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, CNNs fatuous fraud Lou Dobbs expresses similar eagerness to abandon the traditional two-party system. Now I dont know about you, he harrumphs, but fundamentally I dont 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 ...
We’re not talking about a new party or a single issue.
We’re talking about Conservative Republicans.
Giuliani will lose anyway. He’ll lose because folks like me don’t want an anti-gun, pro-gay agenda, pro illegal immigration, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-life, inexperienced, family dysfunctional, liberal in charge of the nation. (That all fits Hillary or Giuliani, btw.)
There’s no way I’ll vote for the man.
Therefore, those who insist on Rudy are actually supporting Hillary. No conservative wants a liberal like Rudy in charge.
He married his own flippin’ cousin for Pete’s sake. IT’s bizarre. He’ll be destroyed in the election campaign.
Comes from the same bonehead thought processes.
No competition makes for arrogance, which, in politics, is expressed by candidates in monopoly parties as just doing what they want knowing constituents have no choice.
Should all the folks I have heard say they'll hold their nose and vote voted for a third party, that would clean up the arrogance fast.
Win? Lose? The election of national leaders is not a football game. You can "feel good" that "my team won", until "my team" stays on the same repressive path.
And if you vote for one of those disguised liberals, because he can win, instead of voting for a true conservative when it looks like he can't, you betray your franchise.
Is it just me, or does Medved come off as an elitist, know-it-all douche every time I read him?
I really don't think Paul will run 3rd party, but if he does, I'll happily vote for him over Rudy or Hillary. FR is going to be a freaking war zone if this scenario happens.
You have apparently missed something; Ron Paul has already said he would not run on a third party ticket.
Don't do a Bob Dole repeat!
I wouldn't bet on that.
Aye, now there's the rub, isn't it?.
The "right people" for you may not be the same "right people" for me.
"A third party, developed after the election.."
There already are several third parties, and with what fire do you propose to generate the "steam" of which you speak?
"It would take tons of work.."
As much work as say; trying to convince a handful of folks on Free Republic to see things your own particular way?
Good luck with that.
Warning to all: This is REALLY, really long -
However... it is VERY well worth bookmarking and saving and reading. Great history. Great arguments and illustrations.
Thanks so much for posting this article: one of the best articles of this past year.
You misread/ misinterpreted ... 27% of REPUBLICANS might back a Pro-Life third party - that translates to about 10% of American voters. Perot achieved more.
No, as a Christian, I meant “Amen, Michael Medved.” Whis is what I said.
Yes, I know. You’re about the third to point it out. :>)
Thanks.
That said, 27% still polls higher than Rudy.
Third parties can be a way for individuals to turn their backs on the party that has already turned its back to them.
I know it is a very long read, but Medved addresses exactly how the Republicans of Lincoln’s era pulled off the upheaval. I didn’t know nearly as much detail about the feat as I do now. Medved’s whole article is worth studying.
Absolutely. Rudy's dirty laundry will be dragged out and aired over and over and over. And each time it is aired, the Dems will make sure it comes out even dirtier.
Rudy, if selected as the nominee, will lose to Hillary.
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.