[thoughtomator]

It's as in, "If you think any nutcase off the street is a better candidate for President than what the Democrats or Republicans are offering, vote Perot".

Sadly, that's quite the compelling argument these days. If only a third-party (or non-party) candidate who isn't nuts actually ran for President, the electoral equation would change radically.

If you could pick a non-party candidate to run for President, who would it be?

[Peace will be here soon]

"If only a third-party (or non-party) candidate who isn't nuts actually ran for President, the electoral equation would change radically."

---

It would definitely makes things interesting but there does not seem to be anyone out there to meet the challenge right now.

All the prominent "so called" conservative hardliners, currently out there ( like Buchanan , Keyes , etc..), do not have the appeal , nor the money , to make it happen.

Ross Perot made people realize it is possible for a third party to make a serious run for the Whitehouse, but we all seen what happened with him in the end.

Right now, the best we can do is keep GW in the Whitehouse and try and send good conservative Congressmen and Senators to Washington to keep the President in line on some of these "liberal" issues he leans toward.

"If you could pick a non-party candidate to run for President, who would it be?" ---That is a very good question.

[Fearless Flyers]

I think Ron Paul would be a viable third party candidate. He's already sewn up his relection in the House, so he'd have nothing to lose. Though he's a Libertarian in a Republican suit, I think Reformers and Constitutionalists wouldn't mind the compromise. Unfortunately he's not interested.