Congressman Billybobp, we like this image of Sarah and Reagan as well.
|
John / Billybob
Right now, I would not vote Republican, and of course, will not vote dim-bulb-crat. So, perhaps a new party is in order if the Repubs cannot get rid of the idiots running the party and find someone who can spell “leadership”.
IF that happens....we'd call them REAL REPUBLICANS! and Americans!
Don't fall for this.
Reforming and redirecting the republican party needs to be our focus. We will accomplish nothing excepting the reelection of the zero with a 3rd party.
Call it the Patriot Party. Instead of an animal as a mascot let them have a tea bag for a mascot.
I may have pointed this out to you before but many years ago, Eric Sevareid said that major parties have not degenerated into 3rd parties (maybe you could argue this part), and that 3rd parties do not rise to the level of major parties....small sample size though...
bttt
Screw that..I’m gonna take my Party back ! The Party of Reagan! We will lead it...forget the business managers and smooth talkers in the RNC..get the hell out of the way! We will lead and you (RNC)will follow We the People!
How do social conservatives fit into the new party?
Congressman Billybobp, we like this image of Sarah and Reagan as well.
|
With all due respect, I believe that the patriotic right would effectively doom the republic to an historic failure, and hand a monumental victory to the evil, Marxist, left by creating a third party at this pivotal and perilous moment.
The America of our forefathers and of the Founders would likely not survive intact from such a move by our side.
As much as many of us are disgusted with the Republican party, the answer is NOT to abandon that recognized and established base of power, to begin creating a new one.
If we politically fracture ourselves a la 1992, we will endure something much worse than Clinton - or even Obama.
Strategically, I don’t believe that we have any choice but to re-take the Republican party as our first line of attack against the treasonous left.
From the Tea Party movement will come a new political party, a Party of the Radical Middle. This will be Ross Perot’s old Reform Party under a new name and new management. I suspect it will go back to early American history and label itself the Federalist Party, or perhaps the New Federalist Party. Unlike Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which was a centralist party, this will be a party dedicated to genuine Jacksonian federalism. (Andrew, not Jesse.)
It will favor the Constitution in Exile, not the Living Constitution. It will favor states’ rights over federal control. It will favor low taxation, less government and taking many functions out of government hands altogether.
On cultural warfare, it will either dodge the issues of abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage by leaving them to the states (federalism), or finesse them by saying that the principles of small government should keep government out of people’s most private decisions.
On the Middle East war, it will stand for coming home, but defending the homeland itself against foreign religious fanatics.
It will take a stand -- with teeth -- against illegal immigration.
This party will owe nothing to the groups that make up the Far Left. There will be no attempt to woo poor blacks, teachers, homosexuals, radical women, and Greens.
Likewise, this party will owe nothing to the groups that make up the Hard Right. There will be no attempt to woo single-issue Evangelicals.
Political Independents have always disliked the fact that a Hard Left nominating electorate controls the Democrats’ nominating process and a Hard Right nominating electorate does the same with Republicans. They feel voiceless and abandoned by the two party system.
A party that can harness Independents and disaffected Democrats and Republicans will become the majority party overnight.
As far as I’m concerned this is a dumb idea. We have the republican party.......CLEAN IT UP......rid ourselves of the RINOS and the republican establishment....build the Republican Party into a conservative party. 3rd parties never go any place and today it is still a very bad idea.
What do term limits have to do with anything? If my representative is good on the other three, why kick them out?(voting is term limits, however it's seldom used, why?, I don't know)
Now, if you want to impose some limit on dynastic empires like Kennedy for instance, I'm with you. "No stinking relative of any long-term stinking Senator shall be allowed as a stinking candidate for anything in this stinking state, um, er, ah,er.", for instance.
Perhaps we have had “third parties” in the recent past, only they were not “officially” recognized as such. If you think about it, we had such a thing in the 1980’s, when a third party of sorts, called “The Reagan Republicans” elected the President of the United States. He had long coat tails too. Anyone who was similar in ideology to him was successfully elected to office too, up to and icluding 1994.
I’m for making non-major parties major parties. The duopoly in charge now is unacceptable.
How about an American Eagle?
“This has happened before. It can happen again.”
Please don’t dream.
If the Republican Party can’t win in places like North Carolina and Missouri, there is no way a conservative party is going to take places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I agree with you in spirit though; if we’re going to lose at the national level, better to go down articulating a clear philosophy. But never forget that winning is better than losing! We can totally take seats from socialists like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid in 2010. Kirk may take Obama’s old seat in Illinois— sometimes one has to put up with RINOs from socialist states to get votes for judges like Alito and Roberts.
Robust primaries. Challengers for every multi-term incumbent.
Get rid of the termers.
