Skip to comments.
The third party temptation discredits its candidates (and their ideas) [MUST READ!]
Townhall.com ^
| October 31, 2007
| Michael Medved
Posted on 10/31/2007 1:23:31 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-144 next last
a long, but good read on the history and practical effects of third parties, IMHO
1
posted on
10/31/2007 1:23:34 PM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Wow, Medved really doesn’t care for Lou Dobbs, does he?
Third parties aren’t that good an idea, he’s right - theoretically, someone could win with two percent of the popular vote in a multiparty contest by manipulating the EC.
2
posted on
10/31/2007 1:32:37 PM PDT
by
Baladas
To: neverdem; Jim Robinson; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg
27% back a Pro-Life Third Party.
Awesome!
They could win.
They are close to a third of the electorate and in this system a plurality wins...not a majority. They are only 6 points away from a third as it stands....
Since it would actually be the conservative Republicans involved in it, I’d call it the Conservative Republican Party and let all the disenchanted conservatives and Republicans know that in this is our chance to stand up against the rockefeller, elitist, anti-life, pro-gay, anti-gun new york liberal RINOs.
3
posted on
10/31/2007 1:32:41 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
To: neverdem
Dear Michael,
We tried our very best. Don’t you remember?
1994:
“The Republican Revolution is what the Republican Party dubbed their success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican.”
“The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952) under Republican Speaker Joseph William Martin, Jr..”
Love,
donna
4
posted on
10/31/2007 1:36:35 PM PDT
by
donna
(Perhaps if republicans would adhere to the Bible’s first 10 Commandments they wouldn’t need an 11th.)
To: xzins
There is precedence: Abe Lincoln and the birth of the Republican party. I think this nation is headed for a major political upheaval. The Republican party defies its conservative base at its own peril.
5
posted on
10/31/2007 1:42:57 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
To: neverdem
No, It’s not a MUST READ; Though Michael Medved does make some good, and interesting points!
6
posted on
10/31/2007 1:43:13 PM PDT
by
JSDude1
(When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
To: xzins
We are not “there” yet, a 3rd party is not really a national option, a state one certainly, a Senator or Gov.
REason being is the votes are to concentrated in a few areas, they would need much more of a spread.
It would reming me of Wallace’s failed bid, or Thurmond’s failed bid.
7
posted on
10/31/2007 1:45:20 PM PDT
by
padre35
(Conservative in Exile/ No more miller brewing products, pass it on/Isaiah 3.3)
To: neverdem
Third parties are just a way for single issue voters to have a self-destructive temper tantrum on election day.
8
posted on
10/31/2007 1:47:23 PM PDT
by
vetsvette
(Bring Him Back)
To: Jim Robinson
Good thought....it would be good to see how the Republicans of Lincoln’s era pulled off the upheaval.
9
posted on
10/31/2007 1:49:53 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
To: xzins
Since it would actually be the conservative Republicans involved in it, Id call it the Conservative Republican Party and let all the disenchanted conservatives and Republicans know that in this is our chance to stand up against the rockefeller, elitist, anti-life, pro-gay, anti-gun new york liberal RINOs. Both Giuliani, Thompson Now In Toss-ups with Clinton
Don't get rapped around the axle. The main justification that I've seen for Rudy was that he was the only one who could who stood a chance against the neoCOM. That's not the case according to Rasmussen. Rudy alienates too many single issue voters. In states with open primaries Rudy won't get their votes.
10
posted on
10/31/2007 1:51:48 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
To: padre35
my guts tell me that there are pro-life conservatives, pro-life churches, etc., spread evenly throughout the population.
11
posted on
10/31/2007 1:52:03 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
To: neverdem
So far as I know, though, all but a few primaries are winner-take-all.
The conservatives are divided up between too many candidates.
12
posted on
10/31/2007 2:04:16 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
To: neverdem
Can't wait to see how many of the "stick your fingers in your ears and yell,"Na, Na, Na" folks show up and argue off the points.
Medved's argument are conclusive, historically accurate and compelling. Not only is he correct about the entire history of the third party concept, including the absolute failure of the third party to influence policy, but his argument that if you are unable to win the approval of a much smaller demographic which is basically sympathetic to you message, you haven't a ghost of a chance to win in the larger venue drives a stake through the heart of those who claim that a "true Conservative" will carry the nation.["Ghost of a chance;" "drive a stake through the heart of." Appropriate phrases for Halloween don't you think?]
Any egoist who proposes a third party candidacy just to "show those dang Republican" is merely assurring the election of Hillary Clinton to the Presidency.
Amen, Michael Medved.
13
posted on
10/31/2007 2:08:36 PM PDT
by
Sudetenland
(Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
To: neverdem
I look at it this way..........If a third party were to be developed and developed correctly with the right people, either the Democrats or the Republicans would become the third party and meaningless. This would make it remain a two party system. A third party, developed after the election and utilized for 2012 would have time gain steam and give the people what they really want.....representation. It would take tons of work, but it could be done.
14
posted on
10/31/2007 2:16:37 PM PDT
by
RC2
To: neverdem
Medved’s article is based on the false premise there are two parties. The fact is the GOP has moved so far to the left in an effort to appease the socialist Democrats for the sake of compromise that the GOP ahs aligned its ideology with the socialists. They are essentially one party. Another party would restore the two party system.
15
posted on
10/31/2007 2:16:45 PM PDT
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
To: Jim Robinson
Ignore history at your own peril. A separate "true conservative' third party run for the presidency will only garner a small percentage of the general electorate. It will max out at about 10-15% and merely make the election of the Democrat Party nominee a certainty and that nominee will almost certainly be Hillary.
Michael Medved has laid it all out there for you to see. The Republican Party is nowhere near the condition of the Whig Party of Lincoln's time and it will not fall apart in the face of a third party challenge.
A third party challenge will only strengthen the will and influence of the RINO's in the Republican party.
Medved's arguments have the weight of 220 years of history behind them. They are as close the irrefutable as any arguments can be.
The system will never be changed from the outside. It can only be changed from within.
16
posted on
10/31/2007 2:19:59 PM PDT
by
Sudetenland
(Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
To: xzins
Republican moderates changed the primaries to eliminate the conservative candidates:
For two decades, Republicans endorsed open primaries as a way to build a Big Tent by wooing indies and conservative Dems to the nominating process. The hope was that the newcomers would stick with the party for the general election and vote the ticket. The strategy worked, helping the GOP win control of state legislatures across the south.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_11/b3672071.htm
17
posted on
10/31/2007 2:29:34 PM PDT
by
donna
(Perhaps if republicans would adhere to the Bible’s first 10 Commandments they wouldn’t need an 11th.)
To: Sudetenland
The system will never be changed from the outside. It can only be changed from within. Exactly, we've got two choices, run away from the problem, or get involved, and fix the Problem from within.
18
posted on
10/31/2007 2:35:37 PM PDT
by
c-b 1
(Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
To: Man50D
Gosh. I hadn’t given serious thought to a third party.
But, if Medved is agin it, I might have to give it some consideration...
19
posted on
10/31/2007 2:40:04 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(With "Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?)
To: Sudetenland
A third party challenge will only strengthen the will and influence of the RINO's in the Republican party. Just how do you "strengthen" a position of 100% control?
20
posted on
10/31/2007 2:42:05 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(With "Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-144 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson