Third Party Tragedies

"A Republic if you can keep it!" was Benjamin Franklin's curt reply when asked the nature of our government at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Our Constitution is an amazingly brilliant document. It was written to protect We the people not only from the federal government that it created, but also as Franklin's poignant remark illustrates, the Constitution protected us from ourselves. The Founders recognized the dangers of a tyranny of the majority. Contrary to what public schools teach and what most Democrats would have you believe, on paper the United States is most assuredly not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. And almost paradoxically, it was not overwhelming majorities that led us down the primrose path toward democracy.

As far as I know, the Republican Party has been the only 'successful' third party in American history. Successful is bracketed because Lincoln used force to breach the Constitution and bring the seceding states back into the union. Regardless of your thoughts on Lincoln or the Civil War, the Republican Party has been with us as a major political party ever since. No other third party has ever enjoyed success and some notable third party efforts have resulted in tragedies of historic proportion for our nation.

Most Americans have an image of Teddy Roosevelt as a genuine hero. This is in spite of the fact that his decision to leave the Republican Party and form the Bull Moose Party may one day be seen by history as the pivotal event leading to the beginning of the end of the United States itself. Woodrow Wilson became President with a plurality, not a majority, of the vote as a result of this third party disaster. Wilson and the Democrats engineered three catastrophic changes in the Constitution that set the stage for socialism and "professional" politicians.

The Federal Reserve Act, one of the first successful end runs around the Constitution, was the first of the three. The XVI^th and XVII^th Amendments were the other two. Together, the Federal Reserve Act and the XVI^th Amendment effectively granted Congress unlimited taxing, unlimited borrowing, and unlimited spending powers. The XVII^th Amendment brought the United States much closer to actually being a democracy. The theory of a republican form of government is that we elect leaders that are wiser, more experienced and of a higher moral character who will use their independent judgment to then do what is in our best interest, regardless of what we want or would prefer. Under the Constitution prior to the XVII^thAmendment, the State legislatures elected United States Senators, hence the origin of the concept of the Senate's being the upper chamber versus the House being the people's chamber.

Important third party stories and tragedies are still being played out today. Remember Ross Perot's Reform Party that gave us the Clinton tragedy? An even greater unpublicized current tragedy is found in the numerous conservative third parties that have splintered away from a Republican Party unwilling to embrace genuine conservative reforms. Presently, there are not enough conservatives within the Republican Party to control it and the third parties that have splintered away dilute the conservative influence that still remains within the Republican Party even more. All conservative third parties need to understand that they could not obtain a governing majority even if they had Ronald Reagan as their President. No third party can defeat the Democratic Party, especially when allied with the closet socialists within the Republican Party. If the Constitution is to be restored, it can only be done by a conservative coalition able to either control or intimidate the Republican Party. "Professional" politicians are not going to be part of the solution. Bringing conservatives that have formed their own third party and deserted the Republican Party back into to the Republican Party in order to form a conservative coalition that can put the Republican Party back on the "right" path is an essential step toward restoring the Constitution.

"It is not the who that matters, it is the what. It is curious to me that anyone wants to know about the author when they can know the plan."

Because some would want to know if if the author has the gravitas and the game to see this through. How do we know you are not a convicted felon?

Words are cheap and "ideas" about how to restore the constitution are a dime a dozen. It's not the plan, it's the planners.

"I'm all for sticking strictly to the Constitution, but the Republican Party, in their support for Social Security, Medicare, and all of the other unconstitutional programs enacted in the last 70 years is obviously NOT."

Your observation is very well grounded. I have taken the liberty of adding your name to our ping list, because the plan we are putting forward is precisely targeted to surgically excise socialistic Republicans from power and replace them with conservatives made from the same mold as Ronald Reagan and cut from the same cloth as the Founders. Stick with us; you are going to like this plan.

"Because some would want to know if if the author has the gravitas and the game to see this through. Words are cheap and "ideas" about how to restore the constitution are a dime a dozen. It's not the plan, it's the planners. Every Superbowl team has a game plan but I want to know who the quarterback will be."

Here is how I am going to tackle your questions by punting the ball back to you.

Newt Gingrich will go down in history as a Hall of Fame quarterback. The Gipper will qualify as the all time second greatest quarterback behind only General George. And the Gipper qualifies also qualifies as one of the greatest coaches in history. Yet we are not really measurably closer to scoring a touch down than before they got into the game. If you stop talking long enough to read and think through this effort, we will be that much closer to reaching the goal.

I realized there may be an implied question in your questions. No, it isn't going to be me that leads the team or gets us over the goal line. I have an all star quarterback in mind, and if we had had this plan under the Gipper or when Newt was in his prime, we would have already scored. We need cheer leaders and performers to recruit the coach or the capitain. Using this game plan, they will take care of the rest. What we don't need, is meddlers incessantly muddying the water.

"They don't need to be forced out, they need to be managed and outvoted in caucus/primaries. Were it not for the socialist GOPs, Alito would have not been voted out of committee and would not have had enough votes in the Senate - it was strictly a party-line vote."

When you are under fire in the trenches, you need to know that you can depend on your comrades in arms. Do you remember Franklin's quote when they signed the Declaration, "We must hang together; or surely, we shall all hang separately"?

The Constitution will not be restored by Republicans who see a need for programs like Medicare Prescription Drugs or Campaign Finance Reform. The plan is to replace socialistic Republicans with conservatives made from the same mold as Ronald Reagan and cut from the same cloth as the Founders.

We believe that Reagan's two land slide elections and the Republican Revolution that resulted from the Contract with American prove that the majority of Americans are conservative and still support the Constitution. We recognize that there are far too many Americans that do not and we plan to use the Great Debate to change the hearts and minds of Americans that do not agree.

You seem like a nice person and are sincere in what you are doing, so I'm not going to pile on you but I will say I think you need to grow a thicker skin or get some skills in public relations.

My observations have been reasonable and polite, yet you respond by making comments such as "If you stop talking long enough to read..." and referring to those offering constructive criticism as "meddlers". Wow.

I have read all your literature and commented on previous threads, so I'll reiterate them one last time and move on.

There is nothing wrong with your approach except that it is ass backwards. Yo believe all you have to do is put a "real conservative" up in a primary and that they will miraculously win that and then the general election.

You studiously ignore the fact that the rino's you wish to replace have been consistently chosen in the primaries by the republican voters and then by all the voters in the general election. I'd bet that more conservative candidates have run in at least some of those primaries and consistently lost. There is a reason for this and that you refuse to admit this painfully obvious fact is why your effort would probably fail.

You have to change the hearts and minds of the voters first to prepare the ground for success in electing your messiahs. The ground for conservative success in America in the last two decades was prepared by Reagan (who won because Carter was so inept) Fox News and media individuals like Rush Limbaugh. They moved the middle which translated into success at the polls.

My apologies to you Sir. It is my lack of public relations skill and lack of communication skill that are to blame for what I now believe was an error of negligence on my part. I believed that I had sent you a link to the master site map that has links to all the relevant pages for this project. It is clear from your reply that I either did not, or that the pages were not linked correctly and you were not able to navigate the complete website.

We are going to explain precisely how we are going to defeat RINO's where others have either failed or even failed to try. We will also show how our targeting will shift all Republicans further to the right. In addition, we are going to show how we plan to target the most liberal Democrats to even begin shifting the entire Democratic Party to the right. And we are going to show how we plan to set the agenda for campaigns as part of the process to change the hearts and minds of all Americans in favor of freedom and the Constitution.

I have Freepmailed you a link that will allow to read the rest of the "literature" that you were clearly not able to access before.

Again my apologies, Sir. And I hope you will give me and this project another chance.

The rumor was that he had a grudge against Bush but I think that was just cover for the more selfish reason.

The support he got, including mine was mostly from his opposition to NAFTA. A lot of us knew what the treaty would do and he was right. If he had stuck to the message and ignored the opposition he would have rode that pony into the WH. But then again maybe it was what you said, he really didn't want it.

Instead, he gave us all Clinton and got nothing in return for himself. Thanks Ross.

It's all Ross's fault. Not the people, they are too stupid to decide what to do. People can't be trusted, that's why we need the Republican Party and Democratic Parties to choose for them. Interlopers of any other stripe are the problem. Ya just can't blame those imbecilic people for voting "wrong".

Damn you Ross.

Not to put too fine a point on it but taking your footbal analogy as an example: In the "game" of conservatives vs ~~socialists~~ liberals, regardless of who was quarterbacking, would you still not root for "your" team? Dumb moves and all???

I'd bet that more conservative candidates have run in at least some of those primaries and consistently lost.

I think this point would require some additional study. The party "machine" generally gets behind one candidate; overt or otherwise? Given the limited resources of the party, they choose the most "electable"; not necessarily the most conservative. The others have to make do with their own resources, regardless of their conservative credentials, if they are even willing to fight the battle at all. Would it not be helpful to the conservative cause if we could find a way to channel additional resources to the most conservative candidates?

I'm not saying HopefulPatriot's plan is necessarily the answer, but it has the potential to make significant contributions IMHO. The problem I see here is there hasn't been an honest debate on the nuts and bolts of the plan; maybe because it's not that easy to follow in its present format.

FGS

Ya just can't blame those imbecilic people for voting "wrong".

I will be happy to blame them. Please give me their names.

I am certain many freepers bought the line and I don't blame them, it was a good one. Our other choices were a sleaze ball and a good man who violated our trust with "Read My Lips, No New Taxes." He got conned by George Mitchell and the democrats, as many Republicans have.

I am confident that some will stubbornly go the third party path to oblivion again. I hope we can recover. We are still trying to dig out from the last Clnton regime.

"Given the limited resources of the party, they choose the most "electable"; not necessarily the most conservative."

Of course, this is how politics is played, dems do it too. Each party chooses the candidate as close to their ideology, but also electable, to support.

Choosing the most conservative instead of the most electable will result in a dem majority in the Senate and House.

I don't like it but that's the way it is.

No need for apologies, I wasn't scraped that bad and I've been around FR for a long time.

I'm not saying your plan is bad, just that you have to start at the basics, educating the public and moving opinion, before you can put it in place. Look how much money George Soros spent to get Gore and Kerry elected. He wasted his money because he thought he could buy public opinion instead of concentrating on shifting peoples positions.

This is particularly difficult for us because the left owns most of the media, higher education and Hollywood.

Of course, this is how politics is played, dems do it too. Each party chooses the candidate as close to their ideology, but also electable, to support.

I accept that for the most part BUT, if additional resources could be brought to bear(which is what this is all about) could more conservative candidates become more electable? If it's mostly about money(hard to argue against that, eh?), this plan could help fill the gap.

Choosing the most conservative instead of the most electable will result in a dem majority in the Senate and House.

Depends on how much support can be generated for truly conservative candidates given additional resources wouldn't you say?

In any case, and through it all, there's something else to consider, that is, there exists an apparent time constraint. If you haven't taken a look at the Gokhale-Smetters study, just read the five pages of the Forward, starting at page 5. It might be illuminating. I haven't gone looking for a rebuttal to this report, so I can't say that there's been any serious debate on it either way, only that it deserves some consideration. It could also indicate we may not have the luxury of plodding along at the present pace waiting til things work themselves out.

FGS

Look how much money George Soros spent to get Gore and Kerry elected. He wasted his money because he thought he could buy public opinion instead of concentrating on shifting peoples positions.

Gawrsh Bob, that statement is just full of holes.....where to start. First of all, Soros didn't need to shift peoples' positions, that's been (what's left of the MSM) ABCNNBCBS's job, along with the NYT, LAT, WAPO, etc for decades. They have been the Dim's cheerleaders for a long time under the guise of news. Influence? Certainly. Soros just supplied and supported the candidate.

Would you agree that by most any measure, America is a conservative country, but Americans generally have had problems identifying issues with parties because of the media's persistent muddying of the waters? Only within the last 15 years, more or less, has the media become the object of suspicion for most Americans and look what's happened. As they lose their grip on the electorate, the electorate has swung right. IOW, the electorate, in larger and larger numbers, no longer trusts the media.

Just as an aside, the socialist media still wields some clout, partitularly within the beltway, where they apply their bludgeon to our conservatives. I submit the constant harping has the effect on our guys, whether they realize it or not, of perpetually looking over their shoulders.

The point being, look how close they've come to winning, with socialist, doofus candidates in, of all places, hostile territory.

Well crap! I was actually going somewhere with all this but I totally lost my train of thought. I'm forced to leave it as is to pick up later maybe. Oh, to be ~~20, 30, 40, 50~~ again.

I think my point is being missed. Throwing money at a candidate doesn't necessarily translate into electoral success and you set up a cycle of having to rasie and spend equal amounts of money each election cycle.

Turn voters into conservatives and they will vote for conservative candidates and probably do so for the rest of their lives.

Give a man a fish...

Keep voting for big government goofs and you will continue to get big government goofs. Like GWB, WJC and all the rest of their ilk.

The dumb ones are the fools who continue to think the difference between them is significant.

The problem isn't that people voted third party, it's that not enough of them did.

So if you want to blame someone, blame them.

I am confident that some will stubbornly go the third party path to oblivion again.

The path to oblivion is the one we are currently on.

If, under today's circumstances, you can't see the importance of circling the wagons and uniting against the left there is nothing for us to discuss. Your utopian idea of reviving or instigating a conservative party, per se, while our entire government and way of life is under assault is very dangerous. It may be something to work on when the tiger is not at the gate but now is not that time.

Not necessarily. You would agree most people are followers? If they(the electorate generally) begin to see a movement back to a more traditional America, I think most would gladly come along. The movement has shown some signs of life from the electorate side of the equation, AND they are putting more branded conservatives into office. Even so, problems seem to arise as they become "acclimated" to D.C.; they become incumbents. To this point there has been little in the way of keeping 'em honest, certainly not the media who does their part in covering and cheering their frequent leftward shift.

Turn voters into conservatives and they will vote for conservative candidates and probably do so for the rest of their lives.

Great idea, and there seems to be some positive movement. We're also doing our part, but how long will it take? You didn't indicate whether or not you read any of the Gokhale-Smetters study that makes a good case for a time critical change in how things are done in D.C. in particular. Does the study not elicit any concerns for what the future might hold? Unless some significant changes are made; and soon?

FGS

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.