Skip to comments.(Vanity) Proceeding with a third party
Posted on 04/10/2012 4:52:33 PM PDT by Cato in PA
So its come to this.
Rick Santorum dropped out of the race earlier today, which leaves Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul in the running. By any reasonable estimate, Paul still doesnt stand a chance and Newt wont mount a serious challenge barring divine intervention.
Were left with Willard Romney the open socialist, who stands against everything we believe in as conservatives. There are many among us who refuse to vote for him. We who feel this way must unite behind a third party if were going to accomplish anything. If we dont, were no better than the party-line Republicans who cry about the need for change but do nothing about it.
JimRob hasn't called for a third party, and that's fine. I'm certainly not criticizing him. But if he won't, I will.
Id like to take a moment now to quash any lingering doubts you may have about the necessity or wisdom of doing this in case you've somehow missed my other posts.
1) We know Obama is a Marxist. Hell do bad stuff. Romney is a political weatherwane! Theres a *chance* that he might do good.
Wrong. Romneys conservatism is 100% rhetoric. If you want to know what the man stands for, look at his record. He ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost. He governed Massachusetts as a far-left radical, even going so far as to sign socialized medicine into law, a decision he defends to this day. He also defends the bailouts.
HE ADMITTED THAT HE IS A PROGRESSIVE. The vast majority of his judicial picks were far-left judicial activists. He lobbied Obama to adopt the individual mandate on a national level as late as 2009.
Nothing about Romneys record could even cast him as a moderate. He'll do nothing to stop our economic collapse, and with him at the helm, the Republicans will take the blame. You thought 2008 was bad? Just wait until 2014. How do you think President Jellyfish would stand up to a Democrat-controlled Congress?
2) Okay, so Romney is a liberal. But he and the other Repubs will HAVE to listen if we elect a Republican president!
Wrong. Weve fallen for this ruse time and time again. Even the historic Republican victory in 2010 didnt work in our favor; we got Crybaby Boehner and Moderate McConnell, who refuse to listen to us even when a Democrat president is in the White House.
Why would they suddenly toughen up on liberalism if we replaced a liberal Democrat with a liberal Republican?
3) No, no, we have to change the Republican party from within!
How many years have we heard this? How well has it worked out? Will it EVER work out? No, because the Rockefeller wing holds the reins of power and will never let them go.
Even after a historic Tea Party victory in 2010, nothing has changed. If that wont change anything, then how else can we achieve change at the voting booth?
4) But this is an election year, the WORST time to start a third party.
There will never be a good time. Most people dont pay attention to politics in off-years, so wed probably be ignored if we waited. If we do it during an election year, yes, were going to split the vote in certain cases.
Nobody ever said that change would be easy, but its necessary. If we do nothing, well be no better than the Mittwits.
We need to strike while the iron is hot so well get exposure. If we can get exposure, we can make progress. As difficult a fight as this will be, the only other option, trying to change the GOP from within, is a proven failure.
5) I think youre just a sore loser. You need to compromise and accept Romney even if hes not your perfect pick!
This isnt about purity; this is about principle. Part of politics involves compromise, which is why Ive said over and over again that Id vote for Santorum or Gingrich. Paul never really had a chance, so the question doesnt apply to him.
But part of compromise is having enough -principle- to know compromise becomes caving. And you know what? There are certain things that arent worth compromising over, like supporting an open socialist. These are the sort of distinctions that party-line Republicans are incapable of making. Theyve pulled the GOP lever all their lives, and they just cant imagine doing otherwise.
6) A vote against Romney is a vote for Obama.
Wrong. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for change in the only means still available to us: rebellion. Weve tried to get the establishment to listen to us for so many years, but our concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
Your continued support will only result in more of the same. You dont stop someone from abusing you in a relationship by staying with them if you can't resolve your differences; you leave.
7) It will be YOUR fault if we have another 4 years of Obama!
Dead wrong. If you want to blame someone for Obamas re-election, blame the establishment for backing a far-left radical who has sharply divided the GOP and destroyed voter enthusiasm nationwide. Turnout is abysmal and Willard looks even worse in the polls than John McCain did.
The GOP base has basically already given up. Its like 2008 but worse. If you want to vote for the person responsible for that, be my guest.
Now...we can talk about how angry we are, or we can do something about it. Lets start throwing some ideas around for how to proceed if the inevitable turns out to be true and Romney is the GOP nominee.
Should we try to create a new third party? Would an existing third party suffice? Lets discuss.
But.....he had his own money.
If Rush, announces tomorrow, he is ahead of Romney by 10 points. It become 43 Obama, 34 Rush, 23 Romney, give or take a few points. Or, make it Palin with the Koch brothers behind her. I think Jack Welch is too old, but someone like that. Trump, even though I didn't trust him to be a conservative, was in the running as a serious independent when he was out there for a while.
The strategy would be to outdistance Romney heading into the stretch, and then to convince the Rinos to throw in with the new party. If they don't, the new party can still win, because of the way our system is structured. What you need is a plurality in enough states to get to 270. All the states that Bush got in 2004.
Ironically, it is the exact formula used to elect Abraham Lincoln with something like 39 percent of the vote. As that 1860 election spelled the end of the Whig party, so the victory of the Tea Party could spell the end of Lincoln's party, which is fitting. The GOP has become the party of progressives who want to run corporations and manage the economy and the little people.
I would like to see this scenario play out, but the odds are long and time is fast running out. If no one steps up soon, the choice will be Mitt or Barry. I told myself last time that I would never vote for a RINO again, that if they did it to us again, I would not go along. Even then, I only supported McCain because of Palin, and because I learned more about Obama and knew he was a marxist. What will I do this time? If no one does step up this time, I have not decided whether the long term interests of conservatism and the USA will better be served by voting out Obama for Romney, or letting the GOPe get what they deserve. I will take some time to think about that one.
Let's hope someone steps up.
The Tea Party ABSOLUTELY is changing the Republican Party from within. The day I joined the largest Republican Party Executive Committee in Florida I took my oath with several fellow Tea Partiers standing beside me. And I've seen the influence of the Tea Party grow in surprising ways since then within the Republican Party (the long-time president of our own committee resigned her position to support Herman Cain - which was startling).
Maybe the change isn't as fast as we would all wish, but it is happening. It would be unfortunate if we didn't finish the job.
Logical contradiction. Working within a party can accomplish far more than any fringe party ever will.
“Why dont we start working on a strategy to put Mittens in a corner where he has to do the conservative thing just to stay in the race.”
If that was possible, I wouldn’t have written this. There is no way for us to affect the establishment from within because they hold the reins of power.
Too many people are looped in to the party-line mentality to make a donation boycott a reality. If it was, I’d support that.
Oh C’mon. You are obviously a plant. Not voting for Mittens? You’ve obviously come here to force 0bummer upon us.
Come to think of it, the owner of this site hates Mittens, too. Mr. Robinson is a plant! He started this site for the sole purpose of getting us all to vote for The Won by not voting for Mitt!
Oh, the humanity!
I’m an evangelical, and I’d have no trouble voting for Newt. His flat tax plan is fiscally conservative. Santorum is socially conservative. Either of those are acceptable compromises in my view.
Romney strikes out on both counts.
And this was the democratic strategy all along.
Get Romney the nomination and then push for a third party conservative candidate. This is exactly how the, ‘Little blue dress guy’, got elected twice without ever winning 50% of the popular vote.
I figure the Democrats figured out that the alternative media was putting out truth that conficted with their propaganda. Their response was the same as it was in the 60s: Take over the media. If they can’t block it, they can perhaps corrupt it, drive out the good people, and fill its channels with noise or more of their propaganda.
Free Republic was targeted after the Dan Rather-Bush NG forgery was in part revealed on FR. The ‘bots’ always have lots of spam loaded up to cut and paste into every thread.
They got to Charles Johnson on Little Green Footballs too. He was given an offer he could not refuse, and started kicking known and reliable people off. What they can no coopt, they destroy.
I wish we had a secret handshake or something. I guess Romney will have to be our secret handshake until something else comes along.
Wrong on facts. The Whig party had self destructed earlier than 1860. The Speaker of the House was Republican in 1856.
It was the Democratic party that self destructed in 1860, running no less than 4 candidates, each convinced that he had ‘the answer’ to the looming crisis.
Good for you and I've got just the candidate for you dumbass....maybe it will work this time. NOT!
I figure Mitt isn’t much of a Mormon. He only has one wife.
By contrast, Newt is much better, working on number three.
President is a management job. Chuck doesn’t have much experience with that. Neither does Newt (though he gets half a point for herding cats in the House). Neither does Ron Paul.
Of course if we want someone to do triage on the country, Dr. Ron Paul is your guy.
A third party is a total waste. Just look how the Libertarians do...who the heck will they run when Ronny Paul is gone?
Mitty is a total RINO piece of crap but it is what it is...I expect he will win and then WE THE PEOPLE will have to excersize our power and stay on top of him to stay right. OMG, if Allen West gets picked for Veep we have a winner!!
I’ll make a deal with you and everyone else here who thinks I’m wrong: show me how we can bring Willard Romney the open socialist in line with conservatism to any degree and I’ll reluctantly support him.
I’m not some unreasonable idealist; I said it wasn’t about purity from the start and I meant it. Hell, if Romney would stop defending Romneycare and adopt a flat tax plan like Newt’s, that would be enough for me to vote for him because that, at least, would make some significant headway into fixing the economy.
It’s the same rationale behind my support for Newt: he’s come out against the individual mandate and has a good plan for the economy.
Care to take me up on my offer?
“Ill make a deal with you and everyone else here who thinks Im wrong: show me how we can bring Willard Romney the open socialist in line with conservatism to any degree and Ill reluctantly support him.
Im not some unreasonable idealist; I said it wasnt about purity from the start and I meant it. Hell, if Romney would stop defending Romneycare and adopt a flat tax plan like Newts, that would be enough for me to vote for him because that, at least, would make some significant headway into fixing the economy.”
Every time I see that mug, I’m reminded of 9-11.
Almost every person in the history of the world who set out to achieve great things had some bozo in his ear telling him it couldn't be done. You are that bozo, telling all that there is no alternative to the socialist-Lite (tm) party for a conservative. There is, but it takes vision to recognize that, and it will take serendipity and a great person or persons to bring it about.
The libertarians fail because no one likes what they believe. Not the whole package, anyway.
I don’t think Romney is an open socialist.
Romney care was a state requirement to buy insurance, in response to a federal requirement for Emergency Rooms to treat anyone who walks in. What were the alternatives?
1. let ER go bankrupt.
2. put ER workers in jail for violation of federal law.
3. enslave ER workers, forcing them to work on people who can’t pay.
4. steal from people with insurance, making them pay for people without.
5. fine people without insurance, and fine them enough to cover the ER costs they run up.
6. fine the people without insurance, but not enough to cover the ER costs- subsidize with other tax money.
7. invent a government program to pay for all health care.
Of those options, 5 sounds the most conservative to me, and it is the best description of Romney care. 6 is the Obamacare option, forced after 7 didn’t fly.
The Republican party didn’t break off from the Whigs. The Whigs failed, and the Anti-Nebraska party was built up from its ruins, with a number of anti-slavery Democrats.
Why not do that again? Because there was a lot of bad that happened between the failure of the Whig party and the election of Lincoln and the Republicans. We would save our nation that pain.
“Lord, send us the cure. The sickness we have already.”
Newt is your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Party Candidate!
Wake the # up, people!
Here is a technique:
Vote for Mitt. He gets elected.
Vote for (R) for Representatives. A majority get elected.
Vote for (R) for Senator. A 60% majority get elected.
Then we can put through legislation that is all (R) and the liberal wing of the party will have to cater to the most conservative wing of the (R) party.
That is essentially what happened in 2008, except with a (D) instead of a (R) and the liberals/socialists rather than with the conservatives.
Imagine: doing away with the EPA. How about the DEd. Perhaps even cutting back on the regulations from HUD that prevent cities from adjusting to modern conditions. Throw in a conservative supreme court justice or two, but one as stellar as Thomas is unlikely.
I read your posts. Many false extrapilations.
All in favor of surrendering your right to bear arms
All in favor of Free Republic, click here.
or mail checks to:
Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
If we threaten to withhold support from Romney but don’t rule out voting for him in the general, it will give us leverage over him and the party.
I disagree that President is a management job. It is a vision job. There is so much machinery in place, the only “management” needed is picking a handful of folks who share you, um, VISION.
Mitt has no vision.
Any chance Sarah Palin could jump late into the primaries and take enough delegates to keep Romney from his expected coronation?
We have certainly reached the point of desperation.
A brokered convention sounds better all the time ... and it sounds MUCH better if Sarah has a shot at the crown!
some of us put our energy into the primary fight. If we cannot dominate these low turnout events (IA = 120k, NH = 220k, etc.), winning an election with 100 million voters ... ???
That is why a bunch of us were doing the stuff, phones, windshield flyers, door-to-door, signs, etc. in the December of New Hampshire and the caucuses of Maine .... cause that is where the grassroots can matter.
I spent my wad already. Who’s well rested for a 3rd-party pipe dream.
GO NEWT. CT-RI-PA-DE-NY in 2 WEEKS.
Does that mean Jim Robinson is a “plant” since he doesn’t support Romney? ( Jim...copied you on this since I mentioned your name)
So in your world are you an Obama “plant” if you don’t enthusiastically agree to support the father of socialized medicine in America?
Does that mean you are a “plant” if you don’t like Romney’s support of Planned Parenthood, gun control, global warming, forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraception, higher taxes, liberal judges, wealth redistribution?
If so...I guess I’m a plant.
I’d rather have a liberal than a traitor in office.
But Romney’s going to lose anyway.
the guy in the office with me said:
people who live in PA, 2 weeks before the PA primary, and they are online discussing the general election and who they are going to run for Pres in Nebraska and TN and SD ....
he said, “people like dat are not really involved in politics.”
In any case, if Romney wins, we're in no better shape than we are now, the decline only slows its pace. Romney will never pick a conservative for the Supreme Court, so that rationale is pointless, IMO.
I stated this a long while back, it is time to start a new party that reflects the values and principle of conservatives. It will not be a quick fix, and it will not have much of an effect on this election, but you have to start somewhere, and since the GOP is simply now the moderate arm of the DNC, it needs to be replaced, period.
Considering the current makeup of our electorate, I do not believe that the ballot box will ever again be useful in returning this country to a prosperous path, so this discussion is pretty much moot at this point, IMO.
The problem with that is that very few people are willing to commit to the prospect of not voting for Romney. People who don’t go nearly as far as I do have already been mocked and attacked for even suggesting it.
How do you - we - get Republicans to change their minds?
I remember the 1992 run by Perot very clearly and I attended a Perot rally in June of that year in Boston. At that time, Perot had incredible momentum and actually led the Republican and Democrat candidates in national polls.
I do not think Ross Perot was insane or a "crazy uncle". Somebody got to him. I'm not normally into conspiracies but I think there is some validity to the notion that there is a "shadow" government that dictates who can and can't reach positions of power at the national level and that they have the ability to destroy those who seek such power without their backing.
I thought it was rather odd that the Perot candidacy imploded that summer in such a bizarre manner. That was not the Ross Perot that built billion dollar companies and paid commandos to rescue his employees who were taken hostage in Iran. I also thought it odd that Sarah Palin did not seek the presidency this go-around even though the GOP nomination was apparently hers for the taking.
If I were a liberal Democrat, I’d be hoping conservatives would follow your plan.
Wouldn’t we have rejoiced if the Hilary supporters had gone third party and split the liberal vote? It would have been McCain in a landslide.
They were smart; they didn’t do it. Will we be stupid?
Are you saying that the people who became Republican weren't Whigs previously? Were there not two main parties, the Whigs and Democrats, before the Republicans? Some of the Whigs probably went to the Democrats, sure, but since the Whigs were mainly in the north, and the Republicans came to dominate in the north, wouldn't it make sense to conjecture that the base of the Whig party became Republican?
And although the Democrats split into several factions, Lincoln would have had enough electoral college votes to win the Presidency even if the Democrats only had one candidate. He swept the northern states, and in those states, even if you combined the Democrat votes, he still would have won.
What a third party would have to do is defeat Obama in states with 270 electoral votes. Take Texas for example. If Obama gets 38 percent in Texas, the Tea Party candidate would just have to carry 39 percent to win the electoral votes. Mitt could have the rest.
What tends to happen in these races is that the party that is in third place fades a lot at the very end, as people want to vote for one of the 2 candidates with a chance to win. If it is 33 to 20 between Tea Party and Mittens on October 15, you might see a lot of movement to Tea Party, and Mittens fade to 10. If it's the other way around, the opposite would occur. Either way, it can be enough to defeat Obama.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is always the choice in elections. Who did you think the GOP was going to nominate? Reagan? Dream on. The fact of the matter is, Romney looks to be our only choice because he’s the last one standing.
Don’t shoot yourself in the foot. Voting for a third party candidate or nor voting at all because you’ve got your knickers in a twist about the GOP candidate, is a certain formula for re-electing Obama. Use your head and support our guy. Focus on the target and goal in November....to get Obama out of office. Worry about you ego some other time.
FR is still having trouble facing the fact that the GOP is dead...and hates them with a passion...so much so that the Republican party actively WORKS with Dems to marginalize, defeat, and destroy the reputations of conservative candidates AND their families.
I thinks it is a pathology called “battered wife syndrome”.
I have been saying this since October 5.
The country is split - 40% conservative, 30% communist, 30% moderate.
Due to skillful propaganda by he communists, it is hard to get the moderates we need to go from 40 to 51.
Let Romney and Obama split he moderates and communists, while a real conservative takes the White House with 40%. Most states allow plurality awards of electoral votes.
If you have a cunning plan to take over the country, then demonstrate first how well it works by taking over one of the two main parties.
Until then, I will doubt.
I am saying that the Whigs died first. The Anti-Nebraska party came next, eventually to be renamed the Republican Party.
If the Democratic party had something like a message, they might have won a few northern or western states. They didn’t, so they didn’t.
My limited understanding is the Tea Parties got significant gains against the Democrats because they focused on Taxed Enough Already, and didn’t raise the social conservative issues as a litmus test for candidates. People agreed with them, and voted for them, and refused to get distracted.
They won because of that.
I am sure the social conservatives have a different view of things.
Way to get lost in tangents.
How many years have we heard this? How well has it worked out? Will it EVER work out? No, because the Rockefeller wing holds the reins of power and will never let them go.
Well, then take the power from them. I don't know how it is in PA, but here our republican party committees are elected through precinct delegates. They vote for the party leadership at the county level and vote for the state delegates who choose the state leadership. It takes hard work, patience, and organization to change the party. If everyone who complained about GOP-E actually worked hard and worked smart to change GOP-E, we'd get somewhere, slowly and surely. Instant gratification doesn't work in politics.
3rd parties haven't won much of anything in 150 years. They don't have the organization or support to do anything. Even dissident elected officials failed to do anything as a 3rd party. Teddy Roosevelt is on Mt Rushmore and he failed as a 3rd party candidate. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond couldn't even contend. Ross Perot didn't win a single state with his millions. Pat Buchanan and Bob Barr got nowhere. John Anderson got nowhere.
It takes more than one election cycle and party leadership cycle to change the GOP, which is much bigger than one lousy presidential candidate.
How's it going to do that? How is it going to get on the ballot in 50 states, get a plurality of house seats, senate seats, state legislatures, county offices, not to mention a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency?
There is, but it takes vision to recognize that, and it will take serendipity and a great person or persons to bring it about.
Which is why it hasn't been done, isn't done, and won't be done in the future. It's the problem with most people in politics in the first place. Impatient, lazy people who want others to do all the work.
I remember when Pat Buchanan was very popular at FR and got 0.5% and could have cost GW Bush the 2000 election.
The way I sees it—If Mittens blows it and falls to Obama—the guts should be ripped out of the GOP and a new party formed. We have 3 choices:
1. Take over the Republican Party from within and change it to something we want. This can be done with an inside group within the party. The George Washington Club or the Sons of Liberty Club.
2. Abandon the GOP and take over an established 3rd Party—like Reform, Constitution Party, or Conservative Party, etc...
So many joining could make them a national party with clout.
3. Start our own party—with our own standards emblems, goals and mascot—Suggested symbols? The Grizzle Bear as a Mascot, Name The American Tea Party, or Liberty Free Party. Goals: Ban partial Birth Abortion, Repeal the 13th Amendment, and a balanced budget. Any other thoughts?