corrente

Because "Nach Hitler, Uns" was such a brilliant strategy the first time around:

One useful way of estimating how little separates the Democratic and Republican parties, and particularly their presidential nominees, is to tot up the issues on which there is tacit agreement either as a matter of principle or with an expedient nod-and-wink that these are not matters suitable to be discussed in any public forum, beyond pro forma sloganeering: the role of the Federal Reserve, trade policy, economic redistribution, the role and budget of the CIA and other intelligence agencies (almost all military), nuclear disarmament, allocation of military procurement, reduction of the military budget [how many more synonyms for 'military spending' can you pad this list with, kids? --TK], the roles and policies of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and kindred multilateral agencies, crime, punishment and the prison explosion, the war on drugs [ditto...], corporate welfare, energy policy, forest policy, the destruction of small farmers and ranchers, Israel, the corruption of the political system.

(Alexander Cockburn, "Why the Democrats Deserve Nader")

Oh, but why stop there? They also have similar or the same retrograde positions on the liquidation of the ruling class, anarcho-syndicalist worker councils, left-wing deviationism and the Kronstadt rebellion. St. Ralph, meanwhile, has politcally correct answers for all of these issues, which he'll be happy to tell you about when he isn't accepting money from the same forces denounced in the paragraph above.