The third party temptation discredits its candidates (and their ideas) [MUST READ!]

Townhall.com ^ | October 31, 2007 | Michael Medved

[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...

[xzins]

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.

[af_vet_rr]

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.

I believe you are correct. In the last few election cycles, many Republican politicians have moved to the left pursuing votes from liberals (or "moderates" as some are apt to call them). The liberal votes they have picked up were not enough to counteract the Conservative votes they have lost, but they don't seem to understand that - in their mind, that just means they didn't move to the left far enough.

[af_vet_rr]

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

Yup - you would be hardpressed to find Conservatives willing to vote for Giuliani, because most of us would rather not vote, or vote for a Conservative third party, than choose between Hillary, a socialist, or Giuliani, a socialist-wannabe.

[William Terrell]

Medved's argument about illegal aliens has nothing to do with the results of third party histories and their effects.

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.

[jmc813]

Is it just me, or does Medved come off as an elitist, know-it-all douche every time I read him?

[jmc813]

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.

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.

[Designer]

"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."

You have apparently missed something; Ron Paul has already said he would not run on a third party ticket.

[xzins]

Rudy is Dole: Sure to Lose.

Don't do a Bob Dole repeat!

[Designer]

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

I wouldn't bet on that.

[af_vet_rr]

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.

Not only that, but when you vote for a liberal Republican, you are sending a message to the Republican party that says "hey, I don't care if you move to the left, I'll still support you".

[Designer]

"..with the right people.."

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.

[AFPhys]

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.

[AFPhys]

You misread/ misinterpreted ... 27% of REPUBLICANS might back a Pro-Life third party - that translates to about 10% of American voters. Perot achieved more.

[Sudetenland]

No, as a Christian, I meant “Amen, Michael Medved.” Whis is what I said.

[xzins]

Yes, I know. You’re about the third to point it out. :>)

Thanks.

That said, 27% still polls higher than Rudy.

[MEGoody]

Third parties are just a way for single issue voters to have a self-destructive temper tantrum on election day.

Third parties can be a way for individuals to turn their backs on the party that has already turned its back to them.

[AFPhys]

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.

[MEGoody]

He’ll be destroyed in the election campaign.

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.

[Antoninus]

I knew it was Medved before I read it.

Sorry, Mike, you lost your credibility on this issue when you supported Rudy McRomney before the race even started and urged the other candidates to not even bother. As far as I'm concerned, you're a politics-over-principles conservative and it's because of guys like you in the so-called conservative media that we have such a weak slate of 'frontrunners' to choose from.

I'm telling you right now--Rudy or Romney ends up as our nominee--God Forbid--I'll be giving the 3rd parties a very serious look in November 2008.

[Antoninus]

Stuff happens. We will not be supporting a liberal abortionist for president nor will we support a liberal abortionist Republican party.

Amen to that. If the GOP goes (officially) liberal, I'm off the bandwagon and will be headed to the nearest, strongest conservative party I can find.