Skip to comments.Herman Cain Calls for Creation of Third Party
Posted on 11/08/2012 5:38:40 AM PST by Hojczyk
Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is calling for the creation of a third political party saying it is clear to him that neither major political party is willing to address the nations economic problems.
We need a third party to save this country, Cain told American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer. This country is in trouble and it is clear that neither party is going to fix the problems we face.
Cain agreed with Fischers assessment that conservatives are growing tired of being ignored by Republican party leadership and that many believe the GOP no longer speaks for them.
Cain said it was troubling that Mitt Romney received fewer votes than John McCain did in 2008 suggesting that many conservatives did not vote on Tuesday.
I dont believe the Republican Party has the ability to rebrand itself against the mainstream media machine that blatantly works to support this president and other liberals as well as the Democrats, Cain told the radio host.
Cain said it would take money, leadership and at least 50 coalitions to create a viable third political party.
You need one for every state because of the whacky rules state by state that they have that make it difficult for a third party to emerge, he said. He said the new party could be made up of not only disenfranchised Republicans but also Democrats.
There are just as many disgruntled Democrats would probably be a part of this movement as there are Republicans who are sick of the political class, Cain told American Family Radio. Realistically, it is more viable today than it has ever been.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
If not a third party then we need a conservative wing of the republican party..a party within the party....this wing will have a way of selecting one person to run in the GOP primary (How I do not know ).. were split the vote otherwise and we never get a conservative candidate.....the wing also elects a leader in the house and senate...and he either becomes the GOP leader or a second and has a say in how things are done..right now we just follow along like puppies..it sucks
In 2008, we had Fred Thompson....he got little to no support from the “party”...In 2012 we had Herman Cain...He got little to no support from the “party”...
Both were very conservative...both had extremely goos common sense...The “elites” did not want them because they were afraid it would upset the “status quo” the “elites” enjoy in Soddom-on-the-Potomac.....
This is going to be the answer to the fiscal cliff...we agree to raise taxes or revenue now and down the road we cut spending(it never happens).. the deficit will not go down next year...but spending will automatically increase and the democrats will spend it to buy votes ..we loose every time
Think of this ruler as a political specturm.
This is where I would drop everyone on the spectrum:
0 - communism (China)
2 - current Democratic party
6 - George W Bush (yes, right in the center)
6.5 - Romney
8 - Reagan
11 - Founders like Jefferson (people underestimate how radical our founders were)
12 - Libertarians
The lesson the GOP will learn from this is election is to move to the left. In a few years the GOP platform will be around 5. We'll be country with a major liberal party (Democrats) and a major left of center party (Republicans). "Conservative" will come to mean "less liberal"; "Smaller government" will come to mean "not as big government"; and "individual freedom" will come to mean "freedom from worry" (instead of freedom to live as you wish).
That, in a nutshell, is the future of the GOP brand and the word "conservative". Both brands, imho, are beyond saving at this point. Propping up the GOP at this point just ensures more left of center government (and more crony capitalism, imho).
It may be time to chuck both the GOP and even the word conservative and refocus around some new ideas and symbols. The tea party was a good start. Maybe we should look at some of the language our founders used to describe themselves to find terms to describe ourselves and our goals.
I think Herm and I are on the same page. From a comment I made last night (although the word “hijack” is probably not necessary - as it was pointed out to me later):
“My suggestion is that we take a long-term view on the presidency - 12-16 years. The GOP is a damaged brand, as is the Tea Party (not the Tea Party philosophy, just the name). There is no point in pursuing either one any more. The media has successfully destroyed them.
Instead, we hijack the Constitution Party and start looking for legitimate candidates who can communicate conservatism in a rational and convincing manner - a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Tom Sellick (I can dream, cant I?).
In the meantime, we abandon the presidency and concentrate our efforts on getting Tea Party-type people into a majority position in the House and Senate - local and state efforts, not national efforts - more under the radar. If were able to do that, whoever is President is immaterial. With 60 senators and a majority in the House, we can get anything passed we want to - overriding a presidential veto as required.
I dont see any other way at this point. I said early this year that the selection of Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate would be the death of the GOP. We cant change it from within and I believe that there is no way to convince the mentally-challenged non-conservatives and non-republicans to join us - the media wont let it happen. Its time we recognize this and take some positive action to save the Country.”
The only way a third party will ever succeed is fairly simple, but the rules must be followed explicitly.
1) The party must be oriented to start at the state level. That is, it becomes viable from the ground up not the top down. As such its first election is not even oriented at the state legislator level, or even leadership roles in the big cities, but at all the minor elective offices in a state.
Only when it has a track record at these offices does it move to the state legislature level of the less populous states. It has to focus its national resources to get control of a minimum of one state legislature before it can start running for federal office. This is because the two big parties will agree to exclude third parties from the national election with unfair rules at the state level.
Real power, however, comes with eventually getting a marginal role in the US house, enough leverage to support one party or the other for a majority. This means that they can then wheel and deal with both major parties for their agenda.
2) The party needs to develop a list of its top 100 core values. Then it needs to poll the public about 10 of these that the public most supports. This then becomes their platform. The other 90 are not forgotten, just put on the “back burner”. This way the party can keep its core values *and* give the public what they want, in a simple and clear way they don’t have to equivocate.
Voters love this.
This would be an exciting move for a huge segment of society and the voting public. I, for one, would welcome it. The Democrat Party has no enemy within itself. That’s why it has no ideas or solutions. It really is a plantation of filthy-mouthed, in -your -face zombies. They don’t teach their children acceptable values or work ethics.
I will stay in the GOP simply because I’m not a pioneer at my age and would be more likely to support the soumd fiscal proposals of someone like a Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. I think they were wonderful. Weighty issues appeal to me like defending our nation, taxation, education, English as the only approved language, and our roads and highways. I don’t give one single hoot about the social issues of modern day America or the feelings of one religious belief over another. I want our red state life back before we had to be called red state blue state.
A new party might be just the thing needed to identify everyone’s criteria for leadership.
I’m in, I left the GOP years ago. It would be nice to be able to vote for someone that is a constitutional conservative.
Until such a party is so powerful that it can bring the other two below 33% of the vote, all that will be created is a very effective spoiler.
Don't we already have something like 39 so-called "third parties". Stupid is as stupid does.
Karl Rove is in a corner gnashing his teeth!
It is time to start thinking logically and not emotionally. I fear we lose elections because people refuse to think logically.
The Republicrat/Demicans need some opposition in Congress!
Rule 3. Organize fund raising and expenditures.
Heck, we might not have the time before the situation goes hot.
How do we make it happen?
I might be able to sway some Reluctant Democrats here in Ohio to go to a third party. Maybe get a local politician elected by a third party. In my once 80% Republican town 5 democrats are now sitting on the City Council I am willing to bet with just a bit of work we could turn one or two to some third party. Especially if Obummer crashes and burns in his second term.
herm you are a liar and a betrayer. Get lost buddy. You have already made your choice.
How many “third” parties do we need? Today there is a political party for every pursuasion. I laugh at people who call for “third” parties when there are over 20 to choose from as it is now
I’m in. Hell, I’ll even get the ball rolling up here unless someone else can do better...
in effect you voted for the commie, genius
I agree, and have suggested similar in the past.
Essentially, a "TEA party primary", or something similar as the TEA party isn't strictly a GOP thing. The idea would be to accumulate enough of an infrastructure of funding and organizational support, that the prize for winning would be worth the cost -- all participants must pledge to support the winner of this "primary".
The devil is in the details, of course. Not just in getting the various conservative groups to join forces and pool resources, a monumental task in and of itself, but also in determining how such a pre-primary would work to represent the conservative voters despite being impractical to have a nationwide vote and how to prevent a "takeover" by a numerically small, but very organized fringe group.