Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Third Party Bust in 2008?
Townhall ^ | Michael Medved

Posted on 10/09/2008 12:16:02 PM PDT by mnehring

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 last
To: kabar

I think he’s a national treasure, one that is being wasted.


81 posted on 10/09/2008 3:03:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (They steered the ship into an iceberg. Let's start the bail out by shoving them over the side...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Incorrect. The Republican party was created in 1854 and won the 1860 Presidential election.

Somebody is probably writing a thesis about that right now. It's complicated.

In 1854 former Whigs ran as the "Opposition Party" and they actually won a majority in the House of Representatives. This group became the Republicans. In 1856, they nominated Fremont and came in second in the presidential elections.

Other Whigs joined the "American Party," also called the "Know-Nothings." The Whigs didn't quite die out yet -- Millard Fillmore the "Know Nothing" candidate for President in 1856 ran on the Whig label in many states, and the Constitutional Union Party of 1860 was considered by many to be "the Whigs" -- but they were pretty much a "spent force" by 1854.

In any case, so far no party has gone from being an established third party to one of the two major parties. There has to be a collapse or disappearance of one party for a new one to replace it.

82 posted on 10/09/2008 3:21:52 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dilvish
The big question history books will ask about 2008 is why nobody worth a damn ran for president.

Probably because there was nobody in office anywhere who was worth that much.

You can say the candidates were poor quality, but because this was an "open election" there were more of them than usual.

Also, more of them had held actual elected office (unlike Perot or Forbes or Keyes or Buchanan) and were therefore considered "electable" or "Presidential" or competent.

If you really want a big picture answer, maybe this will help.

83 posted on 10/09/2008 3:31:38 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: x
People learned their lesson with Ross Perot, he had the message, the money and organization, and that is how we got bill clinton. Perot siphoned off such a large part of the usual Republican vote from PaPa Bush that Sleazy Bill slid under the door. It is almost impossible to field a 3rd party candidate.
84 posted on 10/09/2008 3:44:07 PM PDT by BooBoo1000 (Some times I wake up grumpy, other times I let her sleep/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BooBoo1000
People learned their lesson with Ross Perot, he had the message, the money and organization, and that is how we got bill clinton. Perot siphoned off such a large part of the usual Republican vote from PaPa Bush that Sleazy Bill slid under the door. It is almost impossible to field a 3rd party candidate.

Plus his organization started bitter in-fighting which turned off a lot of the grass-roots volunteers.

85 posted on 10/09/2008 3:45:40 PM PDT by E=MC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: x
There has to be a collapse or disappearance of one party for a new one to replace it.

I can think of two "major" parties that need to be "collapsed" right now.

86 posted on 10/09/2008 4:05:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (They steered the ship into an iceberg. Let's start the bail out by shoving them over the side...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

We will agree to disagree. I think he is a charlatan.


87 posted on 10/09/2008 4:06:18 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I know better.


88 posted on 10/09/2008 4:48:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (They steered the ship into an iceberg. Let's start the bail out by shoving them over the side...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Me too.


89 posted on 10/09/2008 4:52:24 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I don’t like Allan Keyes.


Not that it matters one whit as he isn’t going to be a factor in winning the Presidency during his lifetime but it appears that many others didn’t like him enough to elect him in any of his numerous elective attempts. People make a living in many different ways and once you find a niche to bring in the cash then you keep at it. He has found his niche.


90 posted on 10/09/2008 5:10:34 PM PDT by deport ( ----Cue Spooky Music---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Libertarianism is genetic, there is a libertarian gene, you either get it or you don’t.

The ‘L’ party was once about just getting the message out to those of us who could hear it.

Now they want to win elections. The Libertarian Party is over, it does not exist anymore. Libertarians will stay home for this election.

Bob Barr ? No libertarian would vote for him.
]


91 posted on 10/10/2008 1:04:41 PM PDT by Lazlar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Hutchison Whampoa is a Chinese company associated with teh People’s Liberation Army. Thus, if HW is “involved with the ports at Cristobal and Balboa”, then the Chinese are. And controlling those sites at the ends of the Canal is de facto controlling the canal.


92 posted on 10/10/2008 9:56:43 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I don’t like Allan Keyes.

Dr. Keyes is one of the most brilliant and articulate advocates for our point of view on the scene today.

93 posted on 10/10/2008 10:00:13 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: x
the Constitutional Union Party of 1860 was considered by many to be "the Whigs"

It was essentially a merger of the Whigs who didn't join the Republican Party with the American Party (the "Know-Nothings").

94 posted on 10/10/2008 10:01:34 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Post-Neolithic
Actually the first two party system in this country were Federalists and Republicans, both were pushed to third party status by 1801. The Republican party did not come out of third Party status until around 1850.

A number of errors here. The Federalists were first, and the Republicans ran a candidate in the 3rd presidential election. The Republicans won the fourth election, but they were the ancestors of the Democrat party. The Federalists lost every election through the 8th, getting smaller, and their disloyalty in the War of 1812 led to the Democratic Republicans running unopposed in 1820. In 1824 four regional candidates ran, the election went to the House. The fourth place finisher, excluded by the XII Amendment backed the 2nd place finisher, and the bitterness led to forming a new party, the National Republicans, which lost to the Democrats.

After a couple of additional elections the National Republicans changed its name to the Whigs. From that point until 1852 the Democrats won each election but two, in which Whig Generals were elected President and died in office, The coming Civil War split the Whigs between Northern and Southern Whigs, and the party collapsed after 1852, Northern Whigs along with anti-slavery Democrats formed the new Republican Party, while Southern Whigs, together with the minor Anti-mason party's remnants and some others formed the new American Party (Know-Nothings). Fremont got more votes than ex-president Fillmore, but Buchanan got a majority of the electors. The two new parties in a coalition ran the House, but the AmericanParty died in the crisis of 1860.

The Democrats split between northern and southern Democrats, the remnants of the American party (southern Whigs) formed the Constitutional Union party. Lincoln got a majority of the electors with only about 40% of the vote.

Since the Civil War the democrats and Republicans have been the major two parties. Minor Parties like the Liberal Republicans, Populist party, Prohibition party, Socialist party, and a new pro-communist American party, ran and got a few percentages of the vote, and were absorbed into the major parties. The Progressives under Teddy Roosevelt were a great threat in 1912 and the GOP was 3rd that year, but the Progressives faded away with Lafollete. Dixiecrats in 1948, southern democrats in 1960, and George Wallace's American Independent party in 1968 seemed to threaten the system, and so did Ross Perot.

95 posted on 10/10/2008 11:01:47 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (White Trash for Sarah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Believe what you want.

It’s a free country.


96 posted on 10/11/2008 6:00:18 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
does anybody see McCain as more than a 1-termer?

I don't see whoever wins this Novembner as more than a one-termer. The last time teh country elected three consecutive two-term Presidents, tehir names were Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

97 posted on 10/12/2008 2:13:54 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/nov99/psrnov99.html

“The 50-year leases were awarded to a Chinese Hong Kong corporation named Hutchison Whampoa operating under the name Hutchison Port Holdings.

The billionaire chairman of Hutchison Whampoa, Li Ka-shing, was a business and political buddy of the late Deng Xiaoping and now has the same close relationship with both Jiang Zemin and the Riady financial empire of Indonesia.

Li was China’s chief agent in facilitating China’s smooth takeover of Hong Kong in 1997. Hutchison Whampoa partnered in several enterprises with China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), which is directly controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, and served as a middleman in China’s deals with the U.S. firms Hughes and Loral.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791620/posts

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff164.htm

“a Chinese firm, Hutchison Whampoa, now controls not only the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal but ports and terminals in Mexico. The company has close ties to the Chinese regime.”

But hey, believe what you want. It’s a free country.


98 posted on 10/12/2008 2:25:27 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: TBP

“It’s a free country”

It’s not a free country. America is reallky close to being a socialist police state.


99 posted on 10/13/2008 9:33:06 AM PDT by Lazlar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson