"A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

I didn't forget anything... I just know that as bad as mcnasty is, he is not nearly as bad as the two other options. If a new candidate arises that is Conservative and can win... count me in. I'll believe it when I see it, however.

LLS

Cool... I will stand happily corrected!

LLS

Thanks for putting to words what I was feeling. I just don’t know what do about it.

First, a much larger number of conservatives and libertarians must come to the full understanding that the constitutional republic is already dead, and has been since the 1930’s. Even Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of my lifetime, could not roll the socialist encroachment of government back.
Second, the people who want the constitutional republic back must decide if they want it in its 1791 fashion, or its 1929 fashion. In other words, there needs to be a consensus on just how much government we want in our lives.
Third, the people must come to some decision, within their own minds, and as a group, as to what they are willing to do to regain the republic. No tyrant willingly gives up power and control over others; therefore, just how far are people willing to take it. We know how far the Founding Fathers were willing to go.

I haven't read what other's have written, but here are a few quick points:

1. I don't believe that it is helpful to refer to Democrats and Republicans as Socialists. They both may want us to eventually end up there, but right at this particular moment they are not advocating policies that are technically socialist. Even Obama's and Clinton's health programs are not technically socialist, even though they would both be a big step backward for the country.

One of my major problems with this site of late is the heightened rhetoric which associates all policies left of Limbaugh's as socialist, any criticism of the war as treason, any questions about out-sourcing as protectionism, etc.

Even though posters have long since stopped using ALL CAPS to express their angry positions, the words they use are still extreme and over-the-top.

If conservatism were an easy sell, then we would not have to worry so much about the marketing, but conservatism is not an easy sell. We're asking people to go with the sensible and safe family sedan rather than the cool sports car or monster truck. If we use over-inflated rhetoric to support our cause and oppose that of our opponents, then we will definitely lose in the political Nielson ratings.

2. I do not believe that as far as third parties go the more the merrier. In countries with strong multi-party traditions candidates are elected based on the proportion of votes that their party receives, not by winning the most votes in particular elections. The USA is much more tied to specific tracts of land (thank heavens!) than other countries. I can't ever see US citizens supporting a process where someone gets a seat from an area where that person has never set foot in, just to match up the number of candidates with the percentage of votes.

Since we have what we have, there are only two ways I can see forward where third parties would help to unseat the current duopoly of duplicity:

A) Personality Cult: We would need to create a party based around a famous and well-respected person. This party would technically have a platform and stand for something, but mostly would be putting forth this famous person to run. If he/she wins, then the party will gain money and power and lots of people would wave the party's banner in senate, congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative contests. This is sorta what happened with the Reform Party. Unfortunately their standard-bearer was a flake.

Now who would you most likely get to run? Unfortunately the answer is someone that would look a lot like McCain: middle of the road, tied loosely to his party, focusing on good government rather than ideological purity, etc. Anyone with any strong ties to the Republican or Democrat party would not want to act in the role of a spoiler. Our best bet would be a retired general dissatisfied with the way either party is dealing with the War on Iraq or the fight against terrorism in general.

B. Left-Right Straddle: This idea would be to create two ideologically opposed third parties that would attempt to lure identical numbers of members in all states. The idea being is that both parties could gain members without fear of being a spoiler to what they would consider the lesser of two evils. This would require a lot of trust between people for which there currently is very little. It would also have to somehow protect itself from being jiggered by the RNC and DNC: you wouldn't want a bunch of RNCers to join the rightist party only to vote RNC in the main election, resulting in the leftist party holding the bag as the spoiler for the DNC candidate.

I could see something like the Green Party and the Constitution Party somehow working together (a combined "Vote your Conscience not your Convenience" campaign for example.) If each could get over 5% of the electorate to join then they wouldn't impact this first election, but they would get government matching funds next year and they could potentially get included in debates, etc.

3. The main problem I see is dealing with apathy and the lack of active involvement in politics. The field has been left to the activists, the axe-grinders, and the lobbyists.

In order for people to become more engaged in their government I think we would need a three-pronged effort:

i) Politics Clubs: People already join Investment Clubs to get together with people to determine the best investment decisions. Why not have politics clubs? Instead of having ones that are ideologically based we could just help create clubs to get things done that need getting done such as adding a lane to a particular stretch of clogged highway, adopting an effective anti-graffiti program, etc. Once people see that they can make an impact locally, they may be able to gain confidence that they can get things done at the state and federal level as well.

ii) Second Life --> First Life: Currently large numbers of people are spending a bunch of time as virtual people in virtual worlds. In these virtual worlds most people just goof off, but others actually engage in business and political activities. It would be interesting if we could somehow come up with an interface like Second Life that would actually be tied into real decisions in the real world. For example, people could work through budget issues for a real city as anonymous members of a Second Life type computer "game". Of course the city council could always override whatever the people in the "game" decide, but if a significant % of a particular city's population is in on the game, then they couldn't completely ignore it.

iii) Political X-Prizes: This could also be done through a web-site. The idea would be for people to use whatever tools they can (Lexus Nexus, web searches, sophisticated software, etc.) to solve problems posed by a philanthropist willing to spare some of his/her wealth. For example, we are told that some earmarks are written to help only one specific company. Have someone get $1000 for each earmark he can tie to a specific congress-critter and a specific lobbyist. Give out prizes to people who find tax credits that only apply to a few companies, or the one or two companies that are exempted from a particularly heinous regulation. Basically pay people to do the job that the GAO, congress, etc. are supposed to be doing. Shame the RNC and DNC into behaving better. Get people to realize that they can spend a significant % of their time surfing the web for a good cause ... rather than a good pair of ti...

“I haven’t read what other’s have written...”

Then you may not have noticed that Content Provider has been banned or suspended.

“...but here are a few quick points:”

As to that, and only in my opinion of course:

The problem with third parties is that they want to get to the top before they have a foundation to support them when they get there.

If your “cult of personality” candidate won the presidency, what would she do with the position? Would there be a lot of cooperation in Congress to move forward with an agenda, or would they, as members of their respective parties, just wait it out for four years?

To be anything like successful, a third party will have to build a foundation at least at the state, if not the local, elective level and move into the national level.

Conseratives don’t seem to be cohesive enough to build a third party and they won’t be able to take over an existing party for much the same reason.

Good point, thanks.

The number of Representatives to be set at 1 for every 30,000 persons.

Why on earth would you want a 10,000 seat House? 435 of the knuckleheads is bad enough.

I would like to know why Content Provider’s account was suspended? Was it something they said - or were they someone who had been banned before & came back under another name? I didn’t see anything in their posts that was offensive or against the rules. Does anyone know?

“Why on earth would you want a 10,000 seat House? “

1. Because it would much more accurately reflect the will of the people. 435 out of 300,000,000 is not a very good statistical sample.

2. It is harder to bribe 10,000 than it is 435.

3. It will be much harder to agree upon and pass all the stupid legislation that is constantly churned out. Gridlock is not that bad.

4. It will become much easier for the average engineer, corner businessman, self-employeed entrepenuer to be elected.

"Conseratives don’t seem to be cohesive enough to build a third party"

I agree with you on this very important point.

When I first started on FreeRepublic there may have been some vicious arguments over evolution and predestination, but everyone seemed to be pretty much in agreement on political issues.

Now there is disagreement on pretty much everything except abortion and the second amendment.

As individuals we will be attracted to different candidates, mostly RNC, but occasionally DNC, because we all have different views and priorities.

Conservatives like to complain about Blacks voting as a block to support the DNC despite getting little in return the past few years.

The same can be said for Conservatives: we should no longer expect that we can act or think as a block, so the best we can do is educate each other with regard to the facts and poltical theory.

Instead, lots of Freepers seem to assume they are right out of the gate, and that anyone that disagrees with them is either a KoS troll, and idiot, or a traitor.

Such is life ... or rather virtual life.

We've lost it already..........

Nah, It was murdered by the godfather of American Socialism - FDR.

“Anyone know why Content Provider was banned?”

I’d like to know as well.

I believe that every politician hides behind a facade.

Smiling and motivational speaking not only works for politicians. Smiling and motivational speaking also worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Jim Jones, David Koresh and many others. Those names live in infamy because of what they accomplished. What has trouble surviving history is HOW they accomplished their objectives.

I have no doubt McCain lives behind a facade. But is a facade reasonable in comparison to two other candidates who actually live in disneyland? I can fully understand their motives of power and socialist doctrine.

I don’t know for sure what motivates McCain. But I suspect he would love to cause injury to the VC who tortured him in N Viet Nam. Of Anyone who would know the ugly face of communist oppression, I would believe John McCain has the inside information. He may appear to be a soft spoken grandparent image. But he could have a fist of iron.
The wealth of knowledge our elders possess is invaluable and should not be overlooked.

Voting 3rd party will NOT be helping HillaryObama to become Potus!

Yes it will. Elections are about the allocation of power. every vote is a vote to allocate power to one candidate or the other. If you pass by the qualified but ideologically shaky McCain you are allocating power to the ideologically hideous and vastly unqualified HillaryObama.

Once again you ~miss~ the point. I dont OWE my vote to the G.O.P. It is up to them to earn it, nominate a liberal-I don’t have to compromise. I can vote for whom I wish (we aren’t in Soviet Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, et all. Voting 3rd party is voting for who I choose to vote, you come at this from the wrong point of view-as if otherwise I would have to give my vote to the GOP. Nope PParties are tools, that’s all. When a tools stops functioning you do two things 1) Fix it, or 2) Throw it out and get a new one.

I respect your opinion, but do not agree at all!

You dont’ keep using that tool as is (which is the case with RINOs-McCain)?

Um...one more time...I DID NOT SAY, IMPLY, INTIMATE, SUGGEST OR EVEN THINK THAT YOU OWE YOUR VOTE TO ANYONE.

IS THAT BLOODY WELL CLEAR ENOUGH THIS TIME?

I'm talking about what happens in elections in the real world, and allocattion of power is WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.

Try this example: I don't owe anything to the folks at Lowes and Home Depot, but if I decide that I dislike them both and never buy any paint for my house, eventually my house will be a peeling mess. You don't owe McCain anything, but your inaction will do more to advance what you hate. Got it this time? You don't have to agree, but it would be nice if you'd get a grip on what I'm actually saying.

If I didn’t want to go to lowes or home depot I could always go I could always to go Ace to buy my paint! ;)

Also McCain would do more to advance that which I hate becuase he would continue the slide of the Republican party into liberalism- I have already fought this fight through 8 years of Bush Jr.

We have survived Democratic Administrations and the electoral resuls are ALWAYS better on the other side: Reagan Revolution, 1994 Contract w/America. (Even GW’s election after 8 years of Clinton was a reaction against them)!

If I vote 3rd party I would be standing for principle and not supporting compromise, compromise which is bad.

your supporting of McCain will allow him to support that which you hate, and you really will have no room to complain when you’ve helped elect another socialist.