Posted on 10/09/2008 12:16:02 PM PDT by mnehring
The Republicans started as a third party I believe.
ve.
I agree.
I was referring to AFTER the election.
First we defeat Obama, then, between playing watchdog with McCain and the Democrat Congress, we start building that third party from the ground up.
Seeing that BO was a card-carrying member of the New Party, it may be revealed that our 2008 Presidential election was actually won by a stealth third party.
No, it was a four-party race: the Republicans, TWO Democrat tickets, and the Constitutional Union Party, which was what remained of the Whigs.
They do, though not officially. The Panamanians leased out the control at the ends of the Canal to Hutchison Whampoa.
No, it will take years of grassroots activism and determination, starting at the grassroots. Unfortunattel, there are already numerous small conservative independent parties, including the Constitution party, the American Heritage Party, America's Independent Party, and others. We need to start by getting the third-party conservatives into one tent.
Well, the Dems had their usual crowded field. It might have been of poorer quality than normal (in terms of stature) since a lot of potential candidates on that side believed the fix was in for Hillary. She was so unappealing that they actually nominated Obama. But that was a coin flip. Coulda gone the other way.
My criticism of the Republicans is that the Bush Administration was sterile, politically-speaking. GWB has done ZERO party building. I guess this is what we get for buying into the "Compassionate-Conservatism" label. I fell for it. At the very least GWB could have asked Cheyney to retire 4 years ago in favor of a runningmate with a political future. Then again, President Bush would have had to 'get political' and he's very reluctant to get his hands dirty.
I might be a little too harsh on President Bush. He's a wartime president. The American public tends to be tough on that type.
“...problemis obviated in the future.”
Yes, if given the choice between a conservative candidate and an ultra conservative candidate, I’ll choose the ultra conservative, depending on his/her platform.
As do the other third parties. But it's also good to he a "full line" -- i.e., a candidate (wehre possible) for just about every office.
And we need to begin on November 5th.
Which means that if we hope to do something like this, McCain will have to win.
And almost all of them make it harder for third parties to get on the ballot and nominate candidates than the Rs and Ds. While the Constitution states that states run elections, I don't think this kind of discriminatory, undemocratic policy is what the Founders envisioned.
But, the way the debates are run is an even bigger problem. The limiting of 3d party and independents in the debates really smells...and reeks of unconstitutionality
Keyes, Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, and Nader ought to organize their own debate.
• ”Doesnt the Chinese-British company Hutchinson run the Panama Canal?”
“Dobbs wasnt the first one to mention that. Gosh people been saying that for at least 10 years...that the Chinese run the PC”
No. The Republic of Panaman runs the Panama Canal.
Whampoa is involved with the ports at Cristobal and Balboa and are doing a great job. The management is British. The blue-collars are Panamanians.
There are other ports in Panama which are being managed by U.S. companies.
That the Chinese are running the Panama Canal is a 10-year old urban legend perpetrated, for one, by NewsMax since the beginning of time. I have never heard them apologize and admit they were wrong.
Thank you for your input and my best regards.
I hope this helps.
Of course sitting VPs only win the presidency if they VPed for a very popular president (twice in the last 130+ years), and even then they only hold one term (both times). So having Cheney step aside probably wouldn’t have done anything for the GOP ticket this year, other than giving us an heir apparent.
Really the crop was always strange. A lot of the usual suspects for the Dems to be sure. And definitely Hillary kept a few out. The GOP side was made up almost entirely of weak candidates with serious problems in the base and not much better in the middle. It’s funny to me to note that historically Senators don’t win the presidency, and this year’s candidate crop was ruled by Senators (all the Dems and most of the Reps), and in some ways explained why Senators don’t win the presidency.
You are so correct, mnehrlilng.
Thank you. you make me feel good.
Excellent point, but does anybody see McCain as more than a 1-termer? That's part of the reason that Conservatives are so smitten with Palin. They see her selection as putting her at the Head of the Class.
The VP-with-a-Future argument was the lesser of my 2 points. That's why I put it after the "Bush-did-ZERO-partybuilding" observation. Reagan worked dilligently during his term in office visiting various conservative-oriented groups. We're still living off his labors.
The Minuteman Pledge is fine. Roy Beck and NumbersUSA has a pledge as well. Again, illegal immigration is only part of the problem and in fact, it is the lesser part of the problem and the easiest to solve. We need to reduce the 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter this country each year, go to a merit based system, eliminated the visa lottery program, restrict chain migration to the nuclear family, eliminate birthright citizenship, etc. And there are a number of specific enforcement measures that need to be expanded and introduced.
Honestly as far back as last summer I was thinking this year’s winner will be a one termer. Just because the candidate list was so bad, there just has to be somebody more electable in 2012.
Really I don’t think anybody sitting as Bush’ VP would even win 1. He’s never been a popular president, definitely not Reagan or Jackson popular (the two guys since the ticket started to have their sitting VP win the presidency).
Of course Reagan was actually popular among conservatives. Bush never really was. And of course by the time this election got rolling he was just plain unpopular. Best thing he could have done for any candidate was announce his undieing hatred for them, that’s probably worth 5 points in the polls.
Yeah, Bush was doing his best impersonation of the Invisible Man until the Fannie/Freddie fiasco thrust him right back in the limelight. Bush was so low-key that Barak had the temerity to start acting like an executive in his meetings with the Iraqi PM. Bush should have nailed him for that.
The platform was laid down as a framework. We’re putting a strict process in place whereby it can be expanded and improved...carefully and wisely. And we’re demanding that our candidates adhere to it. Otherwise, they’re not our candidates.
I don’t like Allan Keyes.
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.