Posted on 10/27/2012 4:03:01 PM PDT by SincerelyAmanda
If you think an election that can't be won with your ideal candidate is an election not worth winning at all, think again.
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
He was not elected as a Bull Moose candidate. He became accidentally became president after running as Republican VP, then was reelected as a Republican. He lost as a Bull Moose progressive after being out of office for four years.
Also, he’s no example of why we’d want third party presidents, Mt. Rushmore notwithstanding.
No, you take yours. (Gotcha!)
At this point, my hope is that conservatives drop the Romney worship quickly after the election and actually stand up to him where his liberalism is concerned.
If we don’t, he’ll be a one term placeholder for the next incarnation of Obama.
You are mistaken.
Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901 with the death of William McKinley. He had been elected VP in 1900 on the Republican ticket.
He ran for re-election in 1904, on the Republican ticket, and won.
He then retired in 1908, endorsing William Howard Taft for the presidency.
But he and Taft had a falling out and Roosevelt formed the Bull Moose party and was its nominee against the incumbent Republican Taft in 1912. Because of the third party split, the Democrat -- Woodrow Wilson -- won the election.
Thereupon, the Bull Moose party disappeared...
Accordingly, Theodore Roosevelt was once nominated for President by the Bull Moose party, but was never elected on that ticket.
Republicans were not a fourth party. After the Whigs split up they became the new first party, with our old friends the Democrats filling out the third iteration of the Two Party System that’s as old as the Republic and still around.
By my count we’ve had about three new ideogical iterations since then, without the names changing.
The country is invariably adrift to the Left as the Republocrat duopoly brokers an electoral game of forced dilemma between the proverbial giant douche & turd sandwich every time.
You are correct, the freesoilers faded about 2 years before the rise of the republicans. It was actually a pretty complex mess of a decade.
from Wiki
>>The party downplayed abolitionism and avoided the moral problems implicit in slavery. Members emphasized instead the threat slavery would pose to free white labor and northern businessmen in the new western territories. Although William Lloyd Garrison derided the party philosophy as “white manism,” the approach appealed to many moderate opponents of slavery. The 1848 platform pledged to promote limited internal improvements, work for a homestead law, paying off the public debt, and a moderate tariffs for revenue only.
The Compromise of 1850 temporarily neutralized the issue of slavery and undercut the party’s no-compromise position. Most Barnburners returned to the Democratic party, and the Free Soil Party became dominated by ardent anti-slavery leaders.
The party ran John P. Hale in the 1852 presidential election, but its share of the popular vote shrank to less than 5%. However, two years later, after enormous outrage over the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the remains of the Free Soil Party helped form the Republican Party.
To which political party did Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. belong?
For that matter, what was their religious denomination?
The two-party system is a train wreck and the Republicans have not served liberty-minded people like me well at all.
It is time for something else.
It won’t work.
Lincoln and VP Hamlin were elected as Republicans in 1860, but in 1864 Lincoln jettisoned Hamlin and ran with ‘War Democrat’ Johnson as ‘National Union’. Fremont, Republican candidate in 1856, ran as the Republican in 1864 until he realized the split vote would yield a ‘Peace Democrat’(McClellan) win.
Agreed! I’m not sure that Romney wouldn’t do some of the same ‘liberal’ things Obama does.
aghhh, IMO, there just aren’t enough Duncan Hunters in this country.
It is time for something else.
The history of third parties in the American political system is generally a.) ineffective or b.) destructive.
Better solution: Follow the same route as the Commies -- thru the 70s and 80s, the radicals took over the Democrat party. We can take over the Republican party.
It can be done. The Tea Party is a good start.
We have never been ruled by edict before, and I for one don't like it. We have live in countries where we were on our best behavior and the local customs were not ours. When living there became intolerable, we left and came home. We have no place to go...therefore, with God's help we have to fix this mess AND be vigilant it doesn't happen again.
Tuesday night at the RNC should illustrate with perfect clarity to any person with a shred of understanding - that Grassroots CONSERVATISM in the GOP was rendered IRRELEVANT in the GOP and national politics.
Put simply, Conservatism has no home in either party. It is eschewed by both machines of the Ruling Class Oligarchy. Regardless who “Wins” - Conservatism has already been lost in the short term by machine politics.
Any future for Conservatism has to come from outside the system - because Tuesday night at the RNC was done precisely so Conservatives could NOT wrest control of the GOP from the GOPe/RINO Ruling Class.
And I’ll state again - no Marxist in history has ever left office because of an election ousting them. Most often elections in a Marxist regime are shams to create an illusion that the “people” have a voice. Since Cook County went national - I will not be surprised by any outcome this November to January.
Regardless of whether or not Romney takes the Oath of Office - Conservatism will be on the outside of the power structure in DC. We have to start thinking outside of the box that the Ruling Class has overtaken, overthrown and corrupted for it’s own use. We cannot “win” in a rigged game where they set and change the rules to keep themselves in perpetual power.
The fruits of the last 3 decades alone bears this out - we have devolved to the point we are stuck with a choice between an actual Marxist, and a Liberal Democrat. We have to be thinking past November and sadly too many are not.
Nabbing Bin Laden, assuming the opportunity presented itself, was Clinton's call to make. The opportunity presented itself, and he didn't.
The housing crash could have been averted. The Republicans tried to establish an over site committee for Fannie and Freddie, but the Democrats had enough votes to block them. Among those who blocked them was Senator Obama. That's right, President Obama inherited the housing mess from Senator Obama.
As for the collapse of the US auto industry, of course it wasn't Clinton's fault that Americans chose foreign makes over their own, but it wasn't Bush's fault either, but who has received the most blame?
As tor Osaka, he wasn’t the “indispensable man.” They might have pullef it off anyway. Or if not 9/11 then some other attack. You can’t reasonably after four decades of terror point to one decision not to nab one guy as determining the issue.
You're right that we'll never know what could have been, but if Obama had been captured without a fight as could have happened in 1996, his calls for others to martyr themselves may have impressed a lot less.
The Founding Fathers wanted to minimize the influence of “factions” (their term for what we would call political parties!). They knew that human nature was such that there would be a tendency for “factions” to arise. The system they designed, the system we currently have forces “factions” toward the minimal number, which is two. At first we had disorganized “factions” the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Over time the “factions” took on more organization and structure as well as different names and ideologies (Sometimes the ideologies switched places!), the system they built always drove “politics” toward the minimal number of two!
Yes one is less then two but then you would have a one party state and “politics” wouldn't;t exist!
The idiots who cry about the horrors pf partisanship I always ask them if they prefer a one party state, like say North Korea? That's when they get mad at me!
He'll win with my vote, but only because I don't care for the alternative.
No, I certainly won’t be jumping up and down for Obama either (which is the first thing you Romneybots yell when anybody says anything about your new hero).
Of course you couldn't make your point without insults. Fine. Our next President will either Romney or Obama, and nothing you "closet Obama supporters" can say can refute that.
Did you hear his speech today on cooperation with the dems and working across the aisle?
As Governor of Massachusetts he didn't have much of a choice. As a candidate for President he'll have to appeal to as many voters as possible. We Conservatives will have to ensure that the Congress he has to work with is as Conservative as possible.
Yeah, good luck with that. The bitching and moaning on this site will start by the end of January and it will become deafening. Conservatives will NOT have a chance to take over the GOP with Romney at its head, conservatives will NOT be able to fight both the GOPe and the Dems when he starts “cooperating”.
And what chance would even the most Conservative Congress possible have against Obama's executive orders? None, because they won't have the votes to stop him.
I am under no illusions about Romney being a Reagan Conservative. That's why I say we also need to elect Conservatives into Congress, to hopefully keep him focused on the economy.
Jim has warned for years about a Romney presidency but he has been ignored and I’m afraid we are all going to pay for that.
We didn't ignore him. Many of us spent plenty to get someone else nominated, but what happened? Bachmann gaffed herself out of the running, Cain either couldn't control himself or caved over easily refuted charges, and Newt couldn't overcome his woman problem. Add to that the manner in which Freepers attacked the Conservative candidates they didn't support, and by the time it was over, Romney was the only one left.
Romney is going to destroy the chances of having a conservative in the next two elections (assuming Hilary doesn’t kick his ass in ‘16).
Our alternative is another four years of Obama, who will use executive orders to push his agenda through. The MSM will cover for him, and even the most Conservative Congress possible won't have the numbers to stop him. Then what chance will we have to get a Conservative "in the next two elections"?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but Tuesday night at the RNC - Romney, the Ruling Class and Boehner all took part and changed the rules DESPITE vocal opposition to ensure such a takeover from within by Conservatives WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
In short - the GOP-e and the Ruling Class, that same bunch that cooperates with Obama's Marxists and gives their treason a full pass - they made sure that their power is forever guaranteed to run and decide the course of the GOP. Their rules change ensures NO CONSERVATIVE GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT ala the TEA Party/Palin or Ron PaulNuts can threaten their control of the GOP.
Bachman, Akin, and Palin are just a few current examples of the GOP doing everything they can to ostracize them and leave them out in the wind. They would rather a Democrat take any seats they are running for than let a Conservative have them - make no mistake.
If Conservatives want a voice in Washington - they are going to HAVE to start a new party and let the GOP go the way of the Whigs. There is no other option. Anyone who tells you differently is either a damn liar, part of the GOP-e machine or clueless of where Conservatism actually stands on the political battlefield.
A lot of people, Freepers included, are unaware of the changes you outlined.
GOP Rules Committee rapidly moving to shut out Conservative Grassroots
Here's the result of what they did:
How the Establishment Stole the GOP
This quote sums it up pretty well:
A small coterie of Establishment Republicans have wrested control of the GOP and formed the mold into which any Republican wanting to run for president from now on must fit.
I have chosen NOT TO FORGET what Romney and the Ruling Class have done - they did far more damage to Conservatives than Obama could ever have hoped to achieve. But everyone is full of fear, short-sighted and willing to forget out of blind hatred of Obama, having no clue that nothing is going to change except that Conservatives are forever sidelined and the country marches further Left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.