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 ...
Thank you for being one of those who understands the enormity of what is at stake here, neverdem. I would bet my bottom dollar that our troops thank you too!
“Oh great, so we’re stuck with the Stupid Party and the Evil Party forever?”
I wouldn’t necessarily consider the Republican party the “stupid party”. However, I do know that if I had the choice of having a stupid mayor compared to an evil mayor, I’d choose the stupid mayor. Even a stupid person makes good decisions now and then, but an evil person has absolutely no redeeming qualities. :)
Right. The base of the Republican party is made up of God fearing CONSERVATIVE gun owners who aggressively defend country, family, life and liberty. In case you haven’t noticed, they’re already pissed off to the max about the weak-kneed, constitution trampling, big spending, big government, gay rights supporting, abortionist, open borders, gun grabbing moderates, RINOs and liberals within the Republican party. There is no way on God’s green earth that we’re going to allow the Republican party to be taken over by a bunch of girly men abortionist/gay activist liberals. Doesn’t take a crystal ball to read the results of the disastrous 2006 elections. And that was nothing compared to the decimation you will see if Rudy somehow wins the nomination.
The 2006 elections weren't that bad if you consider historical precedent, and if you look for the defectors, it was independents, moderates and small 'l' libertarians.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-DSVE.phtml
Check that link. With registered Independent voters being over 30% by some estimates, and there must be a fair number of them being single or double issue voters, i.e. pro-life and/or RKBA, combined with all the contests on that link that are not closed, I just don't see how Rudy gets the nomination.
I don't have a crystal ball. I rarely make bets unless I'm pretty sure. I've made a modest bet that Rudy McRomney won't get the nomination. I can't see any of them doing well in the south or most of the west with a few exceptions.
FYI, I am one of those “God fearing CONSERVATIVE gun owners who agressively defend country, family, life and liberty.” So yes, I’ve noticed what is happening in our country. And I also know that the vast majority of those who are “weak-need, constitution trampling, big spending, big government, gay rights supporting, abortionist, open borders, gungrabbing” are DEMOCRATS. It doesn’t take a “crystal ball” to see that either.
I don’t know what has happened in your life to make you believe that the WOT and our military men and women who are fighting our enemies and fighting for our freedoms right now should take a back seat to political aspirations and social agendas, and who knows what else, but I know that I will continue to fight for THEM here at home.
Unlike you, I cannot bring myself to be bold enough to predict the future, but I do believe with all of my heart and soul that if we take our focus off of the WOT and those who are fighting this war we will have abandoned our troops and the future of our children and grandchildren.
That being said, I am in no way endorsing Giuliani. What I am saying, is when push comes to shove, and I enter that voting booth on election day, I will cast a vote for our country, our military and my support of the WOT. That means I will NOT vote third party, I will NOT stay home and NOT vote, and I WILL vote for whomever the Republican candidate is. What that does NOT mean is that I am a Giuliani supporter. IMO, anyone who is telling people that there is NO difference between Hillary (any dem) and Giuliani are either lying, ignorant, dilusional, or they are privately hoping that Hillary will win.
Say a prayer for our troops tonight, light a candle in their honor, and never forget for one minute that right now, as you and I are wasting time on an internet forum, our nation’s sons and daughters are fighting for us all.
They do.
I know. God bless them all.
In a perfect world there would be no need for a third party (since third parties usually throw the election to the democrats) and the Republicans would muster a sane, sensible, God-obeying candidate.
Ping to 68.
NO Giuliani
I guarantee you that Rudy will lose to Hillary.
I suggest you unite behind someone like Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo....perhaps even Romney. (I hate to say McCain, because if his record pro-life, he still is a Rino. I’ve stated that I won’t support him, but....sacredness of life threshhold could make a difference, but only if the choice is between him and Giuliani.)
If it were absolutely certain that Rudy would lose to Hillary, would you vote for him in the primary and assist him in obtaining a nomination that will only see him lose?
If you were absolutely certain that Dole would lose to Clinton, would you vote for him in the primary and assist him in obtaining a nomination that would only see him lose?
Should the party have chosen someone other than DOLE?
I agree with that.
However, if that perfect world does not happen, and if Giuliani is the nominee, anyone who supports the man betrays their faith and their politics. As you've pointed out there are tons of reasons not to support the man -- so the single issue charge doesn't hold water -- so why the insistence in the "conservative" media that Giuliani is our man?
That said, conservatives must decide on one candidate within weeks. As it stands we're splitting our vote and assisting Giuliani in that regard.
Whatever you're smoking, pass it over here, dude.
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....
That's a third of the electorate taken almost entirely from the Republicans, thus giving a Democrat the presidency. Assuming that the third-party candidate gets that many votes, which he won't; people always love the abstract idea of a third party much more than they love a flesh-and-blood third-party candidate. The last third-party candidate to get a single electoral vote was George Wallace.
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.
And then all you have to do is, in the next nine months or so, build the kind of fundraising, campaigning and volunteer network that the two major parties have had for a century and a half, in every county of every state. Assemble a slate of candidates from top to bottom, from local school boards to state legislatures to the presidency. No problem, right?
Medved addresses that. I think he's too dismissive of the notion of the Republicans as a third party, but you're timing it a little late; the Republicans were a third party leading up to the 1854 election, while the Know-Nothings peeled off support from the Whigs. By 1860, all three parties had more or less congealed; the Illinois state Whig convention convened, adjourned, and then walked down the hall to join the state Republican convention.
I think you meant “Omayn, Michael Medved”
The two major parties are consistent only in name. In a multi-party parliamentary system, parties form coalitions; in a two-party system, each party IS a coalition. A coalition that folks join and leave all the time — the “Reagan Democrats” who flipped to the GOP in the ‘80s, and the “Soccer Moms” who flipped to the Dems in the ‘90s, to name two big recent examples.
Yes, but it is STILL more than Giuliani polls. Therefore, Giuliani must need some of that smoking stuff you were talking about, IF the argument is that polling 27% of Republicans should cause an idea to go by the wayside.
The other point remains - a plurality wins an American election and not a majority.
And one doesn’t really need a third party to run a third candidate.
One can just run a conservative Republican in a write-in campaign. That overcomes all the obstacles to 3rd party formation. Easier to get citizens trained to write in names than to spend millions fighting 3rd party obstacles to getting on a ballot.
I didn't say that any "idea should go by the wayside." I'm just mocking the notion that an abstract idea with 27% support is on the verge of a general election victory.
One can just run a conservative Republican in a write-in campaign.
Dude. Put the pipe down now. I'm serious.
Name one write-in candidate who's won any office in a jurisdiction with over a thousand voters. I mean, it's a fine strategy for a student council election, but POTUS? Please.
It’s never been tried.
But, it has a very clear benefit, even if it does not prevail: it would be a clear head count of all the votes the republicans threw away.
I’m guessing that you used to smoke dope. :>)
Finally, “life” is not an abstract idea. You’re either dead or you’re alive. LIFE is not an idea, issue, infatuation, polling point, etc., etc.
It is a RIGHT given by God alone. It is the ultimate RIGHT. Take away that RIGHT and all other rights and all other issues, ideas, abstracts, etc., matter not one whit.
Dead people don’t care about any issues at all. They’re indisposed.
A write-in campaign? It's been tried many times. Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, for starters. It just hasn't been taken seriously.
But, it has a very clear benefit, even if it does not prevail: it would be a clear head count of all the votes the republicans threw away.
Well, then, you could get a nice, warm pat on the back for your head-count after Hillary's inauguration.
I’m guessing that you used to smoke dope. :>)
A few times in college. It made me twitchy and paranoid in the half-hour it took me to fall asleep. DO NOT WANT. I went back to alcohol, caffeine and nicotine as my favorite intoxicants.
I did know a lot of stoners, and sometimes had to talk down folks who were freaking out on acid or X (we called that "ground control"). I had a reputation as the one guy in the room sober enough to talk sense, or to call an ambulance, or to talk a dude out of the notion that he could jump from one third-floor dorm room to another.
I never saw anyone doing coke or meth or smack. I probably knew folks who did, but they never did it in my presence or told me about it. They knew if they even thought about that kind of mess in my house they would be told to get the F out.
Finally, “life” is not an abstract idea. You’re either dead or you’re alive. LIFE is not an idea, issue, infatuation, polling point, etc., etc.
Dunno what you're getting at here. I'm talking about the viability of a third-party candidate, regardless of the ideological argument for it. Abolitionist parties, Prohibitionist (or Temperance) parties, the Know-Nothings, and other single-issue parties have been a historical footnote since the first days of the Republic. I see no reason to believe that an anti-abortion (pro-life, if you prefer) party would do any better.
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.