ANYONE THINK IT IS TIME FOR ANOTHER PARTY?

[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?

[fr_freak]

For me, I guess this will be the first time that I won’t be participating in a presidential election. Not gonna vote for a slimy RINO.

I hope you are not saying that you're going to skip voting entirely, because that would be inexcusable. There is always a lot more at stake than just the presidential race, so get your rear end out there and vote. Leave the slot for president blank if you have to, but DO NOT NEGLECT the rest of the issues on the ballot.

[ricks_place]

Definitely Time for a New Party!

Encourage the Democrats to split their coalition into Left of Center and Looney Left. Neither party would win a national election and both would lose most state contests.

Whatever disappointment emerges with Republican Politicians, NEVER should right thinking people consider another Reform Party, Ross Perot, elect Clinton scenario. It is a LOSER, ceding political office to the Democrats.

[snippy_about_it]

The Conservative Party. We’ve been bouncing that around for some time, it’s about time.

[dmw]

“I hope you are not saying that you’re going to skip voting entirely, because that would be inexcusable. There is always a lot more at stake than just the presidential race, so get your rear end out there and vote. Leave the slot for president blank if you have to, but DO NOT NEGLECT the rest of the issues on the ballot.

Good catch fr_freak. No, I did not mean to imply that I would not be voting during the presidential elections, I only meant for president. It was poorly worded. I will indeed get my “rear end out there and vote”. Thanks FRiend.

[fr_freak]

"The GOP" did not reject Fred Thompson. Average American voters did.

I believe that is entirely incorrect.

First, the average American does not vote in primaries, probably because the average American does not identify himself as a member of a political party, even though he may tend to vote with one party or the other in general. Mainly it is the party faithful who vote in primaries and, especially in this case, too many of the party faithful are focused on who they can get to win (who is "electable") rather than determining which candidate actually follows the platform. This leads to all kinds of compromise of principles, assuming the party bosses had any principles to begin with.

Second, take a poll of all potential voters in the US and ask how many know what Fred Thompson's core beliefs are, or even what he looks like. You'd probably be surprised at how many, even among Republican voters, know almost nothing about him. Part of this may be Thompson's fault, but the harsh reality is that without constant media exposure, a candidate virtually disappears from the public consciousness. So, the MSM can boost those candidates it likes and handicap those it doesn't merely by choosing to run or spike stories about those candidates. It is sad that so many Americans get their only news from ridiculous video tabloids that pass for network news, but that is the nature of things, unfortunately.

Anyway, the point is that public opinion can be easily manipulated, and therefore viewing the results of any election as a representation of the true beliefs of Americans at large is faulty at best. If most Americans knew Thompson's positions on things, and actually voted, I have no doubt he would have done far, far better.

[diogenes ghost]

"One term and out....in every office"

Sounds nice, until you look at it.

New legislators have a steep learning curve, it can be daunting.

They rely on professional staffers to guide them, kinda like boot officers rely on old NCO's.

This cadre of professional staffers is already dangerous as hell, giving them newbies to mold every two years would only increase their unelected influence.

Disastrous!!

[bonehead4freedom]

Yes!

[Reagan Man]

The GOP is about played out.

A “Conservative Party” is a grand idea.

[RatsDawg]

Wayne Allyn Root, and the Libertarian Party.

www.rootforamerica.com

[Radix]

I see your point....but...I still hold that there must be something that we can all do in order to end this business of professional politicians.

I’m all for grabbing names out of the telephone directory and having such run for election as opposed to the scoundrels that are currently destroying our nation.

I say pay them all minimum wage or less, and give them a few weeks of bivouac, military rations, and no hot showers until they pass a budget and go home.

Let them gather again if there is the threat of War on the horizon.

Get rid of the staffers.

[ShadowDancer]

I’d rather take my party back.

And how do you intend on doing that?

[Reeses]

What if Americans had 4 narrowed down, vetted, and appealing choices for President, for example Obama, Hillary, Mitt, Fred, each positioned for approximately 25% market share. Who would win then? The marketing dynamics would allow a non-center candidate to win half the time. I’d rather have a 25% chance of having a conservative win than a 0% chance. Of course the price is that 25% of the time an uncloseted communist would win.

[CougarGA7]

I do everything I can here at the local level short of running myself (which I have considered). I support the conservative candidate from dog catcher, to mayor, to governor. It has to start somewhere. I dont have a national pulpit save here. It takes more than just me.

‘bout you. What are you doing?

[toddlintown]

“I’d rather take back the Republican Party than go through starting a whole new one.”

Start at the grass roots level. Unfortunately, by the time they run for higher offices, they’re all whores.

Duncan Hunter supporting The Huck is the latest example. And imagine all the FReepers who were willing to fall on their sword for old <1%.

[Kevmo]

Sounds good to me. But today my candidate endorsed Huckabee and now he’s accused of being a populist, so I need to figure out what the ins/outs ups/downs of populism are all about.

[eleni121]

Thanks for that background on Romney. Maybe that is why Hunter endorsed Huckabee.

Doesn’t look good for Romney then.

[burzum]

Without runoff polling, a third party getting power is not possible today. If you want a third party then you need to first support runoff initiatives (like IRV).

[fieldmarshaldj]

Damn.

[bw04wb]

The “NO BULLSH*T PARTY”. No liberals or RINO’s allowed.

[Polybius]

What if Americans had 4 narrowed down, vetted, and appealing choices for President, for example Obama, Hillary, Mitt, Fred, each positioned for approximately 25% market share.

Now you are changing the hypothetical question into, "What if the "not 100% satisfied" in BOTH parties choose the Brand X Party route?"

Who would win then?

The answer to that question is that the candidate that would win, by a wide percentage margin, would be the candidate that persuades the other candidate on his side of the center line to join forces as his/her VP to defeat those who are much farther away from them in ideology.

\\ The marketing dynamics would allow a non-center candidate to win half the time. I’d rather have a 25% chance of having a conservative win than a 0% chance. Of course the price is that 25% of the time an uncloseted communist would win.

Now, all you have to do is to convince either Hillary or Obama to go the Third Party route and your hypothetical would have a 25% chance of succeeding.

Since, in this election year, the Democrats have absolutely no intention of committing electoral suicide, then your chance of having a far Left President is 100% since the vote totals (+/- 2%)would be:

Hillary/Obama: 50%

Mitt/VP choice: 25%

Fred/VP choice: 25%

In 1066, if the Anglo-Saxon King of England Harold and his brother, Tostig, had been cooperating against the common foe, William the Conqueror, instead of wasting their resources fighting each other for the crown of England right up to three weeks before the Battle of Hastings, England might have had Anglo-Saxon Kings to this very day.