Posted on 04/10/2012 4:52:33 PM PDT by Cato in PA
So it’s come to this.
Rick Santorum dropped out of the race earlier today, which leaves Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul in the running. By any reasonable estimate, Paul still doesn’t stand a chance and Newt won’t mount a serious challenge barring divine intervention.
We’re left with Willard Romney the open socialist, who stands against everything we believe in as conservatives. There are many among us who refuse to vote for him. We who feel this way must unite behind a third party if we’re going to accomplish anything. If we don’t, we’re no better than the party-line Republicans who cry about the need for change but do nothing about it.
JimRob hasn't called for a third party, and that's fine. I'm certainly not criticizing him. But if he won't, I will.
I’d like to take a moment now to quash any lingering doubts you may have about the necessity or wisdom of doing this in case you've somehow missed my other posts.
1) We know Obama is a Marxist. He’ll do bad stuff. Romney is a political weatherwane! There’s a *chance* that he might do good.
Wrong. Romney’s conservatism is 100% rhetoric. If you want to know what the man stands for, look at his record. He ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost. He governed Massachusetts as a far-left radical, even going so far as to sign socialized medicine into law, a decision he defends to this day. He also defends the bailouts.
HE ADMITTED THAT HE IS A PROGRESSIVE. The vast majority of his judicial picks were far-left judicial activists. He lobbied Obama to adopt the individual mandate on a national level as late as 2009.
Nothing about Romney’s record could even cast him as a moderate. He'll do nothing to stop our economic collapse, and with him at the helm, the Republicans will take the blame. You thought 2008 was bad? Just wait until 2014. How do you think President Jellyfish would stand up to a Democrat-controlled Congress?
2) Okay, so Romney is a liberal. But he and the other Repubs will HAVE to listen if we elect a Republican president!
Wrong. We’ve fallen for this ruse time and time again. Even the historic Republican victory in 2010 didn’t work in our favor; we got Crybaby Boehner and Moderate McConnell, who refuse to listen to us even when a Democrat president is in the White House.
Why would they suddenly toughen up on liberalism if we replaced a liberal Democrat with a liberal Republican?
3) No, no, we have to change the Republican party from within!
How many years have we heard this? How well has it worked out? Will it EVER work out? No, because the Rockefeller wing holds the reins of power and will never let them go.
Even after a historic “Tea Party” victory in 2010, nothing has changed. If that won’t change anything, then how else can we achieve change at the voting booth?
4) But this is an election year, the WORST time to start a third party.
There will never be a ‘good time’. Most people don’t pay attention to politics in off-years, so we’d probably be ignored if we waited. If we do it during an election year, yes, we’re going to split the vote in certain cases.
Nobody ever said that change would be easy, but it’s necessary. If we do nothing, we’ll be no better than the Mittwits.
We need to strike while the iron is hot so we’ll get exposure. If we can get exposure, we can make progress. As difficult a fight as this will be, the only other option, trying to change the GOP from within, is a proven failure.
5) I think you’re just a sore loser. You need to compromise and accept Romney even if he’s not your perfect pick!
This isn’t about purity; this is about principle. Part of politics involves compromise, which is why I’ve said over and over again that I’d vote for Santorum or Gingrich. Paul never really had a chance, so the question doesn’t apply to him.
But part of compromise is having enough -principle- to know compromise becomes caving. And you know what? There are certain things that aren’t worth compromising over, like supporting an open socialist. These are the sort of distinctions that party-line Republicans are incapable of making. They’ve pulled the GOP lever all their lives, and they just can’t imagine doing otherwise.
6) A vote against Romney is a vote for Obama.
Wrong. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for change in the only means still available to us: rebellion. We’ve tried to get the establishment to listen to us for so many years, but our concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
Your continued support will only result in more of the same. You don’t stop someone from abusing you in a relationship by staying with them if you can't resolve your differences; you leave.
7) It will be YOUR fault if we have another 4 years of Obama!
Dead wrong. If you want to blame someone for Obama’s re-election, blame the establishment for backing a far-left radical who has sharply divided the GOP and destroyed voter enthusiasm nationwide. Turnout is abysmal and Willard looks even worse in the polls than John McCain did.
The GOP base has basically already given up. It’s like 2008 but worse. If you want to vote for the person responsible for that, be my guest.
Now...we can talk about how angry we are, or we can do something about it. Let’s start throwing some ideas around for how to proceed if the inevitable turns out to be true and Romney is the GOP nominee.
Should we try to create a new third party? Would an existing third party suffice? Let’s discuss.
Romney is a loser and the GOP has squandered all the inertia and enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement so that they can hold their Party power. They can shove their Massachusetts liberal candidate.
Sign me up. I know who romney is. I will never, never support him. The GOP no longer exists to me.
That’s what an alarming number of people seem to be saying.
In the absolute worst case (a ridiculously improbable situation), Romney is no better than Obama. It’s impossible for him to be worse. A more realistic situation is that Romney governs like the moderate he really is, which would be a MASSIVE improvement over what we have.
What I don’t understand is the prevalence of stage one thinking around there. I hear things like “the Republicans are just driving the car off the cliff at 20 MPH instead of 100 MPH.” Well, suppose that’s true. If it’s either driving off at 100 or driving off at 20 (reverse is simply not an option right now) then why would anybody in their right mind not pick the better of the two options?
I can’t imagine anyone wanting to run 3rd party and take the heat for re-electing Hussein. Because that is what they would be doing.
Better to start now building a credible party that can win in the future, do better than this years offerings, or else, just stay home and enjoy Barack and his czars for another 4. Only thing is that conservatives won’t ever win again, if they do, they will be just like the British style conservative. So why bother?
pushing a Perot and we'll get another 4 messiah years....
Romney is not my choice, nor a lot of peoples, but he is the choice of all the states so far and he has a huge delegate count....
maybe people better start dreaming up another 4 yrs of bamey on the flag and consider that Romney on his worse day, is at least a patriot, a businessman, and a man who won't kill off the coal and oil industry, nix pipelines,have racist in key govt positions,or have an arrogant wife running around vacationing to the tune of millions of OUR money each year....
when you think of voting 3rd party, just conjure up that American flag with bamey's mug on it....we're just seeing an inkling of what he is capable of doing...
LOL. People ALWAYS say this. Try to run a political novice against a polished, skilled politician and see what happens almost every time. And the bigger the office, the more difficult it is for the novice. There is a reason successful politicians generally start out at the very local level and work their way up. Like it or not, politics is a skill. People get better at it. It isn't enough to be right to win elections. If it were, we wouldn't be 16 trillion in debt, have 8.2% unemployment, have gas approaching 5 bucks a gallon, etc. The "regular" non-politician guy/girl is going to get steamrolled almost every single time - and not just here in the US, this is true the world over.
a good GOTV 2010 down ticket Tea Party result will stop him if he plays the Massachusetts politics garbage. Hopefully, more here on FR will realize that. He's no Reagan but could mature in that direction. 'Tis all we got. The alternative is unthinkable. Unless you want reparations, flash mob robs and the occasional jihadi bombing at your malls and churches to become the "new reality" along with pork and beans. Oh, and taxes and the ghey agenda and global warming and green energy and super high gas prices and an unsupportable national debt.......
“If it’s either driving off at 100 or driving off at 20 (reverse is simply not an option right now) then why would anybody in their right mind not pick the better of the two options?”
For me, it’s because that is the exact same logic that got us to where we are.
I think our Founders would be shaking their heads in disgust to hear things like:
He’ll support abortion slightly less than the other one or
He’ll take fewer of our weapons away or
He thinks gay marriage is OK because...
That is the logic that took us from George Washington to The Won - IMHO.
A third party will do for Obama what Ralph Nader did for George Bush. If you can’t convince a majority of the Republican voters to see it your way, you will never convince a majority of all the voters.
Count me out.
There are still candidates in both camps who agree with what you want more than you know.
1992 presidential candidacy
Main article: Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992
On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, a firm pro-choice stance on abortion, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, support for gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, advocating the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via “electronic town halls,” he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.[21]
Perot’s candidacy received increasing media attention when the competitive phase of the primary season ended for the two major parties. With the insurgent candidacies of Republican Pat Buchanan and Democrat Jerry Brown winding down, Perot was the natural beneficiary of populist resentment toward establishment politicians. On May 25, 1992 he was featured on the cover of Time Magazine with the title “Waiting for Perot,” an allusion to Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot.[22]
Several months before the Democratic and Republican conventions, Perot filled the vacuum of election news, as his supporters began petition drives to get him on the ballot in all fifty states. This sense of momentum was reinforced when Perot employed two savvy campaign managers in Democrat Hamilton Jordan and Republican Ed Rollins.[citation needed] In July, while Perot was pondering whether to run for office, his supporters established a campaign organization United We Stand America. Perot was late in making formal policy proposals, but most of what he did call for were intended to reduce the deficit. He wanted a gasoline tax increase and some cutbacks of Social Security.[citation needed]
By the summer Perot commanded a lead in the presidential race with thirty-nine percent of the vote.[23] By mid-July, the Washington Post reported that Perot’s campaign managers were becoming increasingly disillusioned by his unwillingness to follow their advice[24] to be more specific on issues, and his need to be in full control of operations[24] with such tactics as forcing volunteers to sign loyalty oaths.[25] Perot’s poll numbers began to slip to 25%, and his advisers warned that if he continued to ignore them, he would fall into single digits. Co-manager Hamilton Jordan threatened to quit, and on July 15, Ed Rollins resigned after Perot fired advertisement specialist Hal Riney, who worked with Rollins on the Reagan campaign. Rollins would later claim that a member of the campaign accused him of being a Bush plant with ties to the CIA.[26] Amidst the chaos, Perot’s support fell to 20%.[27] The next day, Perot announced on Larry King Live that he would not seek the presidency. He explained that he did not want the House of Representatives to decide the election if the result caused the electoral college to be split. Perot eventually stated the reason was that he received threats that digitally altered photographs would be released by the Bush campaign to sabotage his daughter’s wedding.[28] Regardless of the reasons for withdrawing, his reputation was badly damaged. Many of his supporters felt betrayed and public opinion polls would subsequently show a large negative view of Perot that was absent prior to his decision to end the campaign.[29]
In September he qualified for all fifty state ballots.
I agree. I used to live in Ron Paul’s district. There were some not-so-nice people who were all for RP, but had problems with their medication. I eventually returned to the (R) party after being a member of the (L)(non-drug faction) for years.
More evidence that Newt is liberal:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53886982-90/utah-romney-gingrich-campaign.html.csp
“Newt Gingrich’s check bounced.
“Utah Elections Director Mark Thomas said a designated agent for the Gingrich campaign brought the filing papers and a check for $500 in March, but the state was notified by the bank that the check had bounced.”
Read my post again. I never said this was about purity; this is drawing a line in the sand that we won’t cross no matter what. I would have been perfectly fine voting for Rick Santorum because I believe he’s a true social conservative, just as I would have been fine voting for Newt Gingrich because I believe he’s a fiscal conservative due to his flat tax plan.
The party-line Republicans who claim hate the establishment will never lift a finger against them.
After Obama gets defeated then is the time for third party action. Now all it could do is assure his election. If that happens a third party..any party but the Communist Party will be impossible.
lol I agree with you 100%.. and I find the number of “I’m going third party, I will never vote for anyone but my handpicked candidate” posts suspicious.
Actually, "I" and a lot of other folks like me have been saying it since 1969.
I held my nose and voted against somebody in every election except for Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush's 1st term.
I am sick of it.
Romney wasn’t forced on us.
We voted for him. We contributed to him. We worked for him. He got the delegates. He won the nomination.
To assert that Romney was forced on us is a lie.
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.