Posted on 07/15/2009 6:46:08 PM PDT by Rodebrecht
There's growing speculation from former aids, political journalists, and even Rush Limbaugh himself that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is considering forming a third party alternative for conservatives. Palin, the former GOP vice presidential nominee who stunned the political world by resigning as governor two weeks ago with 18 months left in her term, also posted a link to a column speculating about such a move on her Facebook page. Two articles, one from conservative writer Tammy Bruce, the other from The Washington Times, suggest she may be considering leaving the Republican Party to form a third party alternative.
Radio show host Rush Limbaugh said Palin may leave the GOP and form her own because Republicans have "been just as mean-spirited to her as the Democrats" have. "When I watched her speech when she announced she was going to leave the governorship of Alaska, I didn't hear the word Republican mentioned once," Limbaugh said. - NewsMax
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
Please remember Perot, as imperfect a candidate he was, was on track to win the election according to polling trends. He pulled the rug out from under his own feet near the end because he didn’t really want to win - he just wanted to keep Bush 1 from winning re-election.
A third party is viable: The Reconstructionist or Constitutionalist Party. As for giving the dems an easy win by splitting the Rep vote: I am no longer a Republican. I am a Conservative - they already lost my vote. Our only chance is to make a clean break and steal Conservatives from both the Dems and Reps PLUS invigorate a whole new voting block of dissallusioned Americans who have something worth turning out for.
SEE BELOW/PREVIOUS POST BEFORE PALIN RESIGNATION:
Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:51:47 AM · 179 of 215
XLSweetTea to All
truth is our nation has suffered from lack of experienced leadership for nearly two decades. We have elected younger men that, despite their governorship experience, did not have the right mix or temperment for the Presidency. So we can compile this problem out the next 8 or even 16 years by following the two parties leads or we can start our own search for someone with a strong understanding of the Constitution. Based on past successful leadership models they should:
1. Not be an academic or a lawyer (Reagan)
2. Have some military experience, but not too much (Teddy Roosevelt)
3. Be Constitutionalist (??)
4. Be strong in their words (F. Roosevelt)
5. Be a person of the land/a farmer (Washington)
6. Be able to communicate their message in laymens terms
7. Be honest
8. Be free of hollywood drama and influences
A few thoughts. There is a true conservative Constitutionalist Presidential candidate out there somewhere. Right now he is so disgusted with the vermin in power he is keeping his distance so as not to get rabies. However, the further away he gets from the vermin the closer he gets to his shotgun so he can take care of it. I imagine the one we’re looking for is a mix of Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson - at least that’s probably what we need right now. Definitely not a Woodrow Wilson or, Lord help us, Jimmy Carter. Unfortuantely the latter is what we seem to be dealing with. Once we do find such a person we must support him or her wholeheartedly and independently of either party. But no Bull-Moose or Perot nonesense. It should be an internet based party for efficiency. Call it the Reconstructionist party for that’s what we will be doing in the aftermath of the current policies.
LOL...looks like the Paulies are jumping into the fray. It’s a Scarboroough/Palin plot to get the Paulies. That’s the point of this nonsensical article using a distortion of what Limbaugh said.
:) Thank you!
of course, because any logical person, would want to find an actual QUOTE saying that Sarah is gonna leave the GOP, those words, I repeat HAVE NEVER COME OUT OF HER MOUTH.
So let's just keep on voting for the cowardly Rino’s.
No thanx.
This is a new day..and we've not had communist high jacking our government.
Do you have any evidence of this? Just talking crap?
It’s laughable what is going on, I am actually sitting here, laughing at people who are having a major freak out because they think Sarah is leaving the GOP, she is NOT leaving the GOP. Where the heck has she ever said that, I’ll give 10 bucks to whoever finds me the quote of Sarah Palin saying that she is leaving the GOP
No one knows how libertarians vote but Catholics vote democrat, how is a party that is more conservative going to win them over and how is a party that is more socially conservative going to pull away a sizable number of the already anti social conservative, economics only/pro illegal crowd?
As is the current GOP........so whats your plan?
...and dont say “vote for the conservative” because they get pushed out by the GOP leadership
ON A NATIONAL BASIS, THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS LOSE – AND RUIN THE CAREERS OF THE LEADING PARTICIPANTS.
Consider the fate of the Bonkers Billionaire, Ross Perot, the most formidable minor party candidate of the last 95 years. In 1992, against Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, he invested millions of dollars from his personal fortune and drew an impressive 18.9% of the popular tally (though he failed to win even a single electoral vote). Four years later, he tried again but more than half of his former supporters abandoned him, and he polled a scant 8.4%. The “Reform Party” he had assembled as a personal vehicle for his quixotic quest quickly collapsed when Perot lost interest in it: in 2000, “Pitchfork Pat” Buchanan claimed the party’s nomination and drew a spectacularly pathetic 0.4% — even fellow-fringie Ralph Nader topped his vote total by an astonishing ratio of six-to-one. If anyone today recalls Ross Perot and the Reform Party they do so only as a punch-line, or as a factor in allowing Bill Clinton to win the White House twice without ever winning a majority of the popular vote. Perot’s credibility as a political commentator all but evaporated in the wake of his campaigns -— and Buchanan’s stature also suffered major damage even after his return to the Republican fold to back Bush in 2004.
Other conservatives similarly destroyed once-promising careers with their third party obsessions. Howard Phillips, twice elected President of the Student Council at Harvard, qualified as a rising Republican star when he headed two federal agencies in the Nixon administration. In 1992, however, he succumbed to the temptation of running for President as candidate of the “US Taxpayers Party” (later re-branded as the “Constitution Party.”), and then ran again in ’96 and 2000. Each of these pompous and preachy campaigns drew less than 0.2% and made him an irrelevant (though incurably self-righteous) annoyance to the conservative movement.
Time and again, prominent leaders wasted their time and shattered their reputations with their third party misadventures. Henry A. Wallace, the supremely charismatic and widely admired Vice President of the United States (1941-45), ran as the standard bearer of the leftist “Progressive Party” in 1948, and won a surprisingly paltry 2.4% — not nearly enough to damage the re-election drive of his arch-rival, Harry Truman. Former President Martin Van Buren drew a humiliating 10% as a “Free Soil” candidate in 1848 (eight years after leaving the White House), and in 1856 another former president, Millard Fillmore, drew 22% as the anointed champion of the anti-immigrant “Know Nothing” or “American Party”; as a result of their fringe-party escapades, both one-time chief executives ended their careers in embarrassment.
Michael Medved
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/...
Good one.
RNC = RINO National Committee
My comment is based on the assumption that she is,*in fact*,considering leaving the Republican Party.Not being a confidant of hers I have no way of knowing if it's true or not.
It has been quite apparent for a while now that both D administrations and R administrations have been captured by wall street. By captured I means that our government does what is good for the mega banks and mega investment houses and not what is good for the nation or it people. TARP being the most recently and blatant example.
If this doesn’t get the attention of the cowardly Republican leadership, nothing will.
this is way different than late 1850s before 1860 election
and 1860 was really a four way race with two major and two lesser but substantial players
Lincoln (not an abolitionist btw and an alternative to the Radicals but platform was very contra southern interest and not just slavery) 39.8%
Breckenridge (pro-slavery KY southern Dem) 19%
Bell( former Whig-Know Nothing compromiser)13%
Douglas( northern Dem pragmatist)30%
a veritable soup and as you can see had Breckenridge and Bell not run then Lincoln would have lost and the rest is history
Sarah won't pull any Dems away to speak of unless she liberalizes though she can motivate more lazy peckerwoods to get off their votes to vote
hence I'd see 45 percent leftists at a minimum
and that other being split two ways
not good
yes, it does suck
pinging
So by *assuming* she is leaving the party you reach the conclusion she is “getting a big head”?
No, Catholics used to vote solidly Democrat, back in the days when most of them were ethnics: Irish, Italians, Poles, and other groups who were widely discriminated against by the WASP establishment. Most Catholics then were workers and union people, and they got support from the Democrat party.
That started to change in the late 60s and 70s, when the Democrats became the party of the hippies and the privileged, and when they began to stand for abortion. Also, when discrimination eased off, and the WASP establishment pretty much collapsed.
Since that time, Catholics moved steadily over to the REpublican side, especially after the Republicans adopted a pro-life plank. In recent years it has been roughly 50-50, and analysis suggests that church-attending Catholics are much likelier to vote Republican, whereas dissidents still vote Democrat.
But the Country Clubber faction in the party turns Catholics off—and rightly so.
Sarah is an Evangelical, but real Catholics would be happy to support her. Having the Downs syndrome baby would be a powerful argument for them. She is clearly someone with strong, Christian moral values.
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.