Posted on 07/12/2008 12:34:59 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
This non-partisan, national grassroots lobbying organization working day and night on issues pertaining to border sovereignty, recently updated their online 2008 Presidential Candidates score card.
On a variety of (15) issues relating to Immigration, the group ranked Presidential Candidate CHUCK BALDWIN of the US Constitution Party, as "EXCELLENT" in all categories.
Coming in second place with a high report card was Libertarian Party's CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR.
Good question! You could research that on the internet and get back to us. Thanks!
Barely computer literit; what’s this research on the internet thing and how do it work?
>3rd parties cannot win with either just Presidential candidates<
and your attitude will make sure it remains so.
At this date, 37, I believe.
I ‘get it’ that you all are very passionate about the immigration issue. Good.
What I’m not ‘getting’ is how voting for a Constitution Party candidate will help get what we all want in a rational immigration policy that will protect our nation’s self-interest.
Not now, not next year, not in twenty years if the Dems get total control of the country.
But the numbers of folks that vote for the Constitution party probably won’t decide the election so have at it.
..;...He and Baldwin are the only conservatives in the race......
You are delusional. Neither is in the race. Both are but pretenders and trivial pretenders at that.
You "get it" like John McCain gets it about amnesty and the will of the American people. To him, it is now about about sequencing, i.e., securing our borders and then amnesty. He still doesn't get the message that we don't want amnesty period.
You are confusing my passion with the substance of the message and why I responded to your minimization of the immigration issue, which affects and/or drives every major challenge facing this nation. It is the Mother of all Issues. You still fail to grasp that message. An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen. It is irrevocable. Amnesty is forever.
What I’m not ‘getting’ is how voting for a Constitution Party candidate will help get what we all want in a rational immigration policy that will protect our nation’s self-interest.
I never said I was voting for the Constitution Party. I will not be complicit in the destruction of my country by voting for anyone whose policies will end in that result. It is my intention to leave the office of President blank in November and vote a straight GOP ticket otherwise, as I have for the past 40 years. If John McCain can vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party, so can I.
Not now, not next year, not in twenty years if the Dems get total control of the country.
An amnesty will give them total control of the country for many generations to come. And our current immigration policies have already drastically altered the demographics of the country since 1965 to do that without an amnesty. More and more states will turn purple and then blue. It is just a matter of time.
Well said sir.
My attitude has nothing to do with it. It is based in our constitution and the reality of elections.
To start with, the US president is not popularly elected. He is elected by the electoral college. Electors are not generally required to vote for a particular candidate, though they do so in practice, at least for the first vote they cast. If subsequent votes are needed, they become free agents. This means that it is far more likely for a non-ballot candidate to be elected by the college. It also means that the two dominant parties could agree to exclude a third party candidate if they wanted, as they could combine their vote against him, which they probably would.
President and Vice President are selected in two different ballots, so the college may also choose a non-intended ticket. (i.e. a Republican President and a Democrat Vice President.) If no candidate for VP has a majority of votes, the choice is made by the US Senate.
To make matters even less democratic, States are free to change how they want to select electors, until election day itself. Several States have “changed the rules in the middle of the game”, when filling seats of deceased congressmen, and there is little doubt they would hesitate to do so if a third party candidate showed prospect of winning in their State.
This current election, the States gleefully changed the primary rules as well, which could also strongly disadvantage a 3rd party, for example opening it up to non-party voters.
John Murtha ran unopposed by having two Democrats stand in the open Republican primary, then telling Democrats to vote for them instead of voting for him or the single real Republican. Once one of the Democrats was chosen as the Republican candidate, he dropped out of the race. So Murtha ran in the general election unopposed. The Republican tried a write-in ballot campaign as an independent, but those rarely if ever work.
Add it all up, and the two major parties will not allow a 3rd party candidate to be elected President.
However, this does not mean that a 3rd party is a fruitless idea. In fact, were a 3rd party to use a different approach, it could dominate the congress of the United States with a small bloc, and be as powerful as if they had won the Presidency.
And this is what I recommended. To explain:
Instead of fruitlessly trying to get a president elected first, third parties should concentrate on running strong candidates in congressional districts with small populations, where the two main parties are weak. This maximizes their effort, because they can focus their resources where they will do the most good and overwhelm both the major party candidates.
With just 10 congressmen and three senators, a 3rd party has “marginal” control over both houses of congress, as long as the two major parties are about evenly balanced.
This is because most important issues are party line votes, and the 3rd party can haggle support for *its* platform from both the major parties, in exchange for its deciding vote. This is very real, and happens all the time in parliaments around the world. Right now, this marginal position is occupied by centrist Democrats and RINOs, who force concessions from their own and other partiy for their votes. A 3rd party could displace them and have tremendous control.
And what is more important for a 3rd party? Electing a person, or getting their platform turned into law? If the Libertarians wanted marijuana legalized, this would be the way to do it.
This exact thing most recently happened in Israel, when a small religious party held marginal control between Labor and Likud. Whoever ruled had to give the religious party far more control and money than it deserved, and did so for many years.
And nothing would prevent the Constitutional or Libertarian parties from doing exactly the same thing in the US today.
From there, with real power and money, either 3rd party would grow in size and strength overnight. In turn, they could expand their marginal bloc, taking seats from both the Republicans and Democrats. And *that* is how they finally become powerful enough to win the Presidency, and to thwart all the tricks the other two parties would use to stop them.
How many states will Baldwin win?
What successes have they had?
I have a simple question for you. Which is the more dangerous? McCain or Obama?
Who? If you mean 3rd parties around the world, a lot. It always pays to build up your grassroots and lower political office support first. It paves the way to future success.
Germany and Italy at times have had dozens of small political parties, and the few who succeed do so in a methodical manner.
The time for conservative zealotry was the Presidential primaries. The Presidential candidates are chosen, there are but two. There are pretenders but they don't count. They are totally irrelevant.
It is now time to make a tough decision...McCain or Hussein.
There is no other choice. All other actions are a cop out. A cop out is mental insecurity, the inability to make a decision.
Will zealotry prevent a rational decision? Can you make a pragmatic decision untarnished by now irrelevant zealory that no longer applies to the '08 Presidential election?
“The time for conservative zealotry was the Presidential primaries. “
Is that right? If squishy middle of the roaders like you hadn’t fought anyone tooth and nail who wanted a conservative we might have one. If McCain had been stuck on the edge of the debates and never called on or put on all the gab fests where he could spread his BS, we wouldn’t know who he is either, would we?
The NY Times endorsed McCain in the Primary. That ought to tell you something.
And the time to be a conservative is ALL the time! At least you admit you’re on again, off again...
Everything that you say is true. However, we don’t control the media and until we do your plan won’t work. As long as the American voter permits the two dominant parties to control the electoral college we will be no better than 2nd class slaves in their eyes. When people refuse to vote for or financially support either of the D or R candidate that’s when we will once again be in control.
When I realized who the three candidates for president would be, I was ashamed. Ashamed that these pukes are the best we could do as a nation.
It is better to use the system to your advantage, than to feel helpless against it. A 3rd party will not grow in a political vacuum, as voters are a zero sum game. Therefore, it is important, as I suggested before, to find those platform elements that are most popular, and run with them.
It is not hypocritical to back burner your less popular ideas. It does not mean that you have given up on them. It just means that you are not advertising them as much as your popular ideas. And you do have to sell your ideas to the voter to bring them to your side.
The Contract With America was brilliant in this regard, though bitterly opposed by the multi-term old guard. They did not *want* to be clear in their platform, precisely because they were hypocrites, and prone to taking both sides of an argument to avoid responsibility. The young Republicans, however, signed on to this brilliant, simple, clear list of ideas, and were rewarded handsomely for it by a public that loved the clarity for a change.
But the old guard put its foot down and said “never again”, *despite* its being a huge success. But not ironically, the idea could have been used again, to similar success.
As it could be used by a third party. And remember, that while the President can to some extent influence new law, he does not create new law. And it is in new law that a 3rd party gets what it really wants and grows in strength at the same time.
At the expense of the other two parties. And this goes back to my original point. With both congressmen and senators, the electoral college is no longer the enemy of the 3rd party, it becomes its friend. And at the same time, it becomes much less friendly to one of the two old parties.
And from that point, the Presidency is a very real and attainable goal.
>And remember, that while the President can to some extent influence new law, he does not create new law.<
I wish FReepers would think of this when Ron Pauls name comes up. They talk like he’s going to be a Communist dictator. I see him as the one and only man who cares about our CONSTITUTION.
I hope I have answered your question.
It is not the answer you want, but it is the answer you will get.
McCain or Obama?
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.