Third Party run in 2012?

[bmbsqd]

I'm hoping for a true third party effort this time around. I think we have the chance unlike ever before to actually make it work. What I am worried about is that it will be nothing more than an attempt to split the GOP.

I will admit up front that I am a Palin fan. I am not saying I am ready to vote for her, but I like the cut of her jib (and other parts of her, too). :cool:

What I predict is about to happen is that Palin will stare down the GOP and threaten to split the party unless she gets the nomination. If she threatens to go 3rd party the GOP will have good reason to fear that she will pull so many votes from them that Obama will walk away with it.

But, I am not sure that will bode well for Palin in the end, as the GOP may well let her have it, believing no one can bear Obama in a second term and just wait for '16.

Regardless, I believe a good, strong 3rd pary effort is god for this country.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

the GOP may well let her have it, believing no one can bear Obama in a second term and just wait for '16.


I think that the President Obama is vulnerable in 2012. Even Democrats are admitting that Independents and conservative Dems are leaving in droves.

I'd like to see a vaible third party as well. Unfortunately, Palin seems to have too many of the same lightning rod issues as Hilliary Clinton without any of the credible service to be an effective third party standard bearer to me.

[MoonDog]

I'd rather see a true Independant run versus a split off. That just leads to back room deal making and the same ol' song and dance.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Two words regarding the effect of a third party candidate...

Nader 2000

The majority of Democrats felt that George W Bush was so unpopular that he wouldn't stand a chance against Gore... so some Democrats, disillusioned with their own party, cast their vote for Nader in the hopes of creating a viable third party if he received enough votes.

How many Nader 2000 voters in Florida regret their choice?

So conservatives considering supporting a third party, you have to ask yourself a question for 2012...
Which is more important to you...
defeating an Obama re-election or establishing a viable third party?

[FroggyRuminations]

Like it or not we have a two party system and anybody creating a third party that shares a significant portion of the platform of one of the main parties is only going to succeed in electing members of the opposing party. Third party governing victories are like unicorns, they do not exist.

Each party currently has a vast foundation of electoral architecture that their candidates rely upon to get elected. No third party can ever match this and in the unlikely event that some 3rd party candidate got elected to POTUS, they would be completely without that structural support and therefore unable to govern with a natural congressional caucus behind their policies.

The only way to go is to change the GOP from the inside and make GOP candidates kowtow to what the people are trying to get done. This should not be difficult to do considering the increasing unpopularity of Obama and the Democrats in congress.

My hope:tongue: is that this past year and the next one will serve as a splash of cold water to the face of the GOP that will give them the stones to release their inner conservative and not be afraid to attack this POTUS, Speaker, and Majority Leader for what they have done.

We are facing the prospect of a SEVERE economic downturn over the next few years that makes 08-09 look like a picnic. Once we can no longer sell Treasuries at stupid low bond yields to the tune of $2Trillion a year, those yields are going to rocket up/bond prices collapse and interest rates will blow through the roof. God only knows what happens after that, but Argentina, Zimbabwe, and Weimar Germany come to mind. This has never happened before where the world's reserve currency collapses. Unless Social Security, Medicare, and the Healthcare plan are cut to the bone, we won't be able to raise the capital in the bond market to pay for the liabilities without printing money and destroying the dollar. This is really bad. I don't think it can be stopped at this point either. I hope I am wrong.

[MakoZeroSix]

but I like the cut of her jib


By "jib" do you mean her inability to comprehend basic geography?

;)

[Stanley_White]

Petraeus.

[Xdeth]

wow, are we seriously going there already, I was just contemplating watching cable TV again.

[Abu Khalil]

...the current bi-party (Bi-Polar?) is not quite what the founding fathers intended...

[wowzers]

If a third party is established I don't see it being more conservative than the current GOP or more liberal than the DEM's. It will be some where in the middle.

[FroggyRuminations]

Petraeus.

Highly unlikely. Not only that, but he would be crushed by the media for staying on as Obama's CINCCENT and then mudsucking him in 2012. In order for him to not come off as a total backstabber, he would have had to retire last year.

The $64K question is will he face a primary challenge from a disgruntled Democrat like Ted Kennedy did to Carter in 1980?

The GOP nomination is Palin's to take if she wants it. A year ago I would have said that she was finished as a national politician, but now I'm not sure. She really is the only GOP candidate that can capture the 3rd party vibe and still get the support of the rank and file GOP which makes her very dangerous. She has a lot of work to do on policy formation, but then she has plenty of time. Taking America back to a "simpler" more conservative economic system is something that people will be desperate for in 2012. Once we wallow in hyperinflation for a year or two, the idea of revisiting Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare/food stamps, etc. will not be controversial. It will be essential and everyone will recognize that.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

I agree with your analysis of Petraeus but disagree with the Palin analysis.

Though Palin has much better PR than she did, she continues to have as much baggage as Hilliary. The GOP also has time to cultivate an alternative candidate...the question is will they? If they dont, they'll lose by default - Palin may carry a nomination from conservatives but would utterly fail in a general election.

The GOP candidate will need to have a clear message in order to win. Palin doesn't yet have one nor do many of the current crop of GOP potentials.

Just my 2 centavos

[Walken1]

I hope Palin runs in 2012. I'll get my checkbook out right now. Why? Because hopefully after the crushing defeat and humiliation she will retire to the private and tranquil woods somewhere near Aniak (pop 572).

Let's be honest...The GOP is not at it's most glorious peak right now, and it's because of Fruitcakes like Palin. She is not a serious candidate. And just because people may identify with her, or even share her views, certainly doesn't equate with her being qualified to lead the Free World.

Reagan wouldn't vote for Palin:biggrin:

[GPC]

Haig/North

[FroggyRuminations]

I agree with your analysis of Petraeus but disagree with the Palin analysis.

If the election were held today, you are absolutely correct. I do think that Palin has already undergone a dramatic change in her personal approval as evidenced by the enormous success of her book. I also believe that if she is successful in campaigning for Tea Party type candidates and they get elected, she will have gained a ton more credibility, positive exposure, and approval.

Ultimately, much of the success of a Palin candidacy is predicated on the failure of Obama as POTUS. At this point, I'd say he is "outperforming" expectations of failure by wide margins and that his spending policies have already doomed the US to a very serious economic crisis with the potential to collapse the $. Add to that the likelihood that his security policies end up precipitating another significant terror attack, and you have the formula for a monster backlash against this guy.

Like it or not, Sarah Palin is THE anti-Obama. Does she have baggage? Yes. But that will look like a backpack as compared to the steamer trunk that Obama is likely to find himself under in 2012.

No matter what, this is not going to be a boring few years people. I can guarantee you that.

[MoonDog]

If a third party is established I don't see it being more conservative than the current GOP or more liberal than the DEM's. It will be some where in the middle.

Duh huh, that might be what people are looking for. Polarization is cool for magnatic lab experiments but bad for the country, just my opionion...

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Palin would be creamed.
She's in a good position now where she can control her media.
Perhaps an RNC leadership position would be a wise future for her.
But running for office... she'd have to answer questions she won't like and be accountable for her statements... a burden that she doesn't have to bear as a private citizen, but would crush her as a candidate.

Plus she doesn't have the cross appeal to win over swing voters.
Her politics appeal to the Conservative base of the GOP and that's fine for winning a primary, but not a national election.

She's a quitter who played the gender card when things got tough.
She blamed everyone else for her own failings
She has made some dumbass statements and wild accusations that, as a private citizen, she doesn't have to explain, but as a candidate she would be forced to answer.

Bottom line for Sarah Palin...
She's got a cult of personality that is good for stirring up the Republican party, especialy from a safe position where she can control her message.
But as a national candidate... she would get her ass kicked.
It would be bad for her... and worse for the GOP.

The Democrats are praying Palin throws her hat in the ring because it would be a cakewalk.

[wowzers]

I honestly can't believe Palin is still in the national spotlight. She was nothing more than a failed gimmick to entice voters with vaginas who were going to vote for someone with a vagina regardless. The GOP was trying to cash in on the Hillary voters who just lost all the wind in their sails. Her book was destain to sell out because people now view politics like a sports team. Also the number one reason why she should be a candidate is the is a fucking quitter. Can't handle the media fucking with you while your a Governor, why should people believe you can handle it as President.

[Walken1]

Palin would be creamed.
She's in a good position now where she can control her media.
Perhaps an RNC leadership position would be a wise future for her.
But running for office... she'd have to answer questions she won't like and be accountable for her statements... a burden that she doesn't have to bear as a private citizen, but would crush her as a candidate.

Plus she doesn't have the cross appeal to win over swing voters.
Her politics appeal to the Conservative base of the GOP and that's fine for winning a primary, but not a national election.

She's a quitter who played the gender card when things got tough.
She blamed everyone else for her own failings
She has made some dumbass statements and wild accusations that, as a private citizen, she doesn't have to explain, but as a candidate she would be forced to answer.

Bottom line for Sarah Palin...
She's got a cult of personality that is good for stirring up the Republican party, especialy from a safe position where she can control her message.
But as a national candidate... she would get her ass kicked.
It would be bad for her... and worse for the GOP.

The Democrats are praying Palin throws her hat in the ring because it would be a cakewalk.

x100

The only difference between Palin now and Palin 2008 is better PR people and a talented Biographist. And as B5R stated the ability to control the questions coming at her.
If Brittany Spears had great PR people and a talented biographist, she too would look less ridiculous....still doesn't make her more qualified.

[FroggyRuminations]

The Democrats are praying Palin throws her hat in the ring because it would be a cakewalk.

First of all, Democrats don't pray or believe in God.:biggrin:

If it were true that the DNC wants Palin so bad, why do they do all that they can to keep her from running?

You have laid out the case against her perfectly, but I don't think that any of those dings on her are fatal. She has this year to hone her message on the stump for GOP congressional candidates and to raise $ for her PAC. She will have the chance to change people's minds about her, and she'll either do it or she won't.

Interestingly, at the beginning of the 08 campaign, the idea of Obama getting elected POTUS was about as unthinkable as a Palin presidency does today. What got Obama across the finish line was the rabid unpopularity of GWB, and that factor alone caused millions of people to cross their fingers and vote for a guy who had no qualifications but great oratory. Palin is in nearly the exact opposite situation in that her qualifications are good, but her message has been weak. It's much easier to improve your message than your qualifications. If Obama is as unpopular in 2012 as Bush was in 08, then all bets are off, and she could win it.

Like I said, it will be interesting.

[TXAggie05]

Also the number one reason why she should be a candidate is the is a fucking quitter. Can't handle the media fucking with you while your a Governor, why should people believe you can handle it as President.I believe this is not a wholly honest assessment. She was looking at spending over a million dollars in legal defense against the detractors who were in the process of filing endless ethics complaints. Amongst other reasons, she was in part run out of Dodge. I would not boil it down to being a 'fucking quitter because she couldn't handle the media'.

[Walken1]

I do think that Palin has already undergone a dramatic change in her personal approval as evidenced by the enormous success of her book. .

FROM NY Times: Ms. Palin’s book also had the second-best first-week sales of any memoir by a current or past president, or vice presidential or presidential contender, Nielsen BookScan said. The No. 1 book on that list, “My Life” by Bill Clinton, sold 606,000 copies in its first week of release in 2004; at No. 3 is Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “Living History,” which sold 440,000 copies when it was first released in 2003.

She's in some great company there:rolleyes:

Palin will never be POTUS, and any attempt would further hurt the GOP. She appeals to a niche, and a shrinking one at that.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Interestingly, at the beginning of the 08 campaign, the idea of Obama getting elected POTUS was about as unthinkable as a Palin presidency does today.

True, my brother, but I believe that somewhere in a smoke-filled back room, someone decided that ultimately Hilliary was unelectable. Hence, the shift to Candidate Obama's psyops filled storyline.

[wowzers]

I believe this is not a wholly honest assessment. She was looking at spending over a million dollars in legal defense against the detractors who were in the process of filing endless ethics complaints. Amongst other reasons, she was in part run out of Dodge. I would not boil it down to being a 'fucking quitter because she couldn't handle the media'.

I'm not buying it. Quitters always have an excuse.

This was interesting.

http://www.themudflats.net/2009/07/02/numbers-shmumbers/

[Oldpogue]

that will give them the stones to release their inner conservative and not be afraid to attack this POTUS, Speaker, and Majority Leader for what they have done.

Froggy. Where have you been? Thats all they have been doing since the day he was elected. Its this negative approach that has turned many voters off to the GOP. When they forget about throwing stones and get back to a creative and positive platform, the voters will start to trickle back. And.......if Sarah Palin is the answer, forget about the next election. I think I'll write about it in my book, Going Pogue.:rolleyes:

[wowzers]

Also the number one reason why she should be a candidate is the is a fucking quitter.


That should have read "why she shouldn't be a candidate is she is a..."

I mangled that one while rearranging it.:o

[MakoZeroSix]

Palin would be creamed.
She's in a good position now where she can control her media.
Perhaps an RNC leadership position would be a wise future for her.
But running for office... she'd have to answer questions she won't like and be accountable for her statements... a burden that she doesn't have to bear as a private citizen, but would crush her as a candidate.

Plus she doesn't have the cross appeal to win over swing voters.
Her politics appeal to the Conservative base of the GOP and that's fine for winning a primary, but not a national election.

She's a quitter who played the gender card when things got tough.
She blamed everyone else for her own failings
She has made some dumbass statements and wild accusations that, as a private citizen, she doesn't have to explain, but as a candidate she would be forced to answer.

Bottom line for Sarah Palin...
She's got a cult of personality that is good for stirring up the Republican party, especialy from a safe position where she can control her message.
But as a national candidate... she would get her ass kicked.
It would be bad for her... and worse for the GOP.


You hit that one on the nose.

I don't despise Palin- but I think she is way, way out of her league. I think her best bet was to run for senator. Maybe rehabilitate her image, learn a little, then maybe think about more down the road.

[FroggyRuminations]

Obviously a nerve has been struck here with many of you.

I am not here to prop up Sarah Palin or to tear her down. She will do that on her own or not, I really do not care. My point is that what you think you know right now, may not be what you do know in 2.5 years.

The earth is shifting under our feet right now, and that is why a thread about 3rd parties is even interesting. I do not recall a sense of unease and foreboding like this in my lifetime, and I believe that we are in for some very unusual events, some of them to be expected and many of them not.

When a star is born, it shines a very powerful light and brings with it warmth that attracts many followers. When that star burns out into a supernova, it collapses on itself, creates a black hole, and sucks everything in its orbit down the tubes.

We cannot predict what will be left when it is done sucking.

[Parajuevos]

You hit that one on the nose.

I don't despise Palin- but I think she is way, way out of her league. I think her best bet was to run for senator. Maybe rehabilitate her image, learn a little, then maybe think about more down the road.

I agree. I think she is intelligent and has a future but she needs to get some more experience, especially on the world stage. She's not ready for prime time but on the other hand either is President Obama.

I hope that the GOP can come up with a candidate, who is well versed on all aspects of leadership both domestically and foreign. We need a no nonsense statesman. Who that is or where he/she will come from is anyones guess. Hopefully one will emerge. I'd hate to think that we are going to be burdened with an Obama presidency for a second term.

[Jimbo]

Support OEF and OIF veterans who running for Congress (except the Navy doctor in Vermont) and try to convince successful businessmen to run (not successful attorneys).

[Titleist]

I agree with your analysis of Petraeus but disagree with the Palin analysis.

Though Palin has much better PR than she did, she continues to have as much baggage as Hilliary. The GOP also has time to cultivate an alternative candidate...the question is will they? If they dont, they'll lose by default - Palin may carry a nomination from conservatives but would utterly fail in a general election.

The GOP candidate will need to have a clear message in order to win. Palin doesn't yet have one nor do many of the current crop of GOP potentials.

Just my 2 centavos

However, you beleive the current POTUS has solid foundations in foriegn policy?

[bmbsqd]

Support OEF and OIF veterans who running for Congress (except the Navy doctor in Vermont) and try to convince successful businessmen to run (not successful attorneys).

x100!

There is a black guy down in FL who is a retired LTC and is running for something. Cannot remember his name but I listened to him a few weeks ago and this guy was shit hot! He is a prime example how tuned-in many vets are to the problems we face.

I must say, though, I find it a little cheesie when I see a guy sporting his M4 pose in a uniform. I don't know why, I just find it a little odd. But hell yes....vote for them!

[SOTB]

Like it matters:tongue:, but I:
Agree with FR that our current President is doing a great job to push voters to vote Republican.
Agree with those of you that believe Palin is a horrible choice for any public office -- keep her in the fold in a party leadership position, so as to generate interest amongst her followers -- but if she were to win the Rep party nomination -- I would have no choice but to vote for a 3rd Party candidate (ASSuming that the Dems didn't pull one out of their hat and offer a great Dem candidate).
Hope FR is wrong with regards to the dollar. If he is right, then I don't think we are looking at something like Argentina -- more like Argentina X 100. I think it could actually be pretty bad. Like HORRIBLE bad. So let's hope FR is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong.
Think FR is correct -- what is TODAY may not be anything like 2 years from now.
Hope the Rep get serious -- and get hardcore. But I hope they don't fall into some uberconservative mode -- thereby turning off all of us who simply want small gov, a balanced budget (BTW, a budget that is frikin small, too), less intrusion in our lives, a great economy, and free health care for children (sorry, had to throw that last one in there for crossthread points :biggrin: ).
Agree with Jimbo, let's get some OIF and OEF vets in there (nothing wrong with prior vets, but these guys may have some pretty strong stamina to follow their convictions -- having seen what they have in these wars).
Oh, and if a candidate REALLY wants to seduce me and get my attention, show a serious, no-shit plan to turn our nation into a fucking energy brothel -- where we have so much cheap energy that we burn it off just to piss off the Arabs....

[Blackjack78]

x100!

There is a black guy down in FL who is a retired LTC and is running for something. Cannot remember his name but I listened to him a few weeks ago and this guy was shit hot! He is a prime example how tuned-in many vets are to the problems we face.

I must say, though, I find it a little cheesie when I see a guy sporting his M4 pose in a uniform. I don't know why, I just find it a little odd. But hell yes....vote for them!

LTC Allen West.

[MoonDog]

Posted by SOTB
Oh, and if a candidate REALLY wants to seduce me and get my attention, show a serious, no-shit plan to turn our nation into a fucking energy brothel -- where we have so much cheap energy that we burn it off just to piss off the Arabs....

Ya got my vote...SOTB for Prez!

[Odin's Underling]

Can't handle the media fucking with you while your a Governor, why should people believe you can handle it as President.

The media in this country? I hate to burst your bubble but there is NO media in this country. Just a bunch of paid political hacks trying to pass themselves off as journalists.

[SOTB]

The media in this country? I hate to burst your bubble but there is NO media in this country. Just a bunch of paid political hacks trying to pass themselves off as journalists.I would feel pretty comfortable replacing "hacks" with "shitty entertainers", but in general -- yeah, I totally agree....

[rt nail]

[QUOTE=Bravo Five Romeo;1243593]
She's a quitter who played the gender card when things got tough.

Bottom line for Sarah Palin...
She's got a cult of personality that is good for stirring up the Republican party,

You must be talking about a Sarah Palin I don't know. She gave up the position of governor because of the Dems filing law suit after law suit; the cost of which was hurting her family and the state. As for the cult of personality...... that is about all Obama had (lies, teleprompter, and personality).

[Bravo Five Romeo]

You must be talking about a Sarah Palin I don't know. She gave up the position of governor because of the Dems filing law suit after law suit; the cost of which was hurting her family and the state.My favorite part of her incoherent resignation was when she said that since she wasn't seeking reelection it would be better for her to resign now than finish her term as a lame duck going through the motions milking it.
(one of the reasons from her resignation speech)
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That's not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old "politics as usual." I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.
ummm... she could have decided not to be a lame duck and go through the motions and, instead, work hard for her state until the end of her term.

Her logic was that she should quit now since she wouldn't work hard if she stayed? :confused:

[ET1/ss nuke]

I vote Sharky for POTUS and Rat for VPOTUS. Everyone would be scared to assassinate Sharky then, sort of like the Biden effect.

[Bravo_One_Three]

Sarah Palin is an empty suit like the rest of them. She's got a great back story and a great back side, but that's where my affinity for her ends. If she'd stayed in office I might still support her, but she quit when it got hard (many would say unfairly so).

I want to make something clear: Fuck the Republican Party. I don't care if 3rd party candidates destroy the party I have been a part of for the last 20 years. If it needs to die, it should die. Further, fuck the Democratic Party. While the Repubs have strayed from their principles, the dems never had any. Don't like that summation? Don't cry to me about it.

If you want change, run for office yourself. Encourage others to do so as well. This is how the socialists have taken over our country, by seeking every office from dog catcher to President. That's why I will be filling the paperwork in February to run for a seat on the Board of County Commissioners as either an independent or possibly a Libertarian*, and I will continue to beat my head against the wall as a member of the local PTO.

You want a candidate who isn't smoke and mirrors, and is worthy of your support... do it yourself.


*not likely as the local variety are for little more than legalizing pot.

[wowzers]

Whole post

Awesome Post

[wowzers]

The media in this country? I hate to burst your bubble but there is NO media in this country. Just a bunch of paid political hacks trying to pass themselves off as journalists.

Whole heartedly agree. Either side isn't much more than cheerleaders for their side.

[FroggyRuminations]

whole thing

While I don't really agree with much of what you said, I commend you for putting your money where your mouth is. Best wishes on the campaign. Please keep us updated.

[Greenhat]

Which is more important to you...
defeating an Obama re-election or establishing a viable third party?

Personally?

Establishing a viable third party...

Or elimination of one of the current parties (historically, that is the more likely scenario).

[Greenhat]

Third party governing victories are like unicorns, they do not exist.

The Republican Party was a third party in 1860.

[FroggyRuminations]

The Republican Party was a third party in 1860.

Well, if we have another civil war then I suppose that anything is possible. That said, it replaced another party and therefore reverted to the bipolar party structure.

Nobody would be happier than me to see a viable and uncorrupted third party that is committed to conservative policies, but I have to say that between the two goals of beating Obama and creating the magic party, the Obama thing is a lot more achievable.

The main problem of the GOP is its own corruption and back room dealing. If the party was able to stock the pond with some better fish and shitcan the leadership, the platform is solid. Many in here lament the Christian/moral wing of the party and the issues that come with it like abortion and gay marriage. I would caution that those people vote just like old people do, but they actually donate tons of money as well. It is not likely to win much of anything without them, but their issues are decidedly back burner right now.

The GOP is where the future is, and we should try to fix it from the inside rather than rolling the dice on a third party crapshoot.

[LRSScout]

Lot's of valid points, I'll tread lightly as I know I'm just a guest and politics can be a heated subject.

For those of you that would like to see a resurgent conservative Republican I think you should look to Ron Paul.

Personally i think he's too old and I don't like some of his ideas about national security.

Governor Palin would make an an excellent party head I think. God anyone would be better than Michael Steele.

Who decided to chase the African American vote with the whitest black dude alive. Terrible idea. Should have tried to win with ideas.

I would prefer to see a viable third party. This is where i will probably find supporters and detractors.

Since President Regan I have witnessed a steady decline of the strong small government conservatives to the new compassionate conservative (a contradiction in terms in my view). In the end it seems that money and Jesus meant more than the constitution and the best interests of the nation.

The Democrats have and would never have been an option in my lifetime in the states that I've voted in.

The Libertarians are already tainted by their pot and prostitution stance, even though personally I don't see how it's in the federal governments constitutional rights to interfere in either if done solely within the borders of a single state, anyway....

I'm cold I guess. I would like to see us returned to a very limited federal government, with states bearing the primary legislative and judicial burden. I personally have spent time reading the federalist papers, the constitution, the declaration, the letters written under assumed names so the British couldn't find you.

Couldn't kill you. I don't think the majority of people understand the documents that founded this country. I am of the opinion that we are likely well beyond the point at which they would have recommended revolution.

I mean they were worried about gun control, and taxes. These at least were of core importance, also the free ability to print news and distribute it, they felt that openness in government was key to the republic. That the military could not be allowed to become to strong, in this I think the times have changed and we have made adaptions as necessary. I'm sure they couldn't envision nuclear armed communists and suicidal Islamists (or could they after the First Barbary War and the shores of Tripoli.....) but I digress.

I don't think the majority of the people in the United states want to follow that small of a government model anymore though. They favor a form of direct democracy, social programs and safety nets, cradle to grave moderation. The gray safety of 1984.

I don't know, this place was the frontier, a risk was inherit in being here. In many regards it's the sole reason many businesses flourished.

Ok So here's my bombshell, I'd like to hear a platform from Eric Prince :)

Just kiddin' :)

[Scratchy]

Sarah Palin is an empty suit like the rest of them. She's got a great back story and a great back side, but that's where my affinity for her ends. If she'd stayed in office I might still support her, but she quit when it got hard (many would say unfairly so).

I want to make something clear: Fuck the Republican Party. I don't care if 3rd party candidates destroy the party I have been a part of for the last 20 years. If it needs to die, it should die. Further, fuck the Democratic Party. While the Repubs have strayed from their principles, the dems never had any. Don't like that summation? Don't cry to me about it.

If you want change, run for office yourself. Encourage others to do so as well. This is how the socialists have taken over our country, by seeking every office from dog catcher to President. That's why I will be filling the paperwork in February to run for a seat on the Board of County Commissioners as either an independent or possibly a Libertarian*, and I will continue to beat my head against the wall as a member of the local PTO.

You want a candidate who isn't smoke and mirrors, and is worthy of your support... do it yourself.


*not likely as the local variety are for little more than legalizing pot.

I agree with you completely. I am sick of both parties, and have been voting third party since I was able to vote.

[LRSScout]

Well, if we have another civil war then I suppose that anything is possible. That said, it replaced another party and therefore reverted to the bipolar party structure.

Sir, Do you really think another civil war is possible? Between those I view as socialists, those of us I view as more freedom loving people? I'm not sure I'd want my children to see that. Anyone hiring in Belize? Costa Rica?

Do you think it would splinter regionally?

California up through Washington together. The liberal left coast. Middle States with a more religious/moral feel. The north east mainly more liberal, may N.H. and Maine doing their own thing. The south shall rise again.......

Make for a fun gaming session or a good sci fi story.

Nobody would be happier than me to see a viable and uncorrupted third party that is committed to conservative policies, but I have to say that between the two goals of beating Obama and creating the magic party, the Obama thing is a lot more achievable.

I think you're probably right Sir, the thing that will continue to split the party however will be the separations between the so called 'religious right' that are no less spend happy and intrusive than the democrats, only with different motivations; and the fiscal conservative, mainly socially liberal or moderate people that make up much of the rest of the party.

The main problem of the GOP is its own corruption and back room dealing. If the party was able to stock the pond with some better fish and shitcan the leadership, the platform is solid. Many in here lament the Christian/moral wing of the party and the issues that come with it like abortion and gay marriage. I would caution that those people vote just like old people do, but they actually donate tons of money as well. It is not likely to win much of anything without them, but their issues are decidedly back burner right now.

I think national security and financial stability need to be the focus of our efforts moving forward. A huge new health care system is not the answer to that, nor are/were billions in bail outs and massive industry and banking nationalization.

I wish their were some way to find a middle ground between the religious right but I personally disagree with them on many issues that I think are important.

The GOP is where the future is, and we should try to fix it from the inside rather than rolling the dice on a third party crapshoot.

Well if I didn't have that DUI ..........

[LRSScout]

I agree with you completely. I am sick of both parties, and have been voting third party since I was able to vote.

So far it's been Harry Brown, and libertarian party for most things, then write in for Ron Paul.

[Scratchy]

So far it's been Harry Brown, and libertarian party for most things, then write in for Ron Paul.

Same for me, except I voted for Bob Barr this past year.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighDragLowSpeed View Post
I agree with your analysis of Petraeus but disagree with the Palin analysis.

Though Palin has much better PR than she did, she continues to have as much baggage as Hilliary. The GOP also has time to cultivate an alternative candidate...the question is will they? If they dont, they'll lose by default - Palin may carry a nomination from conservatives but would utterly fail in a general election.

The GOP candidate will need to have a clear message in order to win. Palin doesn't yet have one nor do many of the current crop of GOP potentials.

Just my 2 centavos
However, you beleive the current POTUS has solid foundations in foriegn policy?

Not sure where the highlighted part came from based on my original comment. Can you please clarify?

[rt nail]

If I missed it, I'm sorry...... but a main fix for our federal system is term limits for those in congress..... and not allowing congress to make any law that doesn't apply equally to them and or the citizens of this Republic....

[Mudboy]

What about Gen. Colin Powell?

He is more of a middle of the road GOP, and has better credentials, than the current POTUS. He was National Security Advisor under Reagan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under GHWB, and Sec of State under GWB, not to mention 35yrs in the Military.
It has always been my opinion, that the Commander in Chief, should have some Military background, since he is the one that sends our brave Warriors into harms way, Again, just my opinion.

I think he would be a GOP Candidate that would have the Dems shaking in their boots.
The problem is, that it seems he has no interest in becoming the POTUS?

Stay Safe Everyone!!

[SOTB]

The problem is, that it seems he has no interest in becoming the POTUS?Man, I sure hope not. Of course he does have all those years as a politician to fall back on when he touts his experience (I'm being serious)....

[Bravo Five Romeo]

What about Gen. Colin Powell?

He is more of a middle of the road GOP, and has better credentials, than the current POTUS. He was National Security Advisor under Reagan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under GHWB, and Sec of State under GWB, not to mention 35yrs in the Military.
It has always been my opinion, that the Commander in Chief, should have some Military background, since he is the one that sends our brave Warriors into harms way, Again, just my opinion.

I think he would be a GOP Candidate that would have the Dems shaking in their boots.
The problem is, that it seems he has no interest in becoming the POTUS?

Stay Safe Everyone!!I like Powell but his political future ended when he testified before the world to make the case for Saddam's new WMD program.
He argued in good faith based on what he was assured existed, but all any political rival would have to do would be air commercials showing snippets of him making the case for war using false information.
Too bad... I liked him.

[bmbsqd]

Same for me, except I voted for Bob Barr this past year.

Then you should feel well-represented in Washington, DC. :rolleyes:

[bmbsqd]

Powell has a little more cred than most of the Generals people often want to elevate to POTUS, but to me, not much. I'll never understand why we Americans always want to elevate the likes of Powell, Petreaus, Clark, Scwarzkopf, etc. Just because they made General does not mean they would make a good POTUS.

What about Gen. Colin Powell?

He is more of a middle of the road GOP, and has better credentials, than the current POTUS. He was National Security Advisor under Reagan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under GHWB, and Sec of State under GWB, not to mention 35yrs in the Military.
It has always been my opinion, that the Commander in Chief, should have some Military background, since he is the one that sends our brave Warriors into harms way, Again, just my opinion.

I think he would be a GOP Candidate that would have the Dems shaking in their boots.
The problem is, that it seems he has no interest in becoming the POTUS?

Stay Safe Everyone!!

[FroggyRuminations]

There sure is a lot of wishful thinking in here!:biggrin: Of course, that is not a crime, but then its not particularly effective in getting reasonable people elected. The biggest problem that I have with 3rd parties and candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr is that voting for them is basically an exercise in masturbation. It feels good to the voter who does it, but it doesn't produce anything except for the exact opposite of the intended purpose. The Ralph Nader/Al Gore situation is a perfect crystallization of this. There is no doubt that if a bunch of hard left moonbats hadn't stroked one for Nader, we would have had an Gore presidency. Hate on president Bush if you want, but Al Gore would have been a disaster.

The same thing goes for the religious right vs. the libertarian wing of the GOP. The libertarians always want the RR to go away even though the RR are big supporters of tax cuts and small govt. Well, you can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want those things, you have to partner with people who are against abortion and want a strong national defense. That's just the way it is. If you split that up, you hand the Democrats the keys to congress and the whitehouse.

No doubt that it is fun in forums like this to fantasize about a Paul/Barr/Powell (Powell endorsed Obama by the way) candidacy. While we're at it, let's throw in Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. When it is all said and done, you are going to have to choose between a liberal and not a liberal. Voting 3rd party = voting for a liberal by default.

[SOTB]

When it is all said and done, you are going to have to choose between a liberal and not a liberal. Voting 3rd party = voting for a liberal by default.Hmm, I'm not sure the people of this room are always as much X type of political thinker as they might sometimes describe themselves (FR, I'm not stating you aren't a conservative -- just that many people may find themselves far less X than they thought if they really evaluated themselves).

Anyway, since this is a "wishful thinking" (or fantasy) thread, my point of quoting your comment above is that maybe the Dems would field someone who wasn't so "liberal", and managed to swing voters from the Reps over. The idea here being that I don't believe that the GOP is the only option. Besides a 3rd Party option -- I think the Dems could -- conceivably -- figure out that they have crossed a socialist line and pull back. I mean, it COULD happen -- wishful thinking and all....:tongue:

[MoonDog]

The same thing goes for the religious right vs. the libertarian wing of the GOP. The libertarians always want the RR to go away even though the RR are big supporters of tax cuts and small govt. Well, you can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want those things, you have to partner with people who are against abortion and want a strong national defense. That's just the way it is. If you split that up, you hand the Democrats the keys to congress and the whitehouse.

Uhmm, with due respect, I disagree. Libertarians seem to value a more Jeffersonian outlook versus a Hamiltonian big govt. outlook

Suckin' ass to either side won't cut it.

The real question in 2010 is; who has the intelligence, courage and commitment to look back, embrace and act on the revolutionary values. Would you be Patriot or Tory? Many good men died for the Tory cause, and many as well died as Patriots, while the majority just sat and discussed….

Like my TmSgt said, bring solutions, not problems.

[FroggyRuminations]

Anyway, since this is a "wishful thinking" (or fantasy) thread, my point of quoting your comment above is that maybe the Dems would field someone who wasn't so "liberal", and managed to swing voters from the Reps over.

They already did this. His name is Barack Obama. He was positioned just in the way you stated and he peeled off lots of Republicans and especially independents. Hopenchange, post-partisan, good judgement, bring us together, blah, blah, blah. For me, the only option is to ensure that Democrats get beaten.

I don't believe the ideal is possible, so I am basically about preventing the Dems from gaining power. It is better to beat a Democrat than to elect a Republican, but electing third partiers is the best way to elect a Democrat. Cynical to be sure, but it is what it is.

[KidA]

The problem with politics is that anyone who wans the job doesn't deserve it. That goes for both parties.

Shit I'd vote for a wage employee with a couple of college courses under his or her belt before I'd vote for probably 532 Members of Congress (I'm holding out there are at least 3 of them who are decent but I haven't heard of).

And yes, it's a couple years away, but I don't see the current POTUS being beaten in the next election. Not without a major economic crash, or some huge terrorist event on our shores. For one despite what people who are paid to run their mouths say, there are still a LOT of supporters, and even a hint of him being beaten would turn out the same numbers as the last election.

And two: the Republicans ain't got nobody who can beat him.

[SOTB]

The real question in 2010 is....When I first started to quote this, I realized I had misread what you had wrote -- I thought you had written "The real question is 2010....", of which I very much agree (your other comment was fine, too -- but this one is the one I wanted to comment on -- so I am just gonna butcher your's -- :biggrin: ), but I think 2010 is the question/issue.

If voters don't punish their candidates for this horrible direction we are headed, I think FR's earlier comment about not knowing really what things are going to look like 2-2 1/2 years from now will be spot on. People ACT like they are pissed. But if they don't turn that anger into voting, the politicians of this country -- both sides, but ESPECIALLY the Dems -- will think things are status quo. And they will act accordingly.
I sure hope people are serious this voting season -- and that we get some reversal going to some of this nonsense we are seeing right now....

[SOTB]

They already did this. His name is Barack Obama. He was positioned just in the way you stated and he peeled off lots of Republicans and especially independents....No dude, he was positioned in a manner to take advantage of the fact his name wasn't GWB and because he was black. OK, cool -- moving on.

I want to believe that now we are past the "I hate GWB" and "wouldn't it be cool to have a black POTUS", that we can now see candidates that bring forth serious ethics, intelligence, negotiation experience, etc. -- and because of this POTUS being black, perhaps we have opened the door to all types of options not before seriously considered -- black, asian, latino, female, etc. Surely SOMEWHERE out there are solid candidates.The problem with politics is that anyone who wans the job doesn't deserve it. That goes for both parties.I'm still for political jobs being like jury duty -- granted, that is kinda far-fetched and difficult to pull off, but I think you are right. The word "politician" immediately reeks of someone who doesn't deserve the job -- based on what we have seen of them so far.

I don't agree with your perception of this POTUS winning a reelection. Not unless the GOP were to submit Palin for their party....

[Greenhat]

The main problem of the GOP is its own corruption and back room dealing. If the party was able to stock the pond with some better fish and shitcan the leadership, the platform is solid.

The main problem with the GOP is that for all intents and purposes, it is identical to the Democratic Party. The platform is rhetoric, nothing more. The GOP is just as guilty of bailouts and deficit spending as the Democrats. Just as guilty of expanding government into places it doesn't belong. It doesn't need to be fixed. We need to recognize that the GOP (just like the Democratic Party) is primarily a party of liars and scrap it.

When it is all said and done, you are going to have to choose between a liberal and not a liberal. Voting 3rd party = voting for a liberal by default.

These days, so does voting Republican. Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

The problem with politics is that anyone who wants the job doesn't deserve it. That goes for both parties.

That I agree with. And none of the current potential candidates seem to indicate anything different. It is possible that someone will come out of nowhere to sieze a nomination and energize the American people. Possible, but not likely.

[KidA]

I don't agree with your perception of this POTUS winning a reelection. Not unless the GOP were to submit Palin for their party....

I'm not convinced that the Republicans aren't a bunch of head up their asses has-beens who have no roadmap and no plan but only react:

Hillary is running, what do they do? Throw the first woman they can at her.

Barak Obama running, what do they do? Throw the first brown person they can find (Jindal) at him.

I really really think that the Republicans are clueless. Absolutely clueless and as long as they have haters on their side spewing diviciveness on the radio and TV they'll never get anywhere. They keep waxing poetic about how great this Country was in some mythical time and LIBERALS are ruining it! Oh noes! Fear and panic! Hey we have women and minority friends too!

What is this great mythical time that the Rs want the country to mimic again? I'm genuinely curious. Fact is the country plods along because of the people, not because of some stuffed suits who get jobs making little over 100K per year but somehow leave the jobs as millionaires. The Democrats control half the population by talking about how great things can be for everyone, the Republicans contol the other half complaining that things aren't like they used to be back when they were somehow better than they are now.

[MoonDog]

Posted by SOTB
...so I am just gonna butcher your's --

You go Brother! :biggrin:

[FroggyRuminations]

The main problem with the GOP is that for all intents and purposes, it is identical to the Democratic Party. The platform is rhetoric, nothing more. The GOP is just as guilty of bailouts and deficit spending as the Democrats. Just as guilty of expanding government into places it doesn't belong. It doesn't need to be fixed. We need to recognize that the GOP (just like the Democratic Party) is primarily a party of liars and scrap it.

While there are definitely liars and hacks in the GOP, I simply have to disagree with the "they are all the same" claim. The Democrats deficit in 2009 was greater than the combined deficit of the entire Bush presidency. 2010 is looking to be in the $2.2-2.5Trillion range so while you can say that the GOP has overspent (they have) there is just no comparison. The GOP overspending had a bunch of pork and defense spending increases, the Dems are attempting to completely realign the relationship between govt and the people and impose a European-style welfare state here. No Republicans are anywhere near that. The GOP opposed the GM/Chrysler bailout, the TARP deal was basically a "gun to the head" situation and yet the only people against it were Republicans, Healthcare is opposed by the GOP, Stimulus opposed by GOP, etc.

It is clear that you are keeping tabs on things about as well as you can from overseas, but if you were here in the States, you'd FEEL the difference and the angst.

[KidA]

Healthcare is opposed by the GOP, Stimulus opposed by GOP, etc.

You just summed up their problem. They are viewed as ANTI-healthcare and ANTI-stimulus. People want healthcare. People want the economy to be stimulated. Can anyone here state they don't?

Of course not. Now of course people will say it's not the government's position and so on and so forth. Granted. However people want it. Fully half the damned population is onboard with the government providing it.

What do you think is going to happen sooner:

50% of the population decide that they don't want a viable healthcare option
or
50% of the population become resigned to the fact that the government is putting its hat in the healthcare arena?

And guess which of those two groups is growing?

The Republicans can't pull their heads out of each other's assholes long enough to realize this and figure out how they can guide and control it in a way that is viable and still speaks to those who want limited government.

[Greenhat]

While there are definitely liars and hacks in the GOP, I simply have to disagree with the "they are all the same" claim. The Democrats deficit in 2009 was greater than the combined deficit of the entire Bush presidency. 2010 is looking to be in the $2.2-2.5Trillion range so while you can say that the GOP has overspent (they have) there is just no comparison. The GOP overspending had a bunch of pork and defense spending increases, the Dems are attempting to completely realign the relationship between govt and the people and impose a European-style welfare state here. No Republicans are anywhere near that. The GOP opposed the GM/Chrysler bailout, the TARP deal was basically a "gun to the head" situation and yet the only people against it were Republicans, Healthcare is opposed by the GOP, Stimulus opposed by GOP, etc.

It is clear that you are keeping tabs on things about as well as you can from overseas, but if you were here in the States, you'd FEEL the difference and the angst.

The largest single increase in percentage of debt by the US Government over previous years was done by what party?

The GOP (Lincoln's administration, in fact).

You claim that the GOP was against the GM/Chrysler bailout... but they weren't while they were the party in the White House... then all the rhetoric was about how necessary it was (there are threads on these boards from that time frame). Which bailout are you claiming they were against? The ones that passed? Or the more recent one that actually got some opposition because the American people screamed?

Once again, actions, not rhetoric. A year ago, what were the votes for the bailout? Any Republicans vote for the bailout? Oh, yes... enough to make sure it passed. Actions, not rhetoric.

Really, what difference does it make if the US Government is bankrupt by 2.5 trillion dollars or 12 trillion dollars? Where were those responsible GOP fiscal conservatives when the GOP had a majority in the Senate and the sitting President with veto power? I remember exactly what they were doing. The same thing the current Congress and President are doing. Spending money we don't have.

The United States government is bankrupt in any reasonable financial analysis. And BOTH parties got us there.

The GOP is just as guilty, and just as complicit in the current state of the Union as the Democratic Party.

[MoonDog]

No Republicans are anywhere near that. The GOP opposed the GM/Chrysler bailout, the TARP deal was basically a "gun to the head" situation and yet the only people against it were Republicans, Healthcare is opposed by the GOP, Stimulus opposed by GOP, etc.

Horse Shit...GOP held out until they got the back room deals they wanted.

Sharky, can I borrow that rope now?

[Greenhat]

It is clear that you are keeping tabs on things about as well as you can from overseas, but if you were here in the States, you'd FEEL the difference and the angst.


Maybe the problem is that American voters need to start learning to vote with their brains instead of their "angst".

[FroggyRuminations]

OK guys, vote your conscience. Best of luck finding a good 3rd party candidate to vote for. Vote vets is about the best you can hope for.

[SOTB]

Whole post....+1 And a VERY spot on for reminding readers of the GOP and the bailout prior to the former POTUS leaving office....

[FroggyRuminations]

Maybe the problem is that American voters need to start learning to vote with their brains instead of their "angst".

No doubt that it is a problem, but it is not one that you or I can solve. It is what it is. You can't wish away the things about our system that you don't like, you have to operate within the constraints of the battlespace. Platitudes don't win elections.

[GPC]

Do you think it would splinter regionally?
The north east mainly more liberal, may N.H. and Maine doing their own thing.
Northern N.H. would, certain counties in ME and VT would do their own thing also.It depends on where the "Moonbats" live.
Southern NH is liberal Northen is more conservitive.

I could see a third party making a run on congressional seats.
I believe it would be a while for a third party POTUS.

Time will tell.