Posted on 11/15/2014 6:33:51 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Hillary Clinton has a sneaky plan to become the next president — get a conservative third-party candidate in the race to draw votes away from the Republican nominee.
Clinton campaign strategists have concluded Hillary will easily be nominated in 2016, but cannot win the general election in a head-to-head matchup, Richard Turley reports on orbmagazine.com.
“They are reaching out to Wall Street allies to do ‘black-ops’ funding for a run by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Herman Cain,” a source told Orb.
Hillary’s approval rating is stuck at 43 percent, not enough to win a two-person race for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pagesix.com ...
Ted Cruz should preempt this move, and run as candidate from the Free Republic Party...FRP or some other nomenclature that expresses our countries roots.
As part of his campaign he/we can educate the people in the difference between a Democracy and a Free Republic, acting like a democracy is what got us in this mess, but we must start now.
By the time the GOP primaries are over, every single candidate will have said something that causes some group of Freepers to shout "RINO! Outcast! Unclean!"
Be careful what you wish for.
If enough ole Reagan Democrats, Republican Tea Party, and Independent types ever get together, they could form a coalition that could defeat both leftist/lib/progressive Democrat and GOPelite nominees.
Unless and until such a coalition ever forms, we will see more-of-the-same, status quo, moderate candidates who push more government regulations, more government agencies, open borders, etc.
Perot voters are arch conservative salt-of-the-Earth patriotic Americans. Perot himself turned out to be a clown but at the time he was making a lot of sense and was reflecting the hostility that conservatives had against GHW Bush (Bush I).
Your gripe should be directed to GHW Bush and his ring of RINOs. They are the ones that threw aside the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Perot voters were Reagan supporters and were quick to see what Bush was aiming to do; New World Order, North American Union, etc.
It is unfortunate that the division gave Clinton the chance to get into the White House without a majority but a 2nd term of Bush would have brought worse; why?
Because it was the Perot movement that helped boost the conservative takeover of Congress in 1994, the first time republicans were able to control the House in more than 40 years. That would never have happened in a GHW Bush 2nd term.
And it was conservatives and Perot voters that voted in GW Bush (Bush II) in 2000 because he was thought to be much more conservative than his father and he had stated that his father had been wrong about many things and had made mistakes. He fooled conservatives but his kind won’t fool them again. For example, Romney is a closet progressive of the worst kind and he didn’t fool Perot voters who refused to vote for him and cost him the election.
Now the national GOP knows that conservatives are wiser, getting smarter and are growing. Fat chance there will be a Jeb Bush, a Romney or any other RINO nominated for 2016.
Conservative republicans need Perot voters who number 6 million plus and to get them they need a conservative nominee like Ted Cruz.
Battles are lost and won but it’s the war that needs winning. Don’t snipe at Perot voters for doing the right thing against the RINO class that has serfdom in mind for the likes of you!
Libertarian Gary Johnson former gov. of New Mexico said he was going to run for president in 2016 as a third party candidate
Yeah keep on Grubering!
It works both ways. Ralph Nader, anyone? Don’t forget the Mother-Of-All Democrat vote stealers: George Wallace in 1968. Got Nixon elected.
That’s a straw man, since the GOP has nominated candidates in the last two presidential elections who are at their core hostile to everything of importance that conservatives stand for.
Name calling?
Conservatives are going to wipe the floor with the likes of your kind come 2016.
You can stick your Romney and Bushes where the Sun don’t shine.
If the GOPe forces a Bush or a Christie down our throats again then a conservative third party run is not outside the realm of possibility.
I voted for Bush and not Perot.
But seriously, Clinton or Bush?
In a country of over 300 million that is the best we can do?
Clinton or Bush explains much of the problems/misery of the past 20 years.
It's amazing, isn't it? Time and time and time again, the GOPe shoves lousy, unappealing candidates down the throats of their erstwhile supporters. Why? Because the leadership has an ear only to their crony capitalist financial supporters; therefore, they continue to ignore what could be their natural base.
Nestled comfortably in their little echo chamber, the GOPe believes that conservatives will fall in line and vote for their lousy candidate, just like the majority of blacks do in the DemocRAT Party. And when it doesn't happen, whose fault is it? The GOPe with the tin ears to their constituents? The GOPe with no consideration for the country's future? NO! It's those "Kamikaze Conservatives" with their stupid "purity".
The flaw in your thinking is that many million registered Republicans voted for Mitt because they seriously thought he was the best candidate.
It really wasn't secret mind control rays from Karl Rove's attic.
The conservative base isn't only not a majority in the country, it is arguably not a majority of the GOP electorate.
We need to make the base bigger.
Hitlery should fund fatso or jebbush for GOPe, then a 3rd party candidate will organically appear.
Part of the problem has been our self-pride. Self-pride is boasting in ourselves, rather than in boasting in what God can and does do.
With self-pride will come perfectionism, and with that, effective men with checkered backgrounds will start to be screened out. It was dismaying to see the lead up to the 2012 presidential race. Freepers and Americans in general bashed one another over the head about Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and a host of other people all of whom would have seriously gone after Barack Obama’s political hide and any of whom we would have been glad to have in the White House rather than Barack. Because, oh, that person has such a stark weakness somewhere. And so Mitt, acting a consummate mush, slipped in, and proceeded to lose.
I’ve seen what looks like a bit of a better approach this time around. Start rooting for a dream team which could take various configurations but which cluster around approximately the same set of notable men and women. Let the politicians themselves carry on their own battles, their own vying for dominance. The constructive conciliator is more likely to win.
What she is really looking for is the Republicans to nominate Jeb.
That would be the perfect description of your beloved Establishment RINOs.
We don’t need a “progressive” of either party. Not Clinton, Warren, Biden, Sanders, or Cuomo. Not Bush, Romney, Christie, or their ilk either.
It’s not about some “purity test”, as you and your ilk well know. It’s about moving the ball in our direction, beginning the journey to restoring constitutional government, not just running Big Government for a while with marginally different ends than the Dhimmicraps.
I’m really tired of Republibots.
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.