Posted on 04/02/2012 10:39:52 AM PDT by xzins
The Constitution Party of Wyoming announced Wednesday that it has submitted enough petition signatures to become the state’s fifth recognized political party.
It’s the most political parties Wyoming has had in more than a decade. Analysts say the number reflects voter discontent, but it is unlikely to make a significant impact on Wyoming elections, at least in the near future.
Founded in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, the Constitution Party is one of the top three minor parties in the United States. The party’s stated goals include restoring the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on Biblical foundations.
(Excerpt) Read more at trib.com ...
I think you missed Iraq and Afganistan.
Fascists have traditionally been nationalists (Germany, Japan, etc.)
My gut reaction is to say that any real conservative will be better than Romney, and certainly better than Obama.
However, the long view is the proper way to look at this. We build for the future a conservative party or we continue to be manipulated idiots for the Rino Party.
The liberal republican establishment is firmly in control of that party and nothing is going to change that.
Very thoughtful post, DM. You spell out exactly the hurdles an individual must cross in order to convince himself/herself that building a new party is a good idea.
I crossed those hurdles. Additionally, I’m convinced that there is no changing the liberal control of the republican party.
Those things shouldn’t be just soundbites, either. It requires making actions speak louder than words. It requires presenting the case for change to others. It requires old-fashioned shoe leather work. Finally, it has to be seen as a long-term approach.
In some case, a tipping point could be reached that moves a new party along much more quickly, but a reasonable person will realize they are working now for a future payoff. I’m of an age where it could be after my life has run its course.
A wise man builds his house upon a rock.
That all depends.
Take Alan Keyes, for example. A great speaker...all conservatives loved the way he talked.
However, he fell apart during his Senate campaign. And for those who say, "they played dirty tricks against him" do you not think they would do the same and more if he ran for the Presidency?
You have to be more than "a real conservative". You have to have skills also.
Most times, What’s up, the ideas of a movement are more important than it’s current leader, and those ideas will survive far beyond any leader.
You are correct, though, that a great candidate would be a big help in any election.
My attitude toward the Constitution Party is more or less wait-and-see. That's the same approach used by Dr. D. James Kennedy toward the PCA when he was still a minister in the old Southern Presbyterian PCUS — on the one hand, he wanted to make sure the PCA wouldn't degenerate into a group of radical extremists who couldn't effectively reach anyone, and on the other hand, he wanted to see if the moderate conservatives in the PCUS such as Dr. John R. deWitt would be able to succeed in their efforts to reform the PCUS.
Dr. Kennedy left only after it became clear that the PCA was viable and the PCUS conservative movement was not.
If the Constitution Party ever becomes a viable movement, its supporters will include some fiery radicals who treat all Republicans as enemies because they haven't yet left the Republican Party for the new third party movement. Such people need to remember Dr. Kennedy's actions when it comes to people who, like me, believe the Republican Party can still be saved. We may be wrong, but we're on the same side when it comes to restoring America's conservative foundations, and we need to treat each other as allies, not enemies.
And yes, for those who are probably going to start FRmailing me, I am very much aware of the Reformed theology of many of the Constitution Party leaders. I cited Dr. Kennedy for a reason. There are lots of problems in the PCA, but there are reasons the PCA grew and a lot of other conservative secession movements collapsed or became numerically irrelevant. You can have a small denomination in the United States with a few hundred or a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of members, but you can't build a political party that way if you want your candidates to get elected, so you'd better pay very close attention to what worked with the PCA and what didn't if you're looking for an ecclesiastical model for a political movement.
(By the way, I'm a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, where Dr. John R. deWitt ended up after finally leaving the mainline denominational world — late in life, Dr. deWitt ended up being elected moderator of the general synod as the conservative candidate in our battle over what to do with liberals at Erskine College. If I ever see Dr. deWitt again, I'll probably congratulate him on finally being able to say he was on the winning side of a conservative-liberal denominational fight.)
I cannot and WILL NOT vote for Romney.
PRO HOMO, PRO ABORTION, anti-traditional marriage, and socialistic heathcare that he embraces - NEVER! It’s like casting a vote for satan, mitt being his pawn.
I didn’t say they weren’t nationalists.
Globalism has two definitions that possess at least two different and opposing meanings. One (1) is the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations. The Second (2) is viewing the entire world as a proper sphere for one nation to project political influence.
The Republicans and Wall Street have refined the Second (2) in an attempt to dominate international commerce, the monetary structure, and projecting U.S. military strength world-wide to establish and protect a New World Order. THIS is what President George H.W.Bush (POTUS 41) kept repeating while trying to checkmate Saddam Hussein.
Actually, I think what Bush was referring to was the necessity to align power differently since the end of the Cold War.
The Old World Order was no more. A new one was now to begin to show itself. Asia's rise in markets over the last 2 decades has shown that this is taking place.
POTUS 41 in his own words:
On September 9, 1991, he told Gorbachev in Helsinki that each crisis is “an opportunity to develop out of this tragedy a new world order”.
Two days later, Bush added: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge...We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders.”
[[Gulp!]]
On October 1, 1990, President Bush told the General Assembly of the United Nations: “The United Nations can help bring about a new day...a new world order, and a long era of peace.”
Hmm...Harvard and Yale seem to produce a lot of this type of thinking.
Remember, he and Babs are big supporters of Mitt Romney, the man who believes government is God.
Got it.
Sorry, wrong guy
Is the Democrat Party financiing this? They will siphon votes away from Republicans, who are far from perfect but opposed to the radical-liberalism of the DemocRATS.
You've proven my point.
The Wall fell in '89. Shortly after, Bush was telling the UN that new alignments needed to happen to usher in an era of peace as opposed to Cold War.
Nothing mysterious about it. I suppose he could have used different words ("new alignments", "new goals" etc.) but the meaning would have been the same.
He is talking about one world government — Global government — the Progressives socialist dream.
A lot of good reasons can be cited for not supporting the Constitution Party, even though most of their platform makes a lot of sense. However, while the Democratic Party and left-wing liberals might be very glad to see the Constitution Party take off for the same reasons Republicans were glad to see Ralph Nader and the Green Party siphon off Democratic Party votes, I am very sure the Democratic Party and its liberal supporters have virtually no role in promoting the Constitution Party.
Like many third-party movements, the Constitution Party has attracted a fair number of radicals and cranks and people have many different reasons for joining. The movement predates the current party and some elements are much older than the 1990s, but I believe it's fair to say the movement that first took form as the US Taxpayers Party began in the 1990s based on three separate but related issues:
First, dissatisfaction with a perceived lack of consistent conservative thinking out of the Republican Party following Reagan that began under the first President Bush,
Second, a belief based on Perot's third-party run that an ideologically based third-party was a realistic option, and
Third, a strong Christian conservative objection to a lack of consistency in the Republican Party on core issues where Christian conservatives are sometimes at odds with economic and national defense conservatives, combined with a theological focus from people influenced by theonomy and Christian Reconstruction coming out of the Calvinist wing of American conservative church life. Spend some time looking at the connections between the Constitution Party and Vision Forum's leaders and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
The nomination of George W. Bush considerably reduced the level of support for the movement, but a nomination of Romney will likely bring back the calls for a third-party movement with a vengeance.
Of all the people who post regularly on Free Republic supporting Santorum, I may be one of the people who most logically should be promoting the Constitution Party. I am not doing that for a number of reasons, of which the most important is that I believe political parties are supposed to be in the business of winning elections, and the Constitution Party to date has shown virtually no success in doing so.
At the point that the Constitution Party starts winning a significant number of local, state and federal races, my view could change a great deal. Until then, we're stuck with the Republicans, warts and all, because there's no other viable option out there.
You mean, like, John McCain?
A Post-Cold War statement about a new world order after 50 years of war does not imply one Gov't for everyone.
Number of votes for governor or president:
2010 - 20,818 - and that includes my vote over a RINO
2008 - 14,685 - against McCain
2006 - 7,087
2004 - 4,980
2002 - 12,411
2000 - 3,791
It takes well over 2 million votes to even be in the ballgame here for a statewide win. I'm not interested in suicide missions. I want to win. The way to do that is by taking over the GOP, and that is a 20 year+ sustained operation. 3rd parties are protest votes. That's the way it is, was, and probably always will be.
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.