THE THIRD PARTY HILLARY NEEDS... TO WIN: FLIM FLAM SCAM (Perot Redux)

jonchristianryter.com ^ | 6.18.06 | Jon Christian Ryter

[John Lenin]

It ain't gonna happen. The new media will expose them.

[AntiGovernment]

Ummm...only the Legislative Branch can raise taxes. And, as I recall, we had a Democrat controlled Congress at that time.

The executive can PREVENT tax increases by VETO-ing a bill. The Republicans in Congress were backing him up on this, so sustaining the veto should not have been a problem.

And, as I recall again, Bush's quote was "Read my lips, no NEW taxes".

Yep, it depends on the definition of 'new'. /sarc

[Mia T]

You agreed. And then you proceeded to disagree.

That attitude, that rigidity, is PRECISELY what the clintons and the Left are counting on and will exploit.

[GoDuke]

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. HE shall hold HIS office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

HE, HIS.

[Lunatic Fringe]

That dog don't hunt.

[adorno]

I don't think we should be so paternalistic to say that the voters should learn a lesson. Just nominate someone for whom conservatives can vote, maybe even while holding their noses, not another big spender like president Bush.

Let's not conveniently forget that the person in power had to go through primaries where the people voted. And the person that leads a party's ticket in the general election is the person selected in those primaries. If the person elected, Bush and the RINOs in congress, are not exactly what we expected, then the errors can be corrected though the primaries. It is in the primaries that republican voters need to make sure that conservatives are selected to run in the general election. If by chance RINOs get elected, then we have to wait for the next primary to correct the mistakes. But, you don't correct the mistake by making an even bigger mistake and electing the opposstion by default, because you feel angry at the current crop of republican representatives or the president.

And, what happened in 1994 is probably never going to happen again. If democrats get control again, then expect them to do whatever it takes, including illegal means, to keep that power.

[Common Tator]

Spliting a parties votes with third party candidates does not always work.

Yes Teddy Roosevelt did elect Woodrow Wilson.

Robert LaFollette was not a factor in the 1920s either. The Democrats did not win but the republican always got more votes than the Democrats and Progessive party combined.

Strom Thurman could not defeat Harry Truman.

However in 1968 George Wallace may have elected Richard Nixon.

In 1980 John Anderson could not defeat Ronald Reagan.

Perot claims to have defeated Bush Sr. in 1992 and Dole in 1996.

In 2000,Pat Buchanan could not defeat W Bush.

Third party candidates are a mixed bag. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not.

With rare exceptions third party candidates draw voters that normally do not vote at all. These are the people who do not see a nickels worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. When they don't have a third party candidate to vote for those that do vote tend to split their votes between the Republican and Democratic candidated. Think about it.. If you genuinely think there is not a dimes worth of difference, how would you vote?.. Flip a coin?

[Mia T]

I don't know about the data, but the logic seems reasonable to me....

As for Zell Miller being 75, he seems younger mentally and physically than many people half his age.

[evad]

By the way Zell Miller would be 75 in 2008.

And a feisty rascal he would stiil be.

I'd vote for him...as long as Condi was VP.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Pat Robertson?

[evad]

Yep, it depends on the definition of 'new'. /sarc

heh..yeah!

As Rush would say, a distinction without a difference.

[AntiGovernment]

Yes, there are primaries. But 51% of the party can select someone who is completely unacceptable to 49% of the party, splitting the party. I want the GOP to nominate someone who is acceptable to 90% of the party.

[Mia T]

you don't correct the mistake by making an even bigger mistake and electing the opposstion by default, because you feel angry at the current crop of republican representatives or the president.

bump

In the end, we've got to rid DC of the professional politician.

[adorno]

I want the GOP to nominate someone who is acceptable to 90% of the party.

And if the primaries don't result in a candidate that satisfies all of your republican ideals, does that mean that you would withhold your vote or vote for a third party, thereby creating the possibility of the true opposition, someone who is complete opposite of your ideals, to get voted in?

[Mia T]

Yes, there are primaries. But 51% of the party can select someone who is completely unacceptable to 49% of the party, splitting the party. I want the GOP to nominate someone who is acceptable to 90% of the party.

And who might that be? And will that person, if he exists, be acceptable to 51% of the electorate?

[SunkenCiv]

I'd never noticed before how much Zell Miller resembles the late Myron Floren.

[b9]

People have to be suicidal to vote for the Dems.

There, that's better.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Another fine post by Mia T. Thank you.
[ck keywords]

[AntiGovernment]

And if the primaries don't result in a candidate that satisfies all of your republican ideals, does that mean that you would withhold your vote or vote for a third party, thereby creating the possibility of the true opposition, someone who is complete opposite of your ideals, to get voted in?

No. At least, not necessarily. Conservatives voted for president Bush the big spender and open borders guy in 2000 and 2004, without even a hiss. Disagreement with a few issues is not enough to abandon a nominee. But I also disagree with reckless party-line voting. Generally, I adopt the following test: I will vote for a candidate who is not perfect, but good (in terms of ideas). However, I will not vote for a candidate whose only credential is that he is the lesser of the two evils (except maybe when the other is REALLY evil).

[Sic Luceat Lux]

As Hillary Clinton prepares for her unconstitutional run for the roses in 2008, she is facing three major hurdles.

I'll add a fourth:
Hillary / Chinagate