Replies

Hillery will require triangulation

Just as Bill won w/ Perot as the third party

Hillary doesn't need a third party to split Republicans - the closeness of the 2000 and 2004 elections proves that the liberals have the numbers to win. Were it not for a few thousand Nader supporters in Florida, Gore would have won in 2000, and if the DNC had run somebody other than Lurch in 2004, they probably would have won then as well.

The fact is, George W Bush has won by very slim margins in 2000 and 2004 (a handful of electoral votes) where Republicans have triumphed in the past, and the GOP lost in 2006 - if this is not a warning sign to you and others that something is wrong with the path the GOP is taking, then I don't know what is.

There should be flashing lights and sirens going off in your head, with a voice saying "why can't Republicans repeat the successes in the '00s that they had in the '80s, why are they having such a hard time".

In 1980 and 1984, the Republican Party had an identity. That's why Reagan beat his opponents by over 400+ electoral votes. In 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and in 2007, the GOP does not have an identity other than "we're not Democrats" and guess what? Bush and Dole lost, and George W Bush won by a handful of electoral votes.

If you approve of the shift to the left the GOP has been undergoing since 1992 (although Gingrich and others did try and stall it in the '90s), good for you, I'm sure you are happy.

The rest of us refuse to vote for liberals, and if that means voting third party, then so be it. I have the same beliefs I had over thirty years ago when I first started voting that I do today. I don't compromise because voting for a liberal with an "R" next to their name is still voting for a liberal.