Posted on 01/23/2008 1:05:47 PM PST by gbscott1954
I was sitting here thinking something that I have thought before several times in recent months. The Republican Party began as a third party championing the cause of abolition and westward expansion. Just was wondering some of your thoughts about if it is time to begin thinking about a new true conservative party dedicated to true conservative principles?
Good luck.
“So you want to be Ron Paul Lite.”
I was asking for thoughts and feedback, not slurs and insults.
In 1856, political bosses chose Presidential party nominees and party issues in smoke-filled back rooms. Voters then got to vote on the issues and candidate selected by the bosses.
Today, Presidential nominees are chosen by primary voters from a laundry list of candidates and each primary candidate has his own pet issues. All issues are already on the table. The problem is that the average voters are no longer buying our issues.
"The GOP" did not reject Fred Thompson. Average American voters did.
"The Democrats" did not reject Dennis Kucinich. Average American voters did.
Voting third party in the general election just leaves either the hard core conservatives or hard core liberals with a 20% vote tally that will win nothing and guarantee victory to the party that sticks together based on "right of center beliefs" or "left of center belief" without demanding Perfect Political Purity.
If Dennis Kucinich runs as a third party candidate and splits the left of center vote, a Republican victory is assured in November.
If Fred Thompson runs as a third party candidate and splits the right of center vote, a Democrat victory is assured in November.
That is just the way the simple arithmetic works.
With time, the political pendulum will once again swing our way. Until then, our duty is not to hand the Left the White House with idiotic moves such as splitting the right of center vote in 1992 and handing over the White House to Bill Clinton when he managed to get less than 43% of the popular vote.
True, and the republican party is changing. Unfortunately it is not changing for the better and its a mortal sin to go, or vote, elsewhere.
Let’s fix what’s broken in our party right now. That’s going to take some hard work, but probably less work than making a 3rd party viable.
I married her sister - Senility. I’d forgotten all about her sister until you reminded me.
It does annoy me to no end to hear bots of any flavor spin their candidates record to be whiter than the driven snow.
He has not come out and said that has had a 180 on the issue, has he?
Has he come forward and said that he would put forth judges who might view Roe a bit differently?
I don’t honestly know.
Nevertheless, that is not a hot button issue for me when it stands alone.
But after reviewing all of his record it seems remarkably consistent with that of a Socialist leaning democrat with a modern and reasonable, well groomed face.
He does look good. Thank you for your post. - Bill
It’s been my observation that the reason 3rd parties fail is because they’re always based on one publicity hound running for president and once he loses, there’s nothing left to the party. A successful 3rd party has to start by running for state legislatures and then putting their best up for congress. The Libertarians are the only ones I know of using that approach and they’re not having much luck.
Blue dogs are a species on the path to extinction.
How hypocritical can you people be?
Oh yea?
Kewl.
Before I say you aren't the first, tell me exactly where "here" is.
...I gotta know.
Here’s a thread with some good research from a fellow Freeper.
RINO CHART - Issues and Ratings Update
1/23/08 | dwar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1958439/posts
It is a shame that Hunter/Thompson both score so high and yet neither have won approval with a significant number in the GOP. If I vote, I might write them in.
Hunter and Thompson were my first and second choice all along. I didn’t think I would have to re-group.
That would be like trying to control Microsoft by asking everyone to buy ten shares and pooling their efforts. Ain't gonna happen.
The best model is to develop and sustain within the party one or more caucuses of sufficient power that the smugs who run things are forced to take them into account. Look at the 'rat party--black caucus, women's caucus, unions, all a bunch of dirt but the party has to respect them.
What if the GOP had a really serious freemarket caucus led by some people who actually succeeded in getting elected; a rejuvenated and upgraded Christian right; a coherent defense/ national security lobby... not just bullshit emporiums like Heritage or Cato who ask me for money so they can treat themselves to black tie affairs every autumn, but real organizations of grass roots people, who have enough discipline not to get into pissing matches with each other.
Moral Majority was one that made it work, for awhile, so it can be done-- with the ever scarce but always essential ingredient--LEADERSHIP.
Situation was way different in 1860. Four different candidates won electoral votes that year.
That’s the truth. I’ve certainly seen my share of weirdos at Young Republicans meetings.
Sure. Why not. There are usually about eight parties on the ballot in national elections here and a couple of them are conservative and a couple are extremely conservative. What’s another one that might pull in a couple hundred votes.
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.