Then we'll have two democrat parties, if we don't already. 
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 ...
There are those who say there is no such thing as a "conservative media" and the fix is in for Hillary's Presidency. By pushing Giuliani as the nominee, the path is well-lighted for evangelical Christians to withhold their votes as Giuliani's many negatives are splashed in our faces for the next 12 months, all of which puts Hillary and her evil consort back in the White House.
Conveniently, those who fabricate history will pronounce that it was those stubborn, uncompromising Christians who lost the Presidency for their party, thereby further weakening whatever clout the religious right still has.
Falwell's gone. I haven't heard anything from Pat Robertson lately.
The question we need to be asking is why can't someone like Duncan Hunter pick up any traction? He's a perfectly reasonable candidate. Even Huckabee doesn't look so bad.
If the press says Giuliani is the front-runner enough times, people will believe it and vote accordingly. Sadly, we most often do what we're told.
And the bad guys know this.
Then we'll have two democrat parties, if we don't already.
A third party challenge will only strengthen the ... influence of the RINO’s in the Republican party.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Worth repeating...
Hillery will require triangulationJust as Bill won w/ Perot as the third party
Whoever wins the other nomination will give you governance by moonbats.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
LOL... How so very sadly true. Embarrassed I even laughed.
Very well stated position - that third party thoughts amount to abandoning our military.
Right... Obviously, I hadn’t read the whole thread when I responded to you... Sorry. Your point about that 27% “higher than Rudy” is a good observation, too - though I think RealClearPolitics “average” is a bit higher than that... yep: Rudy=29% today. No matter the actual #’s, this situation is not good for Rudy. I really, really hope he does not win the GOP nomination - I don’t think for a second he is the only R able to beat Hitlery - but as you can easily surmise: I’ll be one of those pulling for him in the general if he does - and really trying to influence his judicial nominations and other policies when he wins it - ye ol’ “hold his feet to the fire”...
I hate being in this position...
I used to like Medved, but now that I think about it, he's always seemed to be a bit light in the loafers. I had always tried to just attribute that to his nerdiness.
Larry Craig has given me a new perspective on some these "fellas."
It is curious that no one has challenged his historical analysis.
No competition makes for arrogance, which, in politics, is expressed by candidates in monopoly parties as just doing what they want knowing constituents have no choice.
At least Rudy has changed his tune regarding the appointment of originalist judges and the Second Amendment. Do I believe him? Not necessarily, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the unlikely event that he wins the nomination.
Should all the folks I have heard say they'll hold their nose and vote voted for a third party, that would clean up the arrogance fast.
Do you want another Clinton administration at this point in world affairs?
Win? Lose? The election of national leaders is not a football game. You can "feel good" that "my team won", until "my team" stays on the same repressive path.
If you think that there's no difference between the two major parties, then I'm at a loss for words. The RINOs are still a minority in the GOP.
And if you vote for one of those disguised liberals, because he can win, instead of voting for a true conservative when it looks like he can't, you betray your franchise.
I never bought that argument. He sang a liberal tune in order to have a chance given the uniqueness of NYC politics. Now, he's at least singing a conservative tune now. He's a politician. What else is new? I'd rather give a chance to Rudy to prove that he really changed, than throw away a vote that makes sure that the Stalinists win.
I rarely read him. I came across this by chance. Maybe it is just you. Maybe not. But I couldn't argue against his historical analysis. That's the main reason I posted it.
If you don't think she is using triangulationYou underestimate the woman
Some have deep insight into these manipulations of the mind.
You vote for Giuliani, you put your imprimatur on his actions in office and take responsibility for them.
Not me.
This also applies to other folks with Dobson implying the endorsement of a third party nominee. The point of my posting the story is that a third party vote is a wasted vote. Get rid of the RINOs in the primaries.
Medved is missing the point COMPLETLY.
Lets be specific.
Giuliani IS the problem. If he wins the GOP nomination the race is over for the 25% of the people who will not vote for Giuliani under ANY cirucumstance. Giuliani is seen as a clone of Hillary.
These people view their vote as a personal statement to themselves. (see also you can’t lie to yourself because you always know the truth)
This is why the GOP primary IS the presidential race.
No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.
Giuliani comes with a virtual third party.
25-27% have stated they will not vote for the liberal clone of Hillary.
Giuliani IS Hillary.
thus,
No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.
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.