal Employees, 2001 (labor) [ www.AFSCME.org ]
89 % for Dems. vs. 3 % for Repubs.

American Federation of Teachers, 2001
(labor) [ www.AFT.org ]
93 % for Dems. vs. 11 % for Repubs.

American Postal Workers Union, 2001
(labor) [ www.APWU.org ]
92 % for Dems. vs. 8 % for Repubs.

Communications Workers of America, 2000
(labor) [ www.CWA-union.org ]
88 % for Dems. vs. 10 % for Repubs.

International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, 2001 (labor) [ www.IAMAW.org ]
92 % for Dems. vs. 18 % for Repubs.

International Association of Fire Fighters,
1999-2000 (labor) [ www.IAFF.org ]
93 % for Dems. vs. 24 % for Repubs.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
2001 (labor) [ www.boilermakers.org ]
97 % for Dems. vs. 40 % for Repubs.

International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, 2001 (labor) [ www.IBEW.org ]
88 % for Dems. vs. 32 % for Repubs.

Service Employees International Union,
2001 (labor) [ www.SEIU.org ]
87 % for Dems. vs. 23 % for Repubs.

Transportation Communications Union,
2001 (labor) [ www.TCunion.org ]
97% for Dems. vs. 41% for Repubs.

The Teamsters, 2000 (labor) [ www.teamsters.org ]
77% for Dems. vs. 9 % for Repubs.

United Auto Workers, 2001
(labor) [ www.UAW.org ]
85 % for Dems. vs. 13 % for Repubs.

United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers, 2001 (labor)
[ www.ranknfile-UE.org ]
78 % for Dems. vs. 7 %.

United Food & Commercial Workers,
2001 (labor) [ www.UFCW.org ]
91 % for Dems. vs. 4 % for Repubs.

American Association of University Women,
2001 (women) [ www.AAUW.org ]
95 % for Dems. vs. 10 % for Repubs.

National Organization for Women, 1998
(women) [ www.NOW.org ]
77 % for Dems. vs. 11 % for Repubs.

Alliance for Retired Americans, 2001
(seniors) [ www.RetiredAmericans..org ]
88 % for Dems. vs. 1 % for Repubs.

National Association of Retired Federal
Employees, 1999-2000
(seniors) [ www.NARFE.org ]
97 % for Dems. vs. 27 % for Repubs.

National Committee to Preserve
Social Security & Medicare, 1999-2000
(seniors) [ www.NCPSSM.org ]
93 % for Dems. vs. 31 % for Repubs.

National Council of Senior Citizens, 2000
(seniors) [ www.NCSCinc.org ]
91 % for Dems. vs. 8 % for Repubs.

American Civil Liberties Union, 2001
(civil liberties) [ www.ACLU.org ]
72 % for Dems. vs. 14 % for Repubs.

Human Rights Campaign, 2001
(civil rights, civil liberties) [ www.HRC.org ]
87 % for Dems. vs. 14 % for Repubs.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
1999-2000 (civil rights, civil liberties)
[ www.CivilRights.org ]
89 % for Dems. vs. 27 % for Repubs.

National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People, 2001 (civil rights,
civil liberties) [ www.NAACP.org ]
85 % for Dems. vs. 24 % for Repubs.

National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, 2000 (civil rights, civil liberties)
[ www.UnidosForAmerica.org/NHLA.html ]
90 % for Dems. vs. 29 % for Repubs.

American Lands Alliance, 2000
(environment) [ www.AmericanLands.org ]
74% for Dems. vs. 11 % for Repubs.

Comprehensive US Sustainable Population,
1999-2000 (environment)
[ www.UScongress-enviroscore.org ]
64% for Dems. vs. 24% for Repubs.

League of Conservation Voters, 2001
(environment) [ www.LCV.org ]
81% for Dems. vs. 15% for Repubs.

National Parks Conservation Association,
1999-2000 (environment) [ NPCA.org/flash.html ]
84% for Dems. vs. 48% for Repubs.

US Public Interest Research Group, 2001
(environment, consumers) [ www.PIRG.org ]
75% for Dems. vs. 16% for Repubs.

Consumer Federation of America, 2000
(consumers) [ www.ConsumerFed.org ]
83% for Dems. vs. 40% for Repubs.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
1987-1999 (gun issues) [ www.BradyCampaign.org ]
80% for Dems. vs. 21% for Repubs.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1999-2000
(gun issues) [ www.GunFree.org ]
56% for Dems. vs. 42% for Repubs.

Handgun Control, Inc., 1993-1994
(gun issues)
79% for Dems. vs. 23% for Repubs.

Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of
Errants, 1999-2000 (crime) [ www.CUREnational.org ]
62% for Dems. vs. 27% for Repubs.

National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League, 2001
(abortion, family planning)
[ www.NARAL.org ]
80% for Dems. vs. 10% for Repubs.

Planned Parenthood, 2001
(abortion, family planning)
[ www.PlannedParenthood.org ]
82% for Dems. vs. 12% for Repubs.

AIDS Action Council, 2001
(health) [ www.AIDSaction.org ]
93% for Dems. vs. 42% for Repubs.

American Public Health Association, 2001
(health) [ www.APHA.org ]
90% for Dems. vs. 9% for Repubs.

Children's Defense Fund, 2000
(family, children) [ www.ChildrensDefense.org ]
88% for Dems. vs. 44% for Repubs.

National Education Association, 2001
(education) [ www.NEA.org ]
95% for Dems. vs. 30% for Repubs.

US Student Association, 1995-1996
(education) [ www.USstudents.org ]
78% for Dems. vs. 9% for Repubs.

Bread for the World, 2000
(social policy) [ www.bread.org ]
96% for Dems. vs. 18% for Repubs.

Friends Committee on National Legislation,
2001 (social policy) [ www.FCNL.org ]
71% for Dems. vs. 16% for Repubs.

National Association of Social Workers,
1999-2000 (social policy) [ www.SocialWorkers.org ]
86% for Dems. vs. 16% for Repubs.

NETWORK, a national Catholic
social justice lobby, 2000 (social policy) [ www.NETWORKlobby.org ]
74% for Dems. vs. 18% for Repubs.

Zero Population Growth, 2001
(social policy) [ www.ZPG.org ]
83% for Dems. vs. 17% for Repubs.

Americans for Democratic Action, 2001
(liberal) [ www.ADaction.org ]
87 % for Dems. vs. 9 % for Repubs.

Public Citizen's Congress Watch, 2001
(liberal) [ www.citizen.org ]
85% for Dems. vs. 7% for Repubs.

National Committee for an Effective
Congress, 2001 (liberal) [ www.NCEC.org ]
85% for Dems. vs. 4% for Repubs.

Humane Society, 2000
(animal issues) [ www.HSUS.org ]
70% for Dems. vs. 31% for Repubs.

National Farmers Organization, 1991-1992
(farm) [ www.NFO.org ]
68% for Dems. vs. 37% for Repubs.

Campaign for UN Reform, 2000-2001
(foreign policy) [ www.CUNR.org ]
83% for Dems. vs. 28% for Repubs.

Council for a Livable World, 1999-2000
(defense, foreign policy) [ www.CLW.org ]
54% for Dems. vs. 17% for Repubs.

Associated Builders and Contractors,
2000 (business) [ www.ABC.org ]
10 % for Dems. vs. 93 % for Repubs.

Business-Industry PAC, 2001
(business) [ www.BIPAC.org ]
16 % for Dems. vs. 89 % for Repubs.

National Federation of Independent
Business, 2001 (business) [ www.NFIB.com ]
21 % for Dems. vs. 96 % for Repubs.

Small Business Survival Committee,
2000 (business) [ www.SBSC.org ]
15 % for Dems. vs. 86 % for Repubs.

US Chamber of Commerce, 2000
(business) [ www.USchamber.com ]
49 % for Dems. vs. 81 % for Repubs.

Americans for Tax Reform, 2001
(taxes) [ www.ATR.org ]
13 % for Dems. vs. 91% for Repubs.

Citizens Against Government Waste,
2000 (taxes) [ www.CAGN.org ]
16 % for Dems. vs. 75 % for Repubs.

Competitive Enterprise Institute – budget,
1994 (taxes) [ www.CEI.org ]
12 % for Dems. vs. 78 % for Repubs.

Competitive Enterprise Institute –
deregulation, 1994 (taxes) [ www.CEI.org ]
30 % for Dems. vs. 85 % for Repubs.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
- spending, 1994 (taxes) [ www.CEI.org ]
13 % for Dems. vs. 66 % for Repubs.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
- taxes, 1994 (taxes, spending)
[ www.CEI.org ]
14 % for Dems. vs. 95 % for Repubs.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
- totals, 1994 (economic policy) [ www.CEI.org ]
15 % for Dems. vs. 72 % for Repubs.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
- environment, 1994 (environment)
[ www.CEI.org ]
17 % for Dems. vs. 74 % for Repubs.

National Tax Limitation Committee,
1999-2000 (taxes, spending)
17 % for Dems. vs. 78 % for Repubs.

National Taxpayers Union, 2001
(taxes, spending) [ www.NTU NTU.org ]
15 % for Dems. vs. 67 % for Repubs.

Liberty Lobby, 1999 (populist)
31 % for Dems. vs. 60 % for Repubs.
[Note: This group is miscategorized. Their aims – lower taxes, less government spending, "protective" immigration laws – are more in keeping with conservatism than populism.]

League of Private Property Voters, 2001
(property) [ www.LandRight.org ]
16 % for Dems. vs. 78 % for Repubs.

Gun Owners of America, 2001
(gun issues) [ www.GunOwners.org ]
12 % for Dems. vs. 54 % for Repubs.

National Rifle Association, 1993-1994
(gun issues) [ www.NRA.org ]
19 % for Dems. vs. 81 % for Repubs.

Center for Security Policy, 1997
(defense, foreign policy)
[ www.security-policy.org/latest.html ]
28 % for Dems. vs. 81 % for Repubs.

National Right to Life Committee, 1999
-2000 (abortion, family planning) [ www.NRLC.org ]
19 % for Dems. vs. 88 % for Repubs.

American Conservative Union, 2001
(conservative) [ www.conservative conservative.org ]
17 % for Dems. vs. 84 % for Repubs.

John Birch Society, 2001
(conservative) [ www.JBS.org ]
18 % for Dems. vs. 69 % for Repubs.

Republican Liberty Caucus, 2000
(conservative) [ www.RLC.org ]
28 % for Dems. vs. 69 % for Repubs.

Republican Liberty Caucus –
social policy, 1999 (social policy)
[ www.RepublicanLibertyCaucus.com ]
25 % for Dems. vs. 67 % for Repubs.

Christian Coalition, 1999-2000
(Christian family issues) [ www.CC.org ]
18% for Dems. vs. 87% for Repubs.

Family Research Council, 2001
(conservative religious) [ www.FRC.org ]
17 % for Dems. vs. 72 % for Repubs.

Concerned Women For America, 2000
(women) [ www.CWFA.org ]
34% for Dems. vs. 84% for Repubs. [Note: This group is deceptively named, being more accurately titled the "Conservative Women of America" as their aims are more organized around conservatism than focused on the particular interests of women. ]

The 60 Plus Association, 1999-2000
(seniors) [ www.60plus 60plus.org ]
29% for Dems. vs. 89% for Repubs.

United Seniors Association, 2000
(seniors) [ www.UnitedSeniors UnitedSeniors.org ]
25% for Dems. vs. 93% for Repubs.

[Note: These last two groups are also more accurately described as conservative groups rather than groups serving the particular interests of seniors. Insofar as their aims address the interests of seniors, they advocate against government programs to assist seniors and in favor of privatization – Enron-style retirement plans, for instance.]
(Considering all these misleading interest group names, perhaps another conclusion to be drawn from this study is that Republican special interest groups often attempt to confuse the public and cloud the issues by presenting themselves with populist-sounding names to disguise their pro-corporatist anti-populist agendas.)

One of the best sources of information on the scoring of the entire membership of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is the progressivepunch.org website. Even if you are a conservative, you can trust them, because they tell everybody who has the best vs worst record from whichever perspective you take.

Regarding the contrast between the two parties, where religion
is concerned, compare and contrast the following
Jesus facing left
. Ayn Rand
Jesus facing Left
        Rather than actually following the very liberal teaching of the Gospels of Jesus of Nazareth, most of today's leading Republicans.much prefer Libertarian atheist Ayn Rand's "Gospel of Selfishness", as you can see by clicking on the middle picture/link above.
        The first site (on the left) shows – without actually claiming the credit that it deserves for doing so – how much the Democratic Party has been acting on the teaching of Jesus and the great prophets of the bible.
        The "JesusNoRepublican" site, on the other hand, shows that the Republicans have no grounds to pose as the more moral or religious party, except in the manner of the religious hypocrites, who killed Jesus of Nazareth when he exposed that very hypocrisy.
        In contrast to these pages of mine, which strive to fair even to those with whom I disagree, check out what Right-wingers view as "An honest examination of Democrats vs Republicans" at www.toberight.com/2011/05/democrats-vs-republicans/   This stufff is hilarious !
What do the opposites "Liberal" and "Conservative" really mean ?

        If you were required to spell out the precise meaning of those terms, could you do it? Most people use these terms with only a vague idea of what they mean by them. I've given this matter a great deal of thought over many years and I believe that I have clearly defined precisely what these terms mean, when they are applied properly on the many pages of "Liberal" vs. "Conservative". I believe you'll find your own thinking much clearer after exploring this site.


How do Veteran Groups evaluate
Republican vs. Democratic Legislators?

        Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is the nation's first and largest group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the civilian supporters of those Troops and Veterans. They have members in all 50 states and no one has done more than them to advocate for the men and women serving our country in the front lines of our current war.
        Disabled American Veterans has a very similar site. They appear to have used fewer votes to do their evaluations, and the results, though not identical, are similar. While the IAVA use letter grades from A down to F, the DAV use scores ranging from a high of 100% to a low of 20%.
        The charts below were designed by me, Ray Dubuque, from information provided by their web sites to make it easier to see the contrast between Republican and Democratic politicians. I urge you to go to the original sites, http://IAVAaction.org and Disabled American Veterans legislative research, so as to see and appreciate the tremendous amount of work that went into documenting the legislative records of every last member of the current Congress (as of 2006). I challenge anyone who disagrees with their findings to point to anything comparable to back up his or her conflicting opinions.

Republican Senators :
AL:Shelby = D  40%Sessions = F  40%
AK:Stevens =   D  40%Murkowski =   D  40%
AZ:McCain =   D 20%Kyl =   D- 60%
CO:Allard =   D 60% 
FL: Martinez =   D 60% 
GA:Chambliss =   D- 60%Isakson =   F 60%
ID:Craig =   D- 20%Crapo =   D 20%
IN:Lugar =   D+ 60% 
IA:Grassley =   D  40% 
KS:Brownback =   D  40%Roberts =   D 60%
KY:McConnell =   D 60%Bunning =   D-  40%
LA: Vitter =   F 40% 
ME:Snowe =   C 80%Collins =   C- 60%
MN: Coleman =   D  40% 
MS:Cochran =   D  40%Lott =   D 60%
MO:Bond =   D  40%Talent =   D+ 60%
MT: Burns =   D+ 60% 
NE:Hagel =   D+ 60% 
NV:Ensign =   D- 40% 
NH:Gregg =   D  40%Sununu =   D  40%
NM:Domenici =   D  40% 
NC:Dole =   D- 60%Burr =   F 60%
OH:DeWine =   D+ 60%Voinovich =   D 60%
OK:Inhofe =   D- 40%Coburn =   F  40%
OR: Smith =   C 50% 
PA:Specter =   C 60%Santorum =   D-  40%
RI: Chafee =   C 80% 
SC:Graham =   D- 40%DeMint =   F 60%
SD: Thune =   D+ 60% 
TN:Frist =   D 60%Alexander =   D 40%
TX:Hutchison =   D+ 60%Cornyn =   D- 60%
UT:Hatch =   D 50%Bennett =   D  40%
VA:Warner =   D+ 60%Allen =   D+ 60%
WY:Thomas =   D  40%Enzi =   D-  40%
Democratic Senators :
AR:Lincoln =   B+  80% Pryor =   B   100%
CA:Feinstein =   B+  80% Boxer =   B+  80%
CO:Salazar =   B   80% 
CT:Dodd =   A-  80% Lieberman =   B+  80%
DE:Biden =   B+  75% Carper =   B+  80%
FL:Nelson =   A-  100% 
HI:Inouye =   B   80% Akaka =   B+  80%
IL:Durbin =   A-  80% Obama =   B+  80%
IN:Bayh =   B+  80% 
IA:Harkin =   B   80% 
LA:Landrieu =   B+  80% 
MD:Sarbanes =   B+  80% Mikulski =   A-  80%
MA:Kennedy =   B+  80% Kerry =   B   75%
MI:Levin =   B+  80% Stabenow =   A-  100%
MN:Dayton =   A-  80% 
MT:Baucus =   B   80% 
NE:Nelson =   B-  60% 
NV:Reid =   A-  80% 
NJ:Lautenberg =   B+  80% Menendez =   B   80%
NM:Bingaman =   B+  80% 
NY:Schumer =   B+  80% Clinton =   A-  80%
ND:Conrad =   B+  80% Dorgan =   A-  80%
OR:Wyden =   B+  80% 
RI:Reed =   A-  80% 
SD:Johnson =   B+  100% 
VT:Leahy =   B+  80% Jeffords (I) =   B+  80%
WA:Murray =   A-  80% Cantwell =   A-  80%
WV:Byrd =   B   80%Rockefeller = B+ 100%
WI:Kohl =   A-  80% Feingold =   B   80%
        As anyone can see, the lowest grade any Democratic Senator got (from the IAVA) was a "B-" and the highest grade any Republican got was a "C".
        (And the Republicans who earned those C's were the handful of more "liberal" G.O.P. Senators, who are not considered "true Republicans" by the more orthodox party loyalists.)

What a difference the supposedly religious and "non-partisan"
"Christian Coalition" sees between the political parties:

Christian Coalition scorecard

When people think of political corruption, they are probably aware of a number of scandals involving Democrats, but ask them to point to significant scandals involving contemporary liberal Democrats, as opposed to scandals dating back to the "good old days", when the Democratic Party was under the control of fat cat and/or Southern conservatives.  They won't be able to come up with anything near the corruption that has been rampant through most of the history of the Republican Party, as I lay bare at JesusNoRepublican.Org. This page is so good that for years it has been one of the very top pages listed by Google in response to searches for "Republican corruption", and the like. I challenge Republicans and/or conservatives on that page to come up with a comparable list of corrupt Democrats and the results so far have been laughable.

        These are the scores given a few years ago to the Leaders of the two political parties by five major organizations representing opposing interests :
ASC = American Security Council ( Military interests )
COC = Chamber of Commerce ( Business interests )
COPE = Committee On Political Education ( Labor interests )
CFA = Consumer Federation of America ( Consumer interests )
LCV = League of Conservation Voters ( Environmental interests )
Group Ratings
(from 1997:)
Sen. Lott (GOP) 100 100 5 0 0
Sen. Nickles (GOP) 100 91 0 0 8
Rep. Hastert (GOP) 100 91 0 20 11
Rep. Armey (GOP) 100 100 0 0 9
Rep. Delay (GOP) 100 100 0 0 9
Rep. Archer (GOP) 100 91 0 0 17
Sen. Daschle (Dem) 20 20 63 90 77
Sen. Reid (Dem) 30 18 100 90 85
Rep. Gephardt (Dem) 40 9 89 100 67
Rep. Frost (Dem) 70 36 67 90 52
Rep. Bonier (Dem) 20 9 100 100 78
        Where do Republicans get the gall to pose as more patriotic than Democrats ?  They have a habit of choosing as their leaders "ChickenHawks" – who send others to die in the wars they vote for, while they find excuses to stay home !

        "Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."  -  { author unknown }

More wealth and jobs created by Democratic administrations

        From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003, Democrats held White House for 40 years, and Republicans for 42.5 years, during which time,
1. Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs and Republicans 36,440,000.
2. Per Year Average : Democrats = 1,825,200 vs. Republicans = 856,400.
3. There was either a depression or a recession during the administrations of 6 of the 9 Republican presidents .
4. The DOW grew by 52% more under Democrats, and
5. The GDP grew by 26.4% more under Democrats.

Democrat President Bill Clinton versus
Republican President Ron Reagan

1. 24% more jobs under Clinton
2. 64% greater GDP under Clinton
3. 500% higher growth in the DOW under Clinton
4. Clinton increased national spending by 28%,
        while Reagan increased it by 80%
5. Clinton increased national debt by 28% ,
        while Reagan increased it by 187%
6. Clinton produced a huge surplus,
        while Reagan increased deficits by 112%
        Sources :
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.Gov)
            – Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)
  • Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003
  • www.the-hamster.com chart taken from NY Times
  • National Archives History on Presidents. www.nara.gov
    Contact : Clarence@LiberalsLikeChrist.Org
  •         "the unemployment rate on the last day of the Truman, Johnson and Clinton administrations, respectively. 2.5%, 3.5% 4.5%. Under Clinton's presidency, unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in 27 years. Yes, I know about Jimmy Carter, he left with 7.5%, the same percentage he came in with. Now look at unemployment on the last day of the Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations. 25%, 6.5%, 7.5%, 5.5%, 7.5%. For Hoover, thats twenty five not two point five. Only Reagan left office with lower unemployment than he inherited, and his finishing unemployment rate pales beside that of Democratic administrations. Pitiful isn't it?"   [http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=71&pos=0&len=10]

    See also http://JesusNoRepublican.Org.
            It's hilarious to see Republicans trying to claim that their party was the more liberal party at the time of the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Bill of 1964.  See the the truth in contrast to their smokescreen at LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/civilrights.html

            Although the positions of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion and gay rights get the most attention, overall, the Democrats in Congress have been favoring Catholic Church positions much more often than have Republicans, as is shown in these tables : Congress & the Catholic Church

            Until 2005 there was another whole site dedicated to the differences between the Democratic & Republican Parties. It was especially good at contrasting the parties on specific issues. Although the web site is now "asleep", it is not dead, because of an internet archiving service, which is at least making it available as it was last updated in 2004 :
    www.damnedbigdifference.org/issues. (it takes a while to load, but it's worth the wait.)

    For much more on these matters, see
    Contrast the two major parties regarding "family values"
    And for an especially biblical perspective, see
    the parable of "the Stolen Inheritance"

    Presidential Vacationing compared

    % of time on vacation:

  • Truman = 7.0 %
  • Carter = 5.0 %
  • Clinton = 5.0 %
  • % of time on vacation:
  • Eisenhower = 7.0 %
  • Reagan = 11.5 %
  • Bush Sr. = 37.0 %
  • Bush Jr. = 21.0 %
  • [ excerpts from the sources below : ]
            Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent the most time working and the least time on vacation. Carter took only 79 days off during 4 years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.
            Clinton spent 152 days on holiday over his 8 year term 2920 days).
            In over seven years, Harry Truman spent 175 days vacationing in Key West, Fla.
    Sources :
    (as of August, 2005:) http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=1070529
    & (as of 2003:) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/08/21/politics/main34415.shtml .

    Why should either party try to be more moral than the other if they are going to be painted as "just as immoral" as the other no matter what they do?!?
            The problem isn't that "both parties do it", i.e. corruption, it's that most of the public (not to mention the media) is too damned lazy to study and think before they spout off such nonsense.
           To give you an illustration, when Dukakis was running against George W. H. Bush, Dukakis told the truth (that the country was in such a financial mess that as President he would have no choice but to raise taxes. Bush lied and promised "No New Taxes". 40 states then voted for the liar, and had to wait four years to elect a Democrat named Bill Clinton who would do a fantastic job of getting the economy straightened out by - among other things - raising taxes on the super rich - not the middle class or the poor - .
            And lying voters keep saying that they don't like corruption and dishonesty !!!

    Liberal Insights Galore

    The above is just one of many unique and exclusive insights that we have made available free of charge at our Great-Liberal-Insights.org site to help make the Democratic Party not just more liberal but more successful in its battle for the hearts and minds of the good people of America...Here are a number of others :

    1. our MorePartisanshipPlease.org shows why "partisanship" isn't the problem that so many have made it out to be, but the solution!
    2. our LiberalslikeChrist.Org/familyvaluesparty.htm shows why Democrats are the true "family values" party!
    3. our great-liberal-insights.Org/workingclass.html shows why Democrats should avoid "the "middle class" scam...
    4. our great-liberal-insights.Org/winningstrategy.html reveals a winning strategy.for liberals.
    5. our great-liberal-insights.Org/taxandserve.html urges Democrats to become "the tax and serveparty.
    6. our www.ThankGodforLiberalDemocrats.org is a tongue in cheek counterpoint to our serious www.JesusNoRepublican.Org/, which shows how antithetical to Jesus Christ the G.O.P. is..
    7. our LiberalslikeChrist.Org/Christlike.html shows why people who want to be like Christ should be as liberal as he was..
    See also our powerful Youtube videos:
    1. http://www.Great-Liberal-insights.org/bible-1.html
    2. http://www.Great-Liberal-insights.org/bible-2.html

    There is much more where this came from,
    at the cyberspace home of

    email image