Posted on 04/30/2009 10:15:22 AM PDT by fiscon1
I think you misunderstood me. I’m no longer in the GOP. I’m now an Independent affiliated with AIP...America’s Independent Party (I’m the national chairman).
We make our political affiliations and candidate nominations and endorsements without regard to party label, choosing instead to make these critical electoral decisions based on principle, and proven adherence to principle, instead.
No, it isn’t in my mind. If she is going to be the ‘face’ of the party based on what she says and the ammo she gives the opposition then the party has problems. She comes across as an idiot.
Getting rid of RINO’s is the best way to avoid a Third Party split.
That includes ridding ourselves of the Gingrich’s also. He holds a lot of responsibility for Republicans backing down when we had the Dems on their knees.
I agree and his silly pandering to global warming lies with Nancy on the White House Park Bench solidified him as a non-entity in the upcoming fight for conservatism.
Hoot-Smalley attributed to FDR
(Actually, the Hawley-Smoot Act was a Repub bill that was signed by Hoover)
Swine Flu happening under democrats
Actually the one in the 1970’s happened under Ford
Someone tell this broad to STFU and stop making an ass out of herself. If you want to tell me to bite your ass because you need to worship an idiot who votes conservative then hey, enjoy watching your reruns of Dumb and Dumber tonight. Try not to identify too much now, ye hear??
Yep, the Swine Flu fiasco in 76, was largely responsible for Ford losing the election to Carter (along with his stupid “Soviets don’t dominate Poland” gaffe).
Of course the stink of Nixon and the hangover of the Vietnam war didn’t help either......
Ok. So while these fools point fingers, all of them ignore the huge destructive implication that Obama’s policies are wrecking.
The GOP has not got a single clue or is run by a bunch of irrelevanticime cowards.
...The only thing left to laugh about. Now, they want third party support, HELL NO!!!
To begi with:
Limited Government, States’ rights, national defense, & freedom
With all due respect, that argument has been debunked. Perot took an equal portion of Democrat as Republican votes.
Bill Clinton NEVER got a majority vote.
“Third Party” candidates SPLIT the Conservative vote.
“Third Party” candidates SPLIT the Anti-Liberal vote.
You need to “debunk” yourself -— you are drinking the “divide and conquer” Koolaide that the liberal MSM and the Democrats want you to drink.
Numbers, primarily. If you'd like to read some actual analysis, this is an excellent page: Leinsdorf.com
Three samples from that page:
In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.
Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.
This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.
“Coat tails” do matter, and you can not know how those voters would have voted, if Perot was NOT on the ballot -—
People absolutely do NOT vote straight ticket, much of the time. There are always more people voting at the TOP of the ballot than vote for the bottom of the ballot/state legislative candidates. However, it is a political fact of life that, for an incumbent, there is a “pro incumbent” vote and an “anti incumbent” vote, so that Perot split the “anti incumbent” vote, considerably, to the benefit of CLINTON! Beyond the obvious Perot mess, there have been countless times that Conservatives split the conservative vote, handing an election to the liberals.
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.