Posted on 05/13/2002 8:24:05 AM PDT by sheltonmac
A strong third party that does have an effect when it has a very charismatic candidate. Thus d Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 had real impact.
But the logic that if A were not in the race, A's voters would vote for B is just not true. It is more likely that they don't vote at all. From the perspective of the right it appears that Gore is nearly as good for the Greens as Nader. But the Greens don't see that way. The left believes that Bush is nearly as attractive to the Libertarians as the Libertarian candidate. To the Libertarians there is zero difference between Bush and Gore. To the Naderites there was zero difference between Gore and Bush.
Third parties have an effect when they are able to paint both major parties as being identical. The true third party members really believe they are identical. Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 claimed that there was no difference between Wilson and Taft. So did Wallace and Thurmond in their third party attempts. Perot claimed that there was no difference between Bush Sr. and Clinton. Third parties never attract significant followers when the two major parties are in disagreement on their issues. Thus the conflict between Dubya and Daschle does not speak well for third party chances. All third parties disagree with the two major parties. But the issues upon which they disagree, must be one where the major parties agree, and a significant number of Americans disagree with the major parties. There is currently no such issue.
Most in the mainstream media have concluded that the Libertarians did not hurt Bush, but that Nader hurt Gore. It is not true but they believe it. As a result the MEDIA has decided NOT to cover 3rd party activities in 2002 and 2004. It will be very hard for a Green Party or Libertarian candidate to get a seconds worth of air time. You will find that all major media ignores third party activities this election cycle. They will continue to do so until the memory of the 2000 election fades.
There is no major issue to make a 3rd party popular. Third parties have to represent an attractive view neither main party accepts and they must have a very charismatic personality. Right now they have neither.
Only on the local and State stages. Federally? Fuhgedaboudit.
Reality check: A principled loser is still a loser.
It's just that simple.
Voting Libertarian won't do the trick for getting what you want.
Go ahead and call us losers. By all means continue to elect candidates that violate the Constitution.
I'm not telling you not to. I'm not trying to influence your party, it's beyond redemption. You can have it.
But don't whine when your party loses a close election because you don't have our votes. Lost control of the Senate? Tough. You make your decision at the primary where R's nominate police-state candidates. Decisions have consequences. Deal with it. If calling us losers makes you feel better, have at it. Just don't expect votes.
It's true that there's now a run on the Treasury.
By the way, I'm NOT a Republican.
You have a better idea? Don't keep the big secret. Let us in on the big plan to reclaim constitutional government.
Listen, I'm not calling anyone out of their names. But the point still stands. Your refutation to what I said is not really a refutation at all.
The fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, a principled loser is still a loser. What's so hard to understand about that?
What good is a loser to the game? If you are not in office, it doesn't matter what you believe.
If you think that's calling you and yours out of your name, I can't help that. It's not my intention, but I still can't help it.
A principled loser is still a loser.
There's no secret. But, face it. Libertarians are unelectable.
No matter how good and sound their beliefs, they WON'T get elected.
That's all I'm saying here. It's the truth, and you know it.
You mean Constitutional issues like the free and copious flow of mind-altering drugs?
Yep, that'll work.
Look at it the other way:
What good is it to get "your guy" elected, if all he does is damage? Think about it. Winning elections is great. But holding office is but a means to an end. If your 'end' is limited, constitutional government, even if "your guy" wins, you still have lost, every bit as much I have.
I'm thinking more along the lines of less spending for federal education programs, adherence to the Constitution when passing bills (CFR), and something less than an 80% increase in farm subsidies. But if you want to mischaracterize my positions so that you can demonize me and others like me, go right ahead.
The problem, here, is getting elected. Outside of a true revolution, things will remain the same if the right people aren't sitting in office.
Just plain winning isn't the answer. Who wins is of utmost importance. Therefore, doesn't it make more sense to place the right candidates into a position where they have a better shot at winning versus one where you know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell? I think so.
That's the way I see it too. Who would want to vote for a bunch of second rate imitation Democrats?
How about a little personal integrity?
Problem is, he's persona non-grata in the Republican party. He's making them look bad by comparison and they want him out.
The problem is that Republican party power brokers decide who gets the nomination before the primary. Instead of a place for debate and decision making, the primary then is reduced to a cheerleading session, and people like me are completely excluded from the process.
So what do we do? We make our own party. If our party causes damage to the R's and they lose elections, maybe they'll decide to open up the primaries. Until then, there's not much else to be done. I don't like it either, but that's reality.
Either way, I'll be damned if I'll vote for police state candidates. I just don't have it in me.
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.