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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 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