Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

The persistent American fascination with third parties and fringe candidates defies every lesson of history, logic, human nature and common sense. No minor party candidate has ever won the presidency or, for that matter, even come close. For the most part, these ego-driven “independent” adventures in electoral narcissism push the political process further away from their professed goals, rather than advancing their agendas or ideas.

Nevertheless, a clear majority of Americans (58%) in September, 2007, told the Gallup Poll that the two major parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed”, while only 39% agree with a statement that the established parties “do an adequate job of representing the American people.” A Rasmussen Survey (May, 2007) produced similar results, with 58% agreeing with the statement that “it would be good for the United States if there were a truly competitive third party,” and only 23% disagreeing. Among religious conservatives, prominent leaders talk openly of backing a kamikaze candidate if Rudy Giuliani becomes the GOP nominee, and a Rasmussen telephone survey shows a striking 27% of Republicans willing to back a “Pro Life Third Party” in the event that the former New York Mayor heads the ticket. In his illiterate and all-but-unreadable new book “Independents Day,” CNN’s fatuous fraud Lou Dobbs expresses similar eagerness to abandon the traditional two-party system. “Now I don’t know about you,” he harrumphs, “but fundamentally I don’t see much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats…The creation of a third, independent choice, one that has the concerns of American working people as its basis, is the way we must proceed.”

This unquenchable enthusiasm for new parties and marginal, ego-driven candidacies rests on a foundation of profound ignorance and unassailable historical illiteracy. Even a nodding acquaintance with the American past reveals uncomfortable...

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: history; michaelmedved; thirdparty; thirdpartys
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 next last
To: mimaw

Not if it destroys the Republican party and we never ever win another election. Giulani will NOT defeat Hillary.


41 posted on 10/31/2007 7:21:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I guess at this point in history my concerns are national security. I am pro life and at this time I am equally concerned for my 4 children and 8 grandchildren as I am for the unborn. I wish to hell we could field a candidate that was able to beat Hillary but so far our most conservative candidate is turning out to be a bit of a dud on the campaign trail and is not catching on. We have to depend on attracting a number of independents as well as moderates and it seems Rudy and Mitt have had some success at that. If we lived in a blissful peaceful and secure world I’d say teach them a lesson, but we don’t and I dread the thought of a bunch of lib dems running the country.
42 posted on 10/31/2007 7:40:07 PM PDT by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mimaw

Giuliani cannot and will not defeat Hillary.


43 posted on 10/31/2007 7:45:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; mimaw; Dr. Eckleburg

Those who insist on Giuliani will throw the election to Hillary. It’s that simple.

I’ll never vote for Giuliani.


44 posted on 10/31/2007 7:54:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; xzins

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-DSVE.phtml

The above link gives a fairly good description of each state, type primary, open/closed/modified, winner take all, etc.


45 posted on 10/31/2007 8:05:51 PM PDT by deport (>>>--Iowa Caucuses .. 64 days and counting--<<< [ Meanwhile:-- Cue Spooky Music--])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla; Dr. Eckleburg

You are correct that it says “republicans.” Probably a bit more than 10%, since likely voters will have voted in the last election, which the pro-lifers would have done.

27% of the Republicans is great, though. That’s polling higher than Rudy.

I am fully prepared to vote for a conservative Republican in the primary and write-in, if necessary, a conservative Republican in the general.

I will never vote for Giuliani.


46 posted on 10/31/2007 8:05:55 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: deport

Timely, thank for the link!


47 posted on 10/31/2007 8:19:44 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Dr. E. we agree on so much but here we must part ways. If the repubs expect us to be submissive abused wives and vote for a hellspawn just to beat Hillary I do not consider myself to be a republican. If I wanted to be part of a mindless voting block I would be democrat. Not that I have a problem voting for an non-Christian if he is a wise and just man. Luther said I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than an ignorant Christian. The New York mayor is neither wise nor Christian. As has been stated and I take no joy in saying it, the party has left me. THe ball is in the court of the repubs.


48 posted on 10/31/2007 8:37:46 PM PDT by strongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ron Paul is a wacko and dangerous but he will run for President under a third party ticket and do better than Perot. That is my prediction.

If the GOP nominates Rudy or another liberal, Hillary will be in the WH as Paul will spoil the day.


49 posted on 10/31/2007 8:47:54 PM PDT by free_life (Pro God is Pro life ~ ~ The Democrats are phony Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mimaw

Well said, mimaw. I am so thankful that in my personal life I don’t know anyone who doesn’t see that our national security is more important at this point in time than any other issue we face. That gives me hope that not everyone has their heads stuck in the sand of their pet issue of the year.


50 posted on 10/31/2007 8:49:07 PM PDT by rosehips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Unless you’re psychic, you cannot possibly know the outcome of any given election. ;)


51 posted on 10/31/2007 8:49:07 PM PDT by rosehips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I noticed your tagline, xzins. God bless you for your service! Your tagline says, “True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!” I agree and I would also add that true support of the troops means praying for US to elect someone who will also support our troops and win the war. That rules out any of the Dems.


52 posted on 10/31/2007 8:49:08 PM PDT by rosehips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I wish that the Constitution Party would truly do just that by successfully getting all of the conservative voters to both support and vote for all of its candidates from now on. So far, it still hasn’t worked. The Constitution Party must also truly change itself on foreign policy issues, and this includes not supporting nutcases like Ron Paul!


53 posted on 10/31/2007 8:50:29 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rosehips

I agree.

That’s one reason that supporting Giuliani = a vote for Hillary.


54 posted on 10/31/2007 8:55:50 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh great, so we’re stuck with the Stupid Party and the Evil Party forever?


55 posted on 10/31/2007 8:57:39 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free_life
Ron Paul is a wacko and dangerous but he will run for President under a third party ticket and do better than Perot. That is my prediction.

Any pubbie who jumps ship to run for President under a third party ticket like Perot did for Clinton and thereby enables the neoCOMs to win is political toast.

56 posted on 10/31/2007 9:15:48 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rosehips
Don’t abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!

Thanks for the best reason!

57 posted on 10/31/2007 9:18:30 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Oh great, so we’re stuck with the Stupid Party and the Evil Party forever?

Do you really want another Clinton Administration? We're still suffering from the first one. Under the great moderate, the bent one, we had nothing but moonbat governance from his appointments. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face if, God forbid, Rudy is the nominee. Work for someone else in the primary.

58 posted on 10/31/2007 9:34:24 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
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.

The problem here is not folks throwing temper tantrums. The problem is a two party system that apparently has no place for conservatives--yet conservatives comprise about 35% of the populace. The bottom line. Neither major party wants us.

That's an unstable situation. You cannot have 35% of the populace--and by and large the productive 35% of the populace--completely alienated from both major parties. Yet that is what the parties both seem to be working toward. The R's for example are either going to nominate a liberal or a another faux conservative--again. So while Medved is right--there will be no successful third party--he nevertheless completely misses the point, which is that half of the Republican base is disgusted with their own party and despises the other party. In other words, they perceive that the system that exists does not in any way represent their interests. Democracies do not work long in that situation.

After almost 50 years of political involvement, I have concluded that the country will continue to go to Hell no matter what I and other conservatives do and no matter what our involvement or uninvolvement is in politics. The downward slide is inexorable and accelerating. And given my level of involvement, that I am there is a big problem for the R's. They have just failed to address the problems of the world as I, and a lot of other folks see them. Instead, we get R's cheerleading amnesty, turning over national policy to the UN in LOST, out of control spending, and federalizing of more and more government functions. That's their perogative. But don't expect me to keep showing up and waving flags and giving them money.

At my age, I'm just going to try to live my life out quietly. But I hope to live long enough to be able to cheer the next Sam Adams from the sidelines, should he ever show up.

59 posted on 10/31/2007 9:41:47 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

For several reasons (and better candidates) I do not support Giuliani at this point in time, but I certainly will support whomever becomes the chosen Republican candidate for the next presidential election. I am not one of those people who believes that there is no difference between Giuliani and Hillary (or any other Democrat candidate). I will vote for what I believe is best for our country’s future, my children and grandchildren, and what I believe is best for our military men and women. I will not abandon our troops by allowing their worst enemies within our government to have anymore power than they do now. A Dem for president? NO!!


60 posted on 10/31/2007 10:07:37 PM PDT by rosehips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson