Posted on 05/27/2006 4:31:32 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
As the "Big Tent" collapses, make way for the true "third" party
According to research that I conducted in 1998, there were more than 400 political parties in America. (That number has grown smaller in recent years, but is still over 200 — far larger than the "mainstream" media admits.) According to research by Richard Winger, the publisher of Ballot Access News, the third-largest political party in the United States is the Constitution Party. Thus, the CP is the true third party.
Statistically, the CP has more members than any political party other than the Big Two. And, statistically, there are more caves in Tennessee than any other state. But, there are not enough caves nationwide to prevent people from knowing that border security is the hot-button political issue across America this year. The issue has been simmering for a long time, and has now reached a boiling point.
But, border security is not the only hot-button issue — especially for conservatives. Abortion is a perennial issue, but the death of Terri Schiavo has demonstrated that C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer were absolutely right about the "slippery slope." That, in turn, has removed many abortion "moderates" from the fence. The party with the clearest stance against abortion is the Constitution Party.
Define "patriotism"
As our nation struggles with the very definition (and name) of the War Against Terrorism, we are forced to also struggle with the definition of patriotism. (Is it patriotic to defend Iraq against insurgents, and South Korea against invasion, and Haiti against true reform — and Bosnia against Christians — while ignoring the "stealth invasion" of our own country?)
Is it patriotic to continue a war that was started without a Constitutionally-required declaration of war? Is it patriotic to continue a war that recently reached its stated objective? (The recent free election of a "unity government" in Iraq provided the final stage of the "regime change" that we sought. And, the revelations by a former top Iraqi general proved that the WMD case was valid.
I've been a strong supporter of the war itself — despite the bypass of Congress — until the recent Iraqi elections. Now, it's time to tell our troops, "Good job, and welcome home.")
Questions about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan (with possible expansions toward Syria and Iran in the near future) have, in turn, forced many people to look away from the television long enough to at least consider studying and discussing the Constitution. That, in turn, has caused a rapidly growing number of people to discover, and embrace, the political party that is based upon that special document.
So, perhaps 2006 really is "the year of the Constitution Party."
Let's consider some facts. In the 2004 presidential elections, CP candidate Michael Peroutka got enough votes to force the national news media to pay attention to the Constitution Party for the first time since its creation in 1992. (Obviously, there had been other "mentions" of the CP, but not recurring coverage — including a CP line on some televised charts of candidate progress.)
Those 2004 elections were so close that some analysts thought that Peroutka could swing the outcome. But, nobody was sure which way it would swing. So, the CP tally was watched closely for the first time.
Fast-forward to January of 2006, and a special US House election in California.
Although CP candidate Jim Gilchrist did not win, he made a very strong showing. Gilchrist, the co-founder of the Minutemen, forced the border security issue to the forefront of a key election in a state with a strong pro-illegal-alien history. And, he came close to winning. That fact was not lost on Republican analysts — who are now trying to "shoot full-auto in all directions" to regain votes that they have lost by compromise.
Border security has caused some people to look at the Libertarian Party, only to discover that they favor open borders. (And, their national bylaws prohibit cross-party endorsements — which hamstrings any conservative coalitions. That fact cost me the Libertarian Party's endorsement, which I had sought at their recent state convention in Nashville.) That single fact could cause many Libertarians to jump to the Constitution Party. That migration actually started years ago.
A "Guilt-Free" Option
Border security also creates angst for Democrats — because many labor unions are in favor of open borders, but most union members view illegal aliens as unfair threats to their own jobs. For this reason, many conservative Democrats will not be voting their party line this year. Will they vote for CP candidates? I think so. (In my own case, due to ballot-access problems, I'm a Constitution Party member running on the Republican Party line. That makes me the "guilt-free option" for those that would otherwise never vote Republican.) On my "day job," I'm an interpreter of Sign Language for a school district (and a union steward). Recently, I discovered that my union strongly favors illegal aliens. Most members don't know that; and, the same is true for other unions. I recently provided internal union documents, to be used in an upcoming book by Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi. When the book's impact ripples into the union shops, angry members will look for another political party. Many will join the Constitution Party.
Now, let's look at some statistics. This year, the number of CP candidates nationwide has exploded. There are four Constitutionalists running for the US Senate, and 13 for the US House. There are five CP candidates for governor of various states, and three of them also have CP lieutenant-governor running mates. One of those states is California, where history has proven that Arnold "The Governator" Schwarzenegger is no true conservative. There is also a CP candidate for secretary of state in California, along with several state legislative seats. The lower house of the Utah state legislature has a whopping 34 candidates from the Constitution Party, and there are 12 Constitutionalists running for the Utah State Senate. A similar, but smaller, trend is seen across Pennsylvania, where the CP has its headquarters. This year, although we might lose a race or two, the Constitution Party cannot be ignored.
My sense is that some CP races will be absolute landslides, as the blowback from lax border security hits both halves of the Big Two square in the face. And, because many Democratic incumbents (including my opponent, Jim Cooper) are also vulnerable on abortion and other social issues, voters will be looking for a strong conservative.
If the GOP candidates try to hide under the Big Tent, and seek votes as merely "Democrat Lite," such candidates just might get smothered by the tent's collapse. Americans are tired of compromise; we want leaders that actually stand for something.
And, as the 2006 elections set the stage for the 2008 presidential elections, the candidates that stand the tallest will be the ones that control the 2008 debates. In turn, the presidential candidate that stands firm in the debates, and shows no compromise, will be the candidate that occupies the White House. It will not be enough to be simply "anyone but Hillary." (Although, having organized the first anti-Hillary rally in New York in 1999, and the first anti-Hillary rally in Nashville this past week, that theme is still one that I consider important.)
Americans are looking for candidates that will help to make our country "feel like America again." We are looking for leaders that have the vision of Ronald Reagan, even if they are not from the "party of Reagan." Americans will find those leaders in the Constitution Party.
Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. Tom has been involved in politics since 1992, is the state PR coordinator for the Constitution Party, and is on the November ballot (GOP line) for the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee.
First thing is in 06 support donate work for all R's and D's that stood with us in the House and in the Senate. That is an absolute must. Do not punish good Conservatives for the sins of RINO's. We can not afford to lose any good conservatives in 06, we need more not less. RINO's get NO support, vote Rats if you must but send the RINO packing. Then in 08 we nominate a Conservative in fact not just in name for the office of President.
Where's the barf warning?
Right. Just like the tantrum that is thrown by those who view everything through political glasses minus the commo sense and ability to see clear trends, patterns, and their logical outcomes!
Perhaps a better definition of insanity is an inability to recognize the logical consequences of a chosen, or advocated, course of action.
WO! Looky here. Looks like you said the same thing, but it would appear that your horizon for the "inability to recognize the logical consequences of a chosen, or advocated, course of action" appears to be a mere moment in time vice the years of our nation beyond the next two!
Funny how perspectives can put some things right back in their can, eh!
Pardon us while we don't overly focus on the next 24 months while throwing the entire history of the United States of America in front of the oncoming Subway!
P.S. I'd find some things quite amusing as well if they weren't so dire.
BTW, are you even remotely familiar with the Senate immigration bill that just passed?
You speak as if you haven't a clue. Really.
Yup. Well reasoned and said.
I'm in California. No one I vote for will win, the best I can do is a protest vote.
I support all conservatives, but it's like bailing the Edmund Fitzgerald with a teaspoon here.
Right, and the crazies are driving the moderate GOP. What WTH's the difference in outcomes?!?!
What is the last piece of conservative "stuff" to emerge from the GOP "led" Senate??? What's the sum total of it Over the past few years?
And don't tell me USSC nominations. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat.
Losing the Senate for a cycle (two years), if it even came to that, won't nearly be as bad as a continuation of what's presently going on assuming that it's taken back in '08. IMO we may very well lose it in '08 anyway and there appear to be more true conservatives up then than now. All we need is to lose a couple of those and we're really screwed.
Think ahead a little.
"No, but this talk plus stupid talk from the liberal-tarians about a third party might make things just right for a rat take over."
Seems to me we just had a Rat takeover of the Senate while we are supposedly in the majority. If you can't tell the difference in the voting record of your supposedly conservative senators and the rats then whats the difference?
I find them quite amusing anyway...
BTW, you can't replace most judges. They leave when they die or are impeached. They're appointed by the President, not the Congress.
But here's something, what has the Senate Judiciary Committee done to try to reestablish the separtion of powers that you refer to? Anything at all? If not, then why not?
Then take a look at which GOPs are on that committee and maybe it'll come to you.
LOL...
Yeah, I guess ya have to. ; )
Certainly he is without any governing philosophy that I know of.
I feel for you. I am in Texas and things were going down hill here too. Fortunately this immigration thing has woken up a lot of voters.
That's it for RINOS to take it out on in 2006 in the Senate. Basically, DeWine is it.
Yeah, it's a real crappy election to do much other than for possible 3PC (CP) candidates. IMO they'd get Dim votes too in the right states, of which there are many however.
I wonder how many senators that voted against the immigration bill voted against it merely b/c they were up though.
Almost too late for America, barely too soon for the shooting to start...
The drugs help...
Economic isolationism and political isolationism are two different things.
For example a country "A" can trade freely with another country "B" or country "A" can remove the two-bit dictator of country "B" and then trade with that country.
My opinion: Both types of isolationism are off the mark.
The simplest solution to getting the point across to both parties (Dems and Reps) is to provide another option when voting; "None of the above".
"70 years of Liberal Judicial activism not over turned in 5 mins...."
Since 1968 the Republicans have held the Presidency for 24 years, the Democrats for 12 years.
The President appoints all federal judges. The Senate confirms them. The Republicans have controlled the Senate most of the time since the 1980's.
So where are the conservative judges? Where are the conservative rulings? I certainly expect a large amount of moonbat liberal raving from the bench, but WHERE ARE OUR GUYS? Are they on a permanent vacation? Did they all turn into Rats?
I'm not asking for the moon here. I don't expect anything overnight, but its been DECADES and we've got NOTHING so far.
We win the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and we get gay marriage, a lunatic educational system, ten zillion illegal aliens, and not one single, solitary rollback of one single solitary liberal social program. They can't even kill the 'Endowment for the Humanities'. Pathetic results.
How long must we wait? How long until even you say, "Enough already, these guys are useless."
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.