I'm sure all the candidates from the Third parties will be pure and never compromise in Washington's political firing range. Oh, wait...we'll never know because no Third party candidate has ever been elected and won't be in the foreseeable future. Oh, well, all the better to trash Republicans.
Bush was a lame duck who abandoned conservatives the last few years.
There is nothing that says the Repubs can’t go the way of the Whigs. And if they keep up their leftist leanings they just may.
There is no law that says it has to specifically be the Democrat and Republican parties.
Now, obviously, my first choice BY FAR would to be go with name recognition and take back the GOP. But the GOP is leaving me.
Better be careful about exporting your vast political ignorance. (Not much better than your name-calling vocab).
I mean what? Do you think Republicans have been around since the onset of this country? Simply put, many Whigs defected to the Republican party in the 1850s...thereby the Republican party became the replacement party to the Whigs as the second party.
Just because a candidate cannot get beyond Third Party status...
...hasn't translated historically into preventing a Third Party from superceding the Second Party. The birth of the Republican party thereby assured the death of the Whig party.
I'm sure all the candidates from the Third parties will be pure and never compromise in Washington's political firing range.
Well, we can sure "be glad" that the Republican party had some pure social agenda objectives in 1856 (even if the candidates weren't 100% "pure" in its tactical strategies).
And what was at the foundational core of that fledgling party’s social agenda? (why in 1856 they said they would take on the “twin relics of barbarism.”)
And what were those “twin relics?” (slavery & polygamy)
And did they indeed take them on? (Yes)
And how many years did that take them? [Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation within a decade...even though the remnant of slavery lived on culturally; the feds finally got the Mormon church to cave in on polygamy 34 years later, even though mainstream lds polygamist unions continued into the early 1960s and additional (new) LDS plural unions continued at an approximate rate of 11-12 a year through 1910.]
And did the Republicans stop opposing polygamy en masse even when the LDS church formally caved in 1890? (No. When the Utah LDS voted in a polygamist Democratic would-be Congressman named B.H. Roberts in 1898, they sent two-dozen banners with 7 million signatures to congress, saying they didn’t want Congress to seat Roberts, who took a third wife around 1894...AFTER the LDS manifesto. Congress then sent Roberts home).
Of course, perhaps, Deb, you'd accuse those 7 million banner-signers too high of a commitment to "purity," eh? And perhaps, Deb, you'd be telling us if we were all around in the late 1890s, "I'm sure all the candidates from any emerging Third parties will be pure and always keep from adding a simultaneous second & third wife and never compromise by adding additional wives in Washington's political firing range."