Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The third party temptation discredits its candidates (and their ideas) [MUST READ!]
Townhall.com ^ | October 31, 2007 | Michael Medved

Posted on 10/31/2007 1:23:31 PM PDT by neverdem

The persistent American fascination with third parties and fringe candidates defies every lesson of history, logic, human nature and common sense. No minor party candidate has ever won the presidency or, for that matter, even come close. For the most part, these ego-driven “independent” adventures in electoral narcissism push the political process further away from their professed goals, rather than advancing their agendas or ideas.

Nevertheless, a clear majority of Americans (58%) in September, 2007, told the Gallup Poll that the two major parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed”, while only 39% agree with a statement that the established parties “do an adequate job of representing the American people.” A Rasmussen Survey (May, 2007) produced similar results, with 58% agreeing with the statement that “it would be good for the United States if there were a truly competitive third party,” and only 23% disagreeing. Among religious conservatives, prominent leaders talk openly of backing a kamikaze candidate if Rudy Giuliani becomes the GOP nominee, and a Rasmussen telephone survey shows a striking 27% of Republicans willing to back a “Pro Life Third Party” in the event that the former New York Mayor heads the ticket. In his illiterate and all-but-unreadable new book “Independents Day,” CNN’s fatuous fraud Lou Dobbs expresses similar eagerness to abandon the traditional two-party system. “Now I don’t know about you,” he harrumphs, “but fundamentally I don’t see much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats…The creation of a third, independent choice, one that has the concerns of American working people as its basis, is the way we must proceed.”

This unquenchable enthusiasm for new parties and marginal, ego-driven candidacies rests on a foundation of profound ignorance and unassailable historical illiteracy. Even a nodding acquaintance with the American past reveals uncomfortable...

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: history; michaelmedved; thirdparty; thirdpartys
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last
a long, but good read on the history and practical effects of third parties, IMHO
1 posted on 10/31/2007 1:23:34 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Wow, Medved really doesn’t care for Lou Dobbs, does he?

Third parties aren’t that good an idea, he’s right - theoretically, someone could win with two percent of the popular vote in a multiparty contest by manipulating the EC.


2 posted on 10/31/2007 1:32:37 PM PDT by Baladas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Jim Robinson; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg

27% back a Pro-Life Third Party.

Awesome!

They could win.

They are close to a third of the electorate and in this system a plurality wins...not a majority. They are only 6 points away from a third as it stands....

Since it would actually be the conservative Republicans involved in it, I’d call it the Conservative Republican Party and let all the disenchanted conservatives and Republicans know that in this is our chance to stand up against the rockefeller, elitist, anti-life, pro-gay, anti-gun new york liberal RINOs.


3 posted on 10/31/2007 1:32:41 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Dear Michael,

We tried our very best. Don’t you remember?

1994:

“The Republican Revolution is what the Republican Party dubbed their success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican.”

“The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952) under Republican Speaker Joseph William Martin, Jr..”

Love,
donna


4 posted on 10/31/2007 1:36:35 PM PDT by donna (Perhaps if republicans would adhere to the Bible’s first 10 Commandments they wouldn’t need an 11th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

There is precedence: Abe Lincoln and the birth of the Republican party. I think this nation is headed for a major political upheaval. The Republican party defies its conservative base at its own peril.


5 posted on 10/31/2007 1:42:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No, It’s not a MUST READ; Though Michael Medved does make some good, and interesting points!


6 posted on 10/31/2007 1:43:13 PM PDT by JSDude1 (When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

We are not “there” yet, a 3rd party is not really a national option, a state one certainly, a Senator or Gov.

REason being is the votes are to concentrated in a few areas, they would need much more of a spread.

It would reming me of Wallace’s failed bid, or Thurmond’s failed bid.


7 posted on 10/31/2007 1:45:20 PM PDT by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ No more miller brewing products, pass it on/Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Third parties are just a way for single issue voters to have a self-destructive temper tantrum on election day.


8 posted on 10/31/2007 1:47:23 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Good thought....it would be good to see how the Republicans of Lincoln’s era pulled off the upheaval.


9 posted on 10/31/2007 1:49:53 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Since it would actually be the conservative Republicans involved in it, I’d call it the Conservative Republican Party and let all the disenchanted conservatives and Republicans know that in this is our chance to stand up against the rockefeller, elitist, anti-life, pro-gay, anti-gun new york liberal RINOs.

Both Giuliani, Thompson Now In Toss-ups with Clinton

Don't get rapped around the axle. The main justification that I've seen for Rudy was that he was the only one who could who stood a chance against the neoCOM. That's not the case according to Rasmussen. Rudy alienates too many single issue voters. In states with open primaries Rudy won't get their votes.

10 posted on 10/31/2007 1:51:48 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: padre35

my guts tell me that there are pro-life conservatives, pro-life churches, etc., spread evenly throughout the population.


11 posted on 10/31/2007 1:52:03 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So far as I know, though, all but a few primaries are winner-take-all.

The conservatives are divided up between too many candidates.


12 posted on 10/31/2007 2:04:16 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Can't wait to see how many of the "stick your fingers in your ears and yell,"Na, Na, Na" folks show up and argue off the points.

Medved's argument are conclusive, historically accurate and compelling. Not only is he correct about the entire history of the third party concept, including the absolute failure of the third party to influence policy, but his argument that if you are unable to win the approval of a much smaller demographic which is basically sympathetic to you message, you haven't a ghost of a chance to win in the larger venue drives a stake through the heart of those who claim that a "true Conservative" will carry the nation.["Ghost of a chance;" "drive a stake through the heart of." Appropriate phrases for Halloween don't you think?]

Any egoist who proposes a third party candidacy just to "show those dang Republican" is merely assurring the election of Hillary Clinton to the Presidency.

Amen, Michael Medved.
13 posted on 10/31/2007 2:08:36 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I look at it this way..........If a third party were to be developed and developed correctly with the right people, either the Democrats or the Republicans would become the third party and meaningless. This would make it remain a two party system. A third party, developed after the election and utilized for 2012 would have time gain steam and give the people what they really want.....representation. It would take tons of work, but it could be done.


14 posted on 10/31/2007 2:16:37 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Medved’s article is based on the false premise there are two parties. The fact is the GOP has moved so far to the left in an effort to appease the socialist Democrats for the sake of compromise that the GOP ahs aligned its ideology with the socialists. They are essentially one party. Another party would restore the two party system.


15 posted on 10/31/2007 2:16:45 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Ignore history at your own peril. A separate "true conservative' third party run for the presidency will only garner a small percentage of the general electorate. It will max out at about 10-15% and merely make the election of the Democrat Party nominee a certainty and that nominee will almost certainly be Hillary.

Michael Medved has laid it all out there for you to see. The Republican Party is nowhere near the condition of the Whig Party of Lincoln's time and it will not fall apart in the face of a third party challenge.

A third party challenge will only strengthen the will and influence of the RINO's in the Republican party.

Medved's arguments have the weight of 220 years of history behind them. They are as close the irrefutable as any arguments can be.

The system will never be changed from the outside. It can only be changed from within.
16 posted on 10/31/2007 2:19:59 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Republican moderates changed the primaries to eliminate the conservative candidates:

For two decades, Republicans endorsed open primaries as a way to build a Big Tent by wooing indies and conservative Dems to the nominating process. The hope was that the newcomers would stick with the party for the general election and vote the ticket. The strategy worked, helping the GOP win control of state legislatures across the south.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_11/b3672071.htm


17 posted on 10/31/2007 2:29:34 PM PDT by donna (Perhaps if republicans would adhere to the Bible’s first 10 Commandments they wouldn’t need an 11th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
The system will never be changed from the outside. It can only be changed from within.

Exactly, we've got two choices, run away from the problem, or get involved, and fix the Problem from within.

18 posted on 10/31/2007 2:35:37 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Gosh. I hadn’t given serious thought to a third party.

But, if Medved is agin it, I might have to give it some consideration...


19 posted on 10/31/2007 2:40:04 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
A third party challenge will only strengthen the will and influence of the RINO's in the Republican party.

Just how do you "strengthen" a position of 100% control?

20 posted on 10/31/2007 2:42:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

Stuff happens. We will not be supporting a liberal abortionist for president nor will we support a liberal abortionist Republican party.

I did not leave the party, it left me. — Ronald Reagan


21 posted on 10/31/2007 2:42:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
So far as I know, though, all but a few primaries are winner-take-all.

That may or may not be true. With no one receiving more than 50%, I think they may divide up delegates proportionately.

I'm referring to states that let registered Independent voters vote in the primaries. According to this story, only 24 states have closed or semi-closed primaries. Independent voters can get a ballot to vote in semi-closed primaries. The other states are apparently even less restrictive.

Supreme Court wrangles with 'crossover' primaries

22 posted on 10/31/2007 2:56:31 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump


23 posted on 10/31/2007 3:12:59 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; neverdem; Jim Robinson; P-Marlowe
If recent history has shown us anything, it's that the only time democrats can win is in a three-party race.

Teddy Roosevelt ran for the Bull Moose party in 1912, and thus threw the victory to the democrat, Woodrow Wilson.

In 1992 and 1996, Clinton did not receive a majority vote. If these had been two-party races instead of three, he would not have won. Democrats never can muster a true majority of the vote.

If a third party emerges in 2008, Hillary will be President.

24 posted on 10/31/2007 3:29:18 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Stuff happens. Hopefully the Republican party will not betray its conservative base and all this messy b/s can be avoided.


25 posted on 10/31/2007 3:35:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Should that eventuality come to fruition, then you will be following the path of all who have gone before you, relegating your most important issues to the status of a lower priority and giving power to those with whom you have the most disagreement within the Republican Party.

Ronald Reagan was not the be-all and end-all of Conservatism. He was a great man but he also had some bad ideas. I guarantee you he would be supportive of "civil unions" and very possibly, due to the proclivities of his son and many of his best friends, gay marriage.

I did not agree with his decision to pull the Marines out of Lebanon, but it doesn't mean that I didn't support his presidency. He won the Cold War, but he failed miserably in his choice of SCOTUS Justices.

Point is, there is no perfect candidate, never will be, but I do know the spawn of Satan when I see her and I will support anyone who will keep Hillary out of the White House, even if it means voting for Rudy.

I wish Duncan Hunter was a lot more dynamic and charismatic, but he isn't and he is not ever going to win the nomination. Neither are Tancredo or Paul. Huck Finn might have a chance but I doubt it. It is as inevitable as the sun's rising that it will be Mitt, John, or Rudy. Whichever of those wins the nomination, will be my candidate...anyone who stays at home will be as guilty of a Hillary victory as they would be if they actually cast their vote for Hillary.

Sorry JR, as I have said before, the service you do here is of inestimable value to the Conservative cause, but them's the facts as I see them.

I wish that John Cornyn or even Mr. Sessions was running...but they're not. More's the pity.
26 posted on 10/31/2007 3:35:51 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

The exception that proves the rule is 1980: the democrat lost in a three party race, primarily because Jimmuh was (is!) so profoundly detestable.


27 posted on 10/31/2007 3:37:24 PM PDT by Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

Sorry, pal, but without our unalienable right to life, none of our other rights stand a chance. This is a line we do not cross.


28 posted on 10/31/2007 3:38:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So? Medved is for making citizens of illegal aliens and dumping Mexicans on the American market. Considering that, this opinion is consistent with the above coming from the same source.

29 posted on 10/31/2007 3:40:23 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Your lips to God’s ear (and those in the voting booth.)


30 posted on 10/31/2007 3:45:07 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

lol. That’s about right. Anderson only got six million votes.


31 posted on 10/31/2007 3:51:29 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Maybe, as with too many inappropriate mentions of Hitler, too many irrelevant references to narcissism and masturbation make an argument suspect.

I'd agree that third parties are generally a bad idea, but Medved oversells his case.

Wikipedia tells us that in the 1854 elections the most seats were won by the "Opposition Party," which wasn't really a party at all. They were all the candidates opposed to the Democrats. Although they won the most seats, they didn't control Congress because they weren't organized. The Republicans probably were a third party at that time after the Democrats and the American (or "Know Nothing") Party.

I don't know what kind of a lesson you can draw from that, but far from discrediting ideas, third parties helped to make them respectable. Those ideas, from abolition of slavery to prohibition to direct election of Senators to women's suffrage to deficit reduction may not always have been good ideas in themselves, but third parties didn't hurt such causes.

Medved does have a point, though: if your ideas already are up for discussion, it probably isn't a good idea to form a break-away party. You only lessen your influence.

32 posted on 10/31/2007 4:02:06 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
I wish Duncan Hunter was a lot more dynamic and charismatic, but he isn't and he is not ever going to win the nomination. Neither are Tancredo or Paul. Huck Finn might have a chance but I doubt it. It is as inevitable as the sun's rising that it will be Mitt, John, or Rudy.

You failed to mention Thompson. Did you look at the link in comment# 10?

33 posted on 10/31/2007 4:05:38 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Yeah, yeah, my bad. But it must say something that I was one of the early bandwagon jumpers on for the Draft Fred movement, and I didn't even remember he is running. I like Fred, but he is going to have to do quite a bit more to win than he has done and he only has about 2 months to get it done.

Oh ye of little faith (talking about myself here). Yes Fred is a definite front-runner. Maybe the best chance for some sort of Conservative.
34 posted on 10/31/2007 4:27:53 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
So? Medved is for making citizens of illegal aliens and dumping Mexicans on the American market. Considering that, this opinion is consistent with the above coming from the same source.

Medved's argument about illegal aliens has nothing to do with the results of third party histories and their effects.

I used to be a member of NY's Conservative Party. I just changed my registration to vote in the GOP primary. I had only voted on the Conservative line with rare exception. If someone from this forum stays home or votes third party, and they think they doing anything except enabling the neoCOM, they are fooling themselves.

We are still paying for the damage caused by Perot's enabling of Clinton in 1992. Argue against and vote against Rudy in the primary. Say your prayers that he doesn't win the nomination. Whoever wins the other nomination will give you governance by moonbats.

35 posted on 10/31/2007 4:29:58 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins
27% back a Pro-Life Third Party.

That's 27% of the Republicans, about 10% of the electorate.

36 posted on 10/31/2007 4:34:58 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Ron Paul Criminality: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: x
Don't use Wikipedia for political references unless your life depends on it. If politics isn't involved I'll look at it as a last choice. Look at my comments 4 & 13 on that thread. You don't have to look at the article except to check me.

Bobby Jindal and the 'Southern Strategy'

37 posted on 10/31/2007 4:49:42 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
2. NO, THE REPUBLICANS NEVER CONSTITUED A THIRD PARTY
. . . By the time of the first Republican County Convention (in Ripon, Wisconsin, on March 20, 1854) the Whig Party had already collapsed and shattered, hopelessly divided between its Northern anti-slavery branch and the Southern “Cotton Whigs.” Refugees (including numerous Congresmen, Senators and others) from the Whig debacle determined to fill the vacuum and, joined by a few anti-slavery Democrats and former Free Soilers, they launched their new national organization. The first time candidates ever appeared on ballots with the designation of the new Republican Party came with the Congressional elections of 1854 and the fresh organization won stunning success from the very beginning. That very first year the Republicans won the largest share of the House of Representatives (108 seats, compared to 83 for the Democrats, along with fifteen Senate seats (including the majority of those contested in that election). In other words, the Republicans began their existence not as a third party, or even a second party, but as the instantly dominant party on the ballot.

. . . the election of 1860 hardly offers proof of the positive value of third (and fourth) parties, but rather illustrates their dangers. The four-way competition in the Presidential race contributed to the splitting of the union and the explosion of the national party consensus that had previously kept a divided assemblage of very different states from flying apart.

The real problem we face is that we have only one "legitimate" party. That is not a "Republicrat" party but the "objective journalism" party. Journalism is just talk, and the people who try to earn "credit" by being "in the arena" actually trying to accomplish things (in corporations, obviously, but also soldiers and policemen) are the natural targets of the second guessing of journalists (and plaintiff lawyers, union leaders, and academics).

"Objective" journalists promote the conceit of their own moral superiority, and that of their fellow travelers whom they call "liberals" or "progressives" even tho they are nothing of the sort. And "objective" journalists denigrate the morals and intelligence of the actually liberal, progressive people whom they style "conservative." We are "conservative" only of the freedom to do things differently than our fathers did them. Which freedom our fathers themselves also worked to conserve.

We become unhappy with Republicans because they do not charge headlong into the mouth of the PR cannon of the "objective journalism" party.

38 posted on 10/31/2007 6:19:29 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

IMO, anyone who would vote for a third party candidate and encourage others to do so (or stay home and not vote at all), has completely abandoned our troops by placing their chosen social issue on a pedestal above all else. We are still at war and our military men and women desperately need our support and a Commander In Chief who supports them and their missions too. I find it sickening and downright treasonous that anyone would abandon our troops, their missions and the WOT by helping a Democrat candidate gain the office of President of the United States. And yes, throwing a vote away by voting third party or not voting at all, is the same as voting FOR the Democrat candidate, IMHO.

Is it time to tell our military men and women that this forum has abandoned them because certain people on this forum have decided that they would rather make the abortion issue the litmus test in this next election? I am pro-life on the abortion issue too, but I am also pro-life when it comes to our troops and the rest of the good people in this world who are already born and living on this earth.

Can you even imagine someone trying to convince fellow Americans that they should make a social issue like taxes, or health care, or abortion, the most important issue to judge a candidate on when we were fighting WWII?

Don’t abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!


39 posted on 10/31/2007 6:47:29 PM PDT by rosehips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
That’s true but I worry that the peril to the nation if a lib dem wins the job of CIC is greater than anything even a RINO could do to us.
40 posted on 10/31/2007 7:19:44 PM PDT by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mimaw

Not if it destroys the Republican party and we never ever win another election. Giulani will NOT defeat Hillary.


41 posted on 10/31/2007 7:21:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I guess at this point in history my concerns are national security. I am pro life and at this time I am equally concerned for my 4 children and 8 grandchildren as I am for the unborn. I wish to hell we could field a candidate that was able to beat Hillary but so far our most conservative candidate is turning out to be a bit of a dud on the campaign trail and is not catching on. We have to depend on attracting a number of independents as well as moderates and it seems Rudy and Mitt have had some success at that. If we lived in a blissful peaceful and secure world I’d say teach them a lesson, but we don’t and I dread the thought of a bunch of lib dems running the country.
42 posted on 10/31/2007 7:40:07 PM PDT by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mimaw

Giuliani cannot and will not defeat Hillary.


43 posted on 10/31/2007 7:45:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; mimaw; Dr. Eckleburg

Those who insist on Giuliani will throw the election to Hillary. It’s that simple.

I’ll never vote for Giuliani.


44 posted on 10/31/2007 7:54:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; xzins

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-DSVE.phtml

The above link gives a fairly good description of each state, type primary, open/closed/modified, winner take all, etc.


45 posted on 10/31/2007 8:05:51 PM PDT by deport (>>>--Iowa Caucuses .. 64 days and counting--<<< [ Meanwhile:-- Cue Spooky Music--])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla; Dr. Eckleburg

You are correct that it says “republicans.” Probably a bit more than 10%, since likely voters will have voted in the last election, which the pro-lifers would have done.

27% of the Republicans is great, though. That’s polling higher than Rudy.

I am fully prepared to vote for a conservative Republican in the primary and write-in, if necessary, a conservative Republican in the general.

I will never vote for Giuliani.


46 posted on 10/31/2007 8:05:55 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: deport

Timely, thank for the link!


47 posted on 10/31/2007 8:19:44 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Dr. E. we agree on so much but here we must part ways. If the repubs expect us to be submissive abused wives and vote for a hellspawn just to beat Hillary I do not consider myself to be a republican. If I wanted to be part of a mindless voting block I would be democrat. Not that I have a problem voting for an non-Christian if he is a wise and just man. Luther said I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than an ignorant Christian. The New York mayor is neither wise nor Christian. As has been stated and I take no joy in saying it, the party has left me. THe ball is in the court of the repubs.


48 posted on 10/31/2007 8:37:46 PM PDT by strongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ron Paul is a wacko and dangerous but he will run for President under a third party ticket and do better than Perot. That is my prediction.

If the GOP nominates Rudy or another liberal, Hillary will be in the WH as Paul will spoil the day.


49 posted on 10/31/2007 8:47:54 PM PDT by free_life (Pro God is Pro life ~ ~ The Democrats are phony Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mimaw

Well said, mimaw. I am so thankful that in my personal life I don’t know anyone who doesn’t see that our national security is more important at this point in time than any other issue we face. That gives me hope that not everyone has their heads stuck in the sand of their pet issue of the year.


50 posted on 10/31/2007 8:49:07 PM PDT by rosehips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson