Posted on 06/15/2005 7:21:08 AM PDT by Gipper08
My friend Howard Phillips recently wrote a column outlining the philosophy and historical track record of the Republican Party since George W. Bush became President. Sad to say, even a cursory review of this record reveals the fact that the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has become little more than a carbon copy of the Democratic Party.
Phillips writes, "Sadly, the GOP's elected and appointed officials conform themselves almost without exception to that which Mr. Bush espouses, including:
a. an expanded Federal role in education,
b. record setting subsidies for pro-abortion and pro- homosexual organizations,
c. increased funding for the United Nations,
d. the attempted extension of Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban (blocked in Congress),
e. social Security benefits for illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico,
f. the ongoing reduction of the U.S. Navy (which now stands at 289 ships, compared to 600 under Ronald Reagan),
g. amnesty for illegal aliens,
h. nominees for the Federal judiciary and the Office of Attorney General who espouse the doctrine that Roe v. Wade is 'settled law',
i. support for Food and Drug Administration policies approving the abortion 'pill', RU-486, which has been used to kill scores of thousands of unborn children,
j. overturning Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw from UNESCO,
k. increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,
l. multi-billion dollar support for the Federal Legal Services Corporation and its 25,000 left-wing legal activists,
m. murder-abetting assistance to the Communist government in Angola,
n. historically high multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits and trade deficits,
o. a multi-trillion dollar Medicare entitlement program,
p. a $20 million 'New Freedom' program to evaluate the mental health of 53 million students in the government schools.
q. enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign regulation law which criminalizes free speech,
r. support for the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) which President Reagan rejected,
s. endorsement of homosexual 'civil unions',
t. promotion of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO,
u. a too broadly drawn Patriot Act with its outrageous 'sneak and peek' provisions,
and many more things, a significant proportion of which would have been blocked by a Republican Congress had a Democrat President proposed them."
Of course, most conservatives have chosen to ignore or even deny these facts. The only answer they seem to come up with is, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge." However, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
I certainly won't presume to possess the understanding of "most of us here", but I find it ironic that it's only the "usual rules" that you are concerned about rather than the end result, that is preventing a president's nominee from getting the up or down vote as the Constitution would seem to require. Whether or not the filibuster was appropriate was clearly up to the Senate to decide. What "most of us here" seemed concerned about was that President Bush's nominees were being denied an up or down vote. The fact is that the Republicans used a simple procedural tool to prevent votes on nominees, something that the Democrats also did. Both were for political reasons, not having anything to do with the qualifications of the nominees. I simply find it difficult to get more excited about the tools used than the end result.
If you are upset over the use of the filibuster itself, fine. But if you only accept it when used by Republicans, not so fine. The filibuster is a tool used by the minority to prevent an action, usually legislation, but also other actions including nominations from getting to the floor.
Personally, I don't care much for the filibuster, and am quite happy the gang of 14 was able to work something out that clearly favored the Republicans.
Subject to the Constitution, not the whim of any one political party.
Thanks, I downloaded the file.
I don't know that you can say that yet. Depends on whether or not Frist has the muscle to proceed with overriding the power to filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee. But there is clearly hope.
"Kerry would have done a number of things. First, he would have repealed the tax cuts, refused to pass any meaningful energy legislation which is now on the front burner, pulled back from our commitments in iraq and Afghanistan, gone to the UN on his knees begging forgiveness, signed Kyoto, put the US in the hands of the World Court, reinstituted federal welfare, increased federal support for affirmative action, substantially increased the powers of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to increase federal dominion over lands, sharply increased wetlands, EPA, and other programs that have shown little in the way of meaningful accomplishment. He would have substantially reduced our drilling offshore and onshore on all federal lands. He would have significantly increased the power of labor unions to the point of heavy penalties for those organizations not yet under the yoke of unions. Class warfare would have grown by leaps and bounds and the welfare state would have made Johnson's look puny by comparison."
Obviously I disagree with almost all of that. The President does not have the power to repeal the tax cuts. Further, I don't think the Dem President Kerry would have the political courage to do so even if he did have the power. The voters are on to that isues as well as many of the welfare state issues; no way Dept of Labor can infuse Labor Unions with sufficient power to overcome the fact that they are a dying institution. Just no way President Kerry is going to limit US production of oil and gas resources in the face of $3 a gallon gasoline. Even President Mrs. or Mr. Clinton is going to have difficulty advancing old democrat positions in the face of modern reality.
Now if what you really mean is that I won't like the tone of accomodation incident to Dem foreign policy, you are clearly correct. And I don't think it is in the US interest to make foreign policy that way. The substance of Kerry military policy may be worse than Bush because the dems usually manage to get more soldiers killed; but Kerry is not going to end the half baked management of the war against the Mohammadens or even change it much either.
"And what of the Republican Congress? Since Kerry would have had no objections to using the veto, they would have been powerless. So, I guess you're right, not much difference."
I would be just as happy if Kerry vetoed the Patriot Act amendments; or the Highway Bill or a bunch of other Republican legislation.
"As proposed, the Social Security "Private Account" reform is a Wall Street bailout, not a Social Security reform Not at all. It would have been similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that all federal workers and congress are under now. At least it would have been something belonging to the retirement contributor. All other retirement accounts have to have vesting, why not SS?"
Haven't seen any bill with any single provision that would really do this--the government retains complete power to redefine all rights at any time (course the government can do that to federal employees also). Since I don't think any of the economics work, I see it as a built in that they will ultimately do as private pension creators have done and use all retained power to limit payout.
The point of this program is to get Social Security money into the stock market to support stock prices, pure and simple.
"Agreed, but the means testing will be after the individual is retired. It is either a retirement plan as stated, in which case the benefits belong to the retiree, or it is welfare, and should be addressed as such."
That is just not so. The Administation put in a bill two weeks ago providing for means testing by looking back at the income on which the retiree paid FICA and limiting benefits based on that. Of course the reason they did it that way is as you suggest because they want to depict it as an owned retirement benefit. It isn't. It is welfare. The only reason you got the Federal Government involved in this is so you don't have a lot of retired old people who can't feed themselves. Only excuse. Means testing should be applied based on tax return income--that restores the system to solvency.
I suppose as to the rest of this, I do in fact kind of agree with you.
I don't recall Roe as addressing evidence on the constitutional life issue and have always thought you could try a case like this by putting on scientific medical evidence on commencement of life. The public debate really ought to be forced to address the proposition that it is ok (constitutional for a state to have a law notwithstanding the "no person shall be deprived") for the Mother to commit murder prior to birth to some given point in pregnancy. Amend the constitution if you really want to ensure the ability to get an abortion. Shouldn't hang up the debate on the need for justices who will decide cases based on written law.
Ginsburg and Breyer and Stevens are looking at offshore law contrary to our own to decide cases. That is nuts.
Third Party? Well if not now, never. But unlike you, I see a lot of very disenchanted people on both sides of the current division--probably more Republicans than Dems. You might be able to characterize me as marginal although I have been involved in Republican partisian politics for many years--convention delegate; money raiser; candidate; campaign manager and the like. But although I am a Bible Christian, I do not favor or think we need a theocracy.
But Republicans have lost me at this point. I couldn't stomach voting for John Kerry or I would have done so. But I think Mrs. Clinton is as competent as any politician is likely to be and I will vote for her unless you get me a real Republican candidate.
The reason I consider it was the right thing at the time is because Frist admitted right after the compromise that he likely did not have the votes for the nuclear option. And if true, then we now have 6 new appeals court judges we did not have before, even if nothing further materializes. So we are farther ahead from that standpoint.
The President does not have the power to repeal the tax cuts.
True, he has only the bully pulpit and a rising deficit. He would be successful in pulling back many of the cuts, especially the high end ones. The Republicans would ultimately fold on this, and Kerry made this a major campaign issue. He would succeed on this.
The voters are on to that isues as well as many of the welfare state issues;
Unfortunately, he would cast the tax cuts against the rich as an issue that a lot of voters would ultimately go for especially to pay for the huge deficit we have. Welfare would take some time, but is clearly one of the sacred cows of the left. They truly believe in it. Clinton was not a leftist which explains why he signed welfare reform. Kerry is.
no way Dept of Labor can infuse Labor Unions with sufficient power to overcome the fact that they are a dying institution.
Again, don't underestimate the power of the left when the left is in power. Kerry would simply use a series of executive orders to bring union membership back, and to make it difficult to resist unionizing. Further, he could always ensure that new requirements are put into spending bills to meet this, yet another of his campaign promises.
Just no way President Kerry is going to limit US production of oil and gas resources in the face of $3 a gallon gasoline
Though neither of us knows for sure, I am pretty certain that a Kerry energy plan would look quite different from the bill currently in Congress. He would do so, because he really believes that we need the hard lesson to move off of fossil fuel. Again, look at his campaign promises. And a Mrs. Clinton as president would not be nearly as bad as a Mr. Kerry.
I would be just as happy if Kerry vetoed the Patriot Act amendments; or the Highway Bill or a bunch of other Republican legislation.
Agree with the Highway Bill and the Farm Subsidy Bill, but a leftist president such as Kerry will not veto domestic spending. As for the Patriot Act, I'm not sure what bothers you about it. I'm happy to have the FBI be able to chase terrorists with the same tools as drug dealers.
That is just not so. The Administation put in a bill two weeks ago providing for means testing by looking back at the income on which the retiree paid FICA and limiting benefits based on that
Guess I missed that one. I am aware of proposals including Graham's to increase the earnings base on which SS is paid, but any means or asset testing I have seen is current only. Still, nothing would surprise me.
but Kerry is not going to end the half baked management of the war against the Mohammadens or even change it much either.
If Kerry had won, I believe his base would have forced the issue and he would have withdrawn over a fairly short span of time.
But unlike you, I see a lot of very disenchanted people on both sides of the current division--probably more Republicans than Dems.
Perhaps, but ultimately most Americans realize they have no place to go except to the two mainstream parties. Unlike Israel or Italy, we do not have 50 or 60 parties all participating in the process. So disenchanted, yes. I am very upset over the border issue, but don't see Democrats doing anything about it either. I just realize that my choices will be limited to the two majors.
You might be able to characterize me as marginal although I have been involved in Republican partisian politics for many years--convention delegate; money raiser; candidate; campaign manager and the like. But although I am a Bible Christian, I do not favor or think we need a theocracy.
I did not mean to give the impression that you were marginal, especially as that seems to be somewhat of a pejorative terms. But in fact it is ultimately only the far left and right that are sufficiently active to accomplish a new party, and therefore neither of those two extremes will ever reach an accord. If the Christian Right abandons the Republican Party, the Republican Party will certainly lose and the Christian Right will be totally out of the political picture. Well, it worked when the Whig Party broke up resulting in the Republican Party, but haven't seen too much luck in that arena since then.
But the Dems put up any kind of real candidate and the R's have no chance. Mrs. Clinton may have some extreme personal philosophy but she is a shrewd politician. But for the judicial appointment issue, I would have voted for her instead of Bush had she been the nominee.
I think you are too negative on the Third Party issue. There is a point at which Ross Perot could have been elected President. The day he announced that he was withdrawing because Bush I threatened his daughter's wedding reception, he was ahead and had momentum. Now one might argue that he too was a lousy candidate--his judgment on the daughter's wedding reception threat was obviously not one you would want at the bargaining table with Vlad Putin.
Point is that Perot was not a fringe or even extreme candidate--fundamentally he espoused a political position that was pretty much middle of the road to which many Americans subscribe.
And there are now a number of individuals who would capitalize a realistic third party effort not headed by a candidate on the fringe. I am of the view that a Bible Christian who could clearly distinguish himself from any effort to establish a Theocratic government and who was otherwise a mainstream Conservative--responsible foreign policy; responsible economic policy; would be a very strong third candidate in a race between Rudy or Frist for the R's and Mrs. Clinton for the Dems. There are a couple of sound third party vehicles around and an organized effort could put a sound candidate in a position to win.
Very true, and I think almost any other Democrat would have beaten Bush in '04. I think as bad as Kerry is and was, he might still have pulled it out had he not joined Hollywood at the hip by telling the world the likes of whoppi Goldberg and her Bush sexual analogy represented the true American values.
But for the judicial appointment issue, I would have voted for her instead of Bush had she been the nominee.
Just curious why?
The day he announced that he was withdrawing because Bush I threatened his daughter's wedding reception, he was ahead and had momentum. Now one might argue that he too was a lousy candidate--his judgment on the daughter's wedding reception threat was obviously not one you would want at the bargaining table with Vlad Putin.
Don't recollect any linkage with the stupid nude photo and the Bush campaign, though Perot insisted there was. Perot's campaign, personal ethics and philosophy were a mile wide and half an inch deep. He offered insanely simple solutions to extremely complex issues. When asked what the first thing he would do as president was, he replied, "Gonna look under the hood and fix the engine". The main reason his party lost though was the lack of any grassroots organization. Where did you find Reform Party candidates in local and statewide elections? Perot thought he could create a movement out of whole cloth. I believe even without his stupid antics, he would not have won.
And there are now a number of individuals who would capitalize a realistic third party effort not headed by a candidate on the fringe.
Again, I wonder how you put a machine together with no local or state "party" affiliation. You are completely on your own, and Congress, who will owe you no party loyalty will effectively run through whatever they will. The third party president would have to have a total mandate from the people to have any impact on legislation, judicial appointments, etc. No third party could possibly muster such a mandate.
I am of the view that a Bible Christian who could clearly distinguish himself from any effort to establish a Theocratic government and who was otherwise a mainstream Conservative--responsible foreign policy; responsible economic policy; would be a very strong third candidate in a race between Rudy or Frist for the R's and Mrs. Clinton for the Dems.
Of course, you realize the race will likely be between McCain and Hillary, which gives you the populist you want. Frist stands no chance.
There are a couple of sound third party vehicles around and an organized effort could put a sound candidate in a position to win
Might be interesting to see, but I suspect if McCain is the candidate, the crossover votes will more than cover the loss of the Christian Right votes. Much of course will depend on our position in Iraq, the state of the economy, and the strength of the candidates compared with the general feelings of the electorate. Good luck though.
"I think almost any other Democrat would have beaten Bush in '04. I think as bad as Kerry is and was, he might still have pulled it out had he not joined Hollywood at the hip by telling the world the likes of whoppi Goldberg and her Bush sexual analogy represented the true American values."
I have said that a number of places over the last six months. You never know what mistakes any of the others might have made--but Lieberman for example would almost certainly have won. And you are also correct, Kerry could well have pulled it out--I don't think the Hollywood crowd was his only killing flaw; he had to figure out how to respond to the Swifties--the media was prepared to help him do that but he muffed it.
"But for the judicial appointment issue, I would have voted for her instead of Bush had she been the nominee. Just curious why?"
I think the critical issues are return to Constitutional government and general repudiation of the internationalist agenda, seeing it replaced by an America orientated series of foreign and domestic policy goals. George II is clearly going to advance an agenda contrary to that objective so as a partisian proposition, he should be replaced. Mrs. Clinton is going to be more pragmatic and would not be as driven by the internationalist program to the extent it conflicted with her series of domestic political goals. I see George II as a worse president from my perspective than Mr. Clinton; Mrs. Clinton might be worse than her husband but not as bad as George.
"Don't recollect any linkage with the stupid nude photo and the Bush campaign, though Perot insisted there was. Perot's campaign, personal ethics and philosophy were a mile wide and half an inch deep. He offered insanely simple solutions to extremely complex issues. When asked what the first thing he would do as president was, he replied, "Gonna look under the hood and fix the engine". The main reason his party lost though was the lack of any grassroots organization. Where did you find Reform Party candidates in local and statewide elections? Perot thought he could create a movement out of whole cloth. I believe even without his stupid antics, he would not have won."
A lot of those generalizations are correct. Ross did not give the American people credit for being able to understand complex economic policy analysis so he gave them platitudes. Maybe his thinking was in fact pretty shallow also; I gave him credit for better analysis that he showed but I may have been wrong. And you are correct, there was no connection--he just said that as an excuse. And there may have been underlying reasons he did not articulate--I don't put much past the Bushes. But he looked really bad at that point and it defeated him. And but for that, he was a serious candidate, in front, with momentum, and a good chance to win.
As to the rest of that, the lack of party organization and local candidates; and as to your following point, ("I wonder how you put a machine together with no local or state "party" affiliation. You are completely on your own, and Congress, who will owe you no party loyalty will effectively run through whatever they will. The third party president would have to have a total mandate from the people to have any impact on legislation, judicial appointments, etc. No third party could possibly muster such a mandate"), I respectfully but strongly disagree.
In the campaigns in which I have been involved, party organizations are not worth much of anything. The campaigns are organized state by state; county by county; local district by local district. Sometimes you find a party organization that is worth something to you--but most national campaigns rely on their own organizations which often incorporate local party operations but more often do not.
At this point, there is such a disconnect between the voters and the national party agenda that a third party candidate can easily set out a broad platform that includes strong support for everything everybody wants without getting into to much trouble: Close the borders; evict illegals and get them off the public support; do something about the education system; an honest assessment of the energy problem; strong national defense that focuses on defeating existing and potential enemies rather than constraining the rights of ordinary Americans; do something real to simplify the tax system; put Americans back to work; most Americans subscribe to the Judeao Christian ethic--we can do that without imposing a Theocratic dictatorship (nowhere does the Bible say Christians have any authority to use the political system or any other kind of force to get people to subscribe to New Testiment beliefs--"I have choosen you" says the Lord). All Apple Pie.
I think Tancreado intends to run that kind of campaign for the Republican nomination. I don't think he is very smart or very well qualified but he will be one of the strong finishers because that is a good strategy.
Now after your third party guy gets elected, he has to work at governing the country. But he is going to be in a unique position to trade off blocs in the legislative bodies against each other--certainly better than George II. And George has no leverage with fuzzies in his own party like Susan Collins or Chaffee or others. George can't veto the highway bill because his veto won't be sustained--your third guy can go right over their head because he doesn't have to care about the Republicans he hurts.
It's funny, I just don't think about McCain as a serious candidate. I don't agree with you that it will be him--but I could be very wrong. He does not have staying power; and I don't see how he stakes out a non-internationalist political agenda. He is guaranteed to be a central figure on the Supreme Court vacancies after the first one and I don't see how he avoids real damage no matter what he does.
I assume the Dems will let you have a strong conservative replacement for Rheinquist on the theory that nothing has been done to the balance. But the key vacancy is the second one--Mrs. Ginsburg dies; Stevens retires; or Sandra Day retires--or all three. If you don't get strong constitutional constructionists for all three, you lost and everyone will know. If McCain compromises any one of those, he loses. Maybe he gets a break and Rheinquist is the only vacancy during the four years and the compromise on the Circuit judges holds.
But in my view, the opportunity for a third candidate is so clear I can't believe someone will not figure out how to take advantage of it. That needs to happen soon because you need to get organized to do it. But the national parties are both going to nominate candidates that are a long way from the center of gravity in America. The third guy has a real easy time identifying himself with America and opposed to the political establishment which is responsible for all of our problems. And if you get there early on in the process, it won't be difficult to develop local organizations--you will get lots of volunters.
Kerry could well have pulled it out--I don't think the Hollywood crowd was his only killing flaw; he had to figure out how to respond to the Swifties--the media was prepared to help him do that but he muffed it.
No it wasn't his only killing flaw, but it seemed he had beat off most of the other attacks and with the help of the media was able to keep the Swift Boat Vets at a distance. I think most Americans simply could not relate to all of the military stuff as we Vietnam Vets could. But when he was shown laughing at Whoopi's lewd jokes and calling her the heart and soul of America...that, I believe hit home. Most Americans have a lot of different viewpoints relative to all of the issues we have discussed including the war on terror. But most Americans know Hollywood for what it is, and when a candidate defines his values so explicitly, and those values are so far removed from mainstream America, that's a killer. But who knows how many people took that episode to heart. I do know Kerry's campaign manager tried desperately to distance him from it, but he was the one who said it, not her. Too late.
George II is clearly going to advance an agenda contrary to that objective so as a partisian proposition, he should be replaced.
Outside of the war on terror and CAFTA, what specifically do you think comprises this agenda?
Mrs. Clinton is going to be more pragmatic and would not be as driven by the internationalist program to the extent it conflicted with her series of domestic political goals.
Can't disagree that pragmatism would be one of her tools, perhaps less so than her husband, but she would clearly move forward with the trade treaties, our entrance into the World Court, and Kyoto. Remember her participation in the International Women's Conference? She is far more of an internationalist than Bush, in my opinion.
As for her domestic agenda, of course she would again begin the task of nationalizing health care, and would take on those issues that warm the hearts of most Democrats. She would be less of a centrist than Bill was. She is smarter than Bill, and far more resolute. Bill's heart was never really in it. Golf, sex, drugs, booze, and notoriety were the forces that drove him. Hillary would believe that as the first woman president, she would have a historical trust which would drive her.
At this point, there is such a disconnect between the voters and the national party agenda that a third party candidate can easily set out a broad platform that includes strong support for everything everybody wants without getting into to much trouble: Close the borders; evict illegals and get them off the public support; do something about the education system; an honest assessment of the energy problem; strong national defense that focuses on defeating existing and potential enemies rather than constraining the rights of ordinary Americans; do something real to simplify the tax system; put Americans back to work;
A good platform, though putting Americans back to work with the low unemployment rate we currently have does not strike me as a federal government imperative. Corporations and other businesses are the ones that ultimately accomplish this. Simplifying the tax system would go a long way toward getting business to reinvest in the employment market.
Closing or at least protecting the borders is number one on my list, and I think whichever candidate in '08 takes that issue on will have a strong advantage. Bush has promised to look into a simplified tax code, but he is obviously not concentrating on that now. All in all, a candidate that takes on these issues will look good, but will still require an agreeable congress to effect them. And by the way, the Patriot Act (which I suspect you don't care for) was a bipartisan effort.
we can do that without imposing a Theocratic dictatorship (nowhere does the Bible say Christians have any authority to use the political system or any other kind of force to get people to subscribe to New Testiment beliefs--"I have choosen you" says the Lord).
Unfortunately, the Christian Right, a group that you would need to foster a third party effort, disagrees. I have engaged many of them on this board over the years, and in fact have been discussing the issue of theocracy with one of the fringe folks on another thread. They are activists and they are available since they have little party loyalty. Unfortunately the agenda you laid out above is of little interest to them.
I think Tancreado intends to run that kind of campaign for the Republican nomination. I don't think he is very smart or very well qualified but he will be one of the strong finishers because that is a good strategy.
I have met Tancredo. He is actually a teacher in the real world. He is quite intelligent, but his agenda is pretty much the border issue. Outside of that he is not known for being a strong representative.
Now after your third party guy gets elected, he has to work at governing the country. But he is going to be in a unique position to trade off blocs in the legislative bodies against each other--certainly better than George II.
Perhaps, but I think Bush has accomplished quite a bit. Of course, his political capital and his time has been taken up with the war on terror. Once World War II began, I think Roosevelt's domestic agenda was completely overshadowed with that war effort. Still, Bush turned the tax burden around and is working toward a major tax simplification bill. He has been able to appoint many well qualified judges to key circuit court positions. He has made strides in a major energy bill that may actually be approved this year. He killed Kyoto and our participation in the International Criminal Court, challenged the UN to live up to its charter, successfully won two wars, dramatically altering the geopolitical map in the Middle East and Asia, got the bipartisan education bill passed (which of course needs substantial improvement). He completely changed that White House from the morally deficient site he inherited from the Clintons.
It's funny, I just don't think about McCain as a serious candidate. I don't agree with you that it will be him--but I could be very wrong. He does not have staying power; and I don't see how he stakes out a non-internationalist political agenda. He is guaranteed to be a central figure on the Supreme Court vacancies after the first one and I don't see how he avoids real damage no matter what he does
McCain is the only real populist looking ahead at '08. His leadership efforts in the Senate compromise will hurt him with the strong conservatives, but they did not like him in any case, and the compromise is now being looked at as a very successful effort. He will have problems in South Carolina, but SC allows crossovers in the primaries, which will put him over the top in that state. He is the most likely Republican candidate, and he has substantial Democrat support. You are right in that his actions on the USSC vacancy is a danger point for him, but his efforts to move the Senate off the dime in other areas will be helpful.
But in my view, the opportunity for a third candidate is so clear I can't believe someone will not figure out how to take advantage of it. That needs to happen soon because you need to get organized to do it. But the national parties are both going to nominate candidates that are a long way from the center of gravity in America
Yes, if that happens, your third party candidate could have a chance, but like Perot, will in all likelihood simply enable the Democrat to win. Money is also something that no candidate can do without. Getting major donors and 527s to support this candidate is the biggest hurdle you will face. Take care. Later...
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.