(Vanity) Proceeding with a third party

Cato in PA

[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.

[bert]

Only a sanctimonious fool calls for a third party.

[sarge83]

I would be content for a true two party system at this point...

Now we have liberal and liberal lite, some choice.