Why the Advocates of a Third-Party Presidential Candidate in 2012 Are Wrong
And then there is the ridiculous rule that a Democrat has to run with a Republican or independent, or vice versa. That, of course, means little, since within each party, there are already those who have matching views, and their original label means little. As usual, Friedman is a bit too sanguine and excited about how his group will do what Amazon “did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music,” etc. These items, of course, are commodities — not political parties. The whole operation is rather reminiscent of the ill-conceived “No Labels” movement that got a lot of hype, and which promptly went nowhere.
Yet we learn from today’s Wall Street Journal, from pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, both disaffected Democrats who lean conservative on many issues, that America is now in a “prerevolutionary moment,” one in which our countrymen “support…fundamental change in the system” and are “searching beyond the two parties for bold and effective leadership.”
Schoen’s polling company found that a majority of Americans want an alternative to the two-party system, and a majority — 57 percent of respondents — found a need for a third party. They also favored, Schoen says, having a major third party run a presidential candidate, and one in five said they would certainly or most likely vote for that candidate.
I wonder if Schoen and Caddell recall the ballot a year before that critical 1948 election, when Harry S. Truman found himself pitted against the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket of Strom Thurmond and the leftist pro-Communist ticket led by Henry A. Wallace of the aptly named Progressive Party, a Communist front? The polls — albeit not as good as they are today — showed many Democrats on the left hostile to the president, and vowing to throw their support to Wallace’s Progressive Party. Truman had tried to break a major brewing strike by threatening to call in the Army to replace striking workers, and he was not fighting the Taft-Hartley Act that limited labor’s power, although he had vetoed it. Labor got out the message it was fed up with Truman, and would not support him.
Come election day, of course, the only place Wallace got any substantial votes was left-wing union dominated New York City, enabling the state to fall to the Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey — and to deprive Truman of what otherwise would have been a state that always goes Democratic. The rest of the country allowed Truman to win, and the early vows of protest and promises to vote for Henry Wallace meant little.
Nevertheless, Schoen and Caddell say that the Gallup poll as well shows both Republicans and Democrats warm to the idea. Their focus groups of 100 people held around the country found even former Obama voters undecided, and “desperate for a leader who stands outside of the political establishment currently running Washington.” So they, like Friedman, conclude that desperate voters will produce a new third or even fourth party that will be competitive in the 2012 election.
And like Friedman, they say: “Look no further than the recent launch of the centrist, bipartisan, Americans Elect.” They do note that the Tea Party movement is in effect “a quasi-third party already,” having driven the debate over the debt ceiling. But to date, one has not found Tea Party members calling for a third party — and as we know, it would be anything but centrist, but likely even more to the Right than the current Republican Party.
So who will run on the Americans Elect line? They say that Donald Trump is again considering, which is yet more of a joke than his last hint at a run on the Republican ticket. Is this the best the third party crowd can give us? So who would it be? My guess is that Michael Bloomberg, increasingly unpopular as mayor of New York, might want to throw his money into the ring and be its candidate. If so, this hardly talks to the candidate being chosen by the entire country through an internet ballot.
One must also recall that if a candidate to the right or left of the Republican Party does run — let us say a Trump, Bloomberg, or the like — that candidate would be most likely to gain the votes not of Republicans, but of Democrats on the left furious at Obama for betraying them. In other words: assure the Republican victory more than if the third party was not on the ballot. That would be the case also if the candidate that emerges is a Dennis Kucinich, a Ralph Nader, or someone else on the political Left who, again, would gain only left-wing Democrats who feel betrayed.
And the argument also fails to face the possibility that another candidate could enter the Republican race — someone popular with the more moderate conservative politics (especially in style) of a Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, or Mitch Daniels. That might also produce an upset that unseats both frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, thereby gaining votes for the ticket that independents might vote for. On the Democratic side, perhaps Hillary Clinton will quit, and wage a primary challenge against Obama. Anything can happen, and in that case, the election is wide open in a new way.
Whatever occurs, a third party could crack apart before it even gets to nominate a candidate. Even Michael Bloomberg’s endless funds, I predict, would not be enough to push Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning voters to cast their ballot for the third party. Sometimes, it is best to simply ignore the enthusiastic bromides of pundits like Tom Friedman.
“…the Democratic Party as a whole has shifted to the Left….”
And this was written in 1996? Well, it’s not the silliest thing RR has ever written. That’s the best that can be said for it.
And I would like to add that I got exactly eighteen dollars for this post. I get double when my trolls are first. Hey, it’s a tough job market.
Ah, yes, nothing like being impersonated by a wingnut. But the telltale signature gives him/her away: When you see the word “troll,” you know it’s from a right wing a-hole.
Radosh said “as a whole.”
Clinton, a moderate, was despised by you lefties for signing welfare reform (Reich and other liberals actually walked out of the Clinton Administration in protest) and for balancing the Federal budget rather than finding new social programs to spend the surplus on.
Unlike you, I’m not going to use epithets like “a-hole.” What I think of you lefties, I’ll keep to myself rather than drag myself into the gutter with you.
‘Unlike you, I’m not going to use epithets like “a-hole.”’
Fine. Then unlike the a-hole, I won’t impersonate you with a fake response.
“What I think of you lefties, I’ll keep to myself rather than drag myself into the gutter with you.”
Into the gutter? Yep, the right-wingers really know how to keep things to themselves. Too funny!
“Clinton, a moderate, was despised by you lefties….”
Me? I loved the guy – as did the overwhelming majority of Democrats. He could easily have been nominated for a third term, if it were allowed.
The truth is that the GOPers have moved so far to the right that they have no idea where the center is. They’re dumping their RINOs on a march to the fringe. RR, who was once on the left fringe, must feel right at home.
Now children play nice together!
A third party that splits the Democrat vote is a great idea.
Remember what Nader did to Gore?
“Then, gentlemen,” said Napoleon, “let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him.”
You should be more careful with such glib, elastic conclusions. I suspect that he’s had a much longer first-hand view of such things. I lived through that Truman period as a young adult and remember the heat generated then, and Radosh’s writing here rings true.
Whats he going to name his party, Me Myself and I ?
“More Please Party”
“Whats he going to name his party, Me Myself and I ?”
You’re subconsciously thinking of the Beatle song I, Me, Mine. But enough sarcasm, TF would name his party The Party of the People’s Republic of America. TF is a great admirer of the ‘efficiency’ of the Chinese government. That is his role model.
“TF would name his party The Party of the People’s Republic of America. TF is a great admirer of the ‘efficiency’ of the Chinese government. That is his role model.”
—————
Yet he thinks he’s a centrist. Go figure!
Other than the parties bearing responsibility for the mess we are in, it’s the Federal bureaucracies that have to be changed. This may well be the most important issue the Federal government will face if there is to be a future for America, at least an America worthy of the name.
I’m fearful of a squishy “moderate” Republican ala Huntsman that the left AND independents can gather around. It seems as though there is no truth in labeling anymore. This cries out for an honest conservative, truthful to his principles. We certainly are not going to get that from the left OR the middle.
The Republic has nothing to fear from a third party on the left or even from the “respectable center”. (I use “”s because what the leftist media regards as the “respectable center” is in fact just straight-ahead not-particularly-extreme liberals).
Thus, we anti-leftist “normal Americans” (as Mark Levin correctly describes us) should welcome — and even encourage — third party forays from such as Huntsman, Bloomberg or (God help us) Chairman Tom Friedman, any of whom would siphon off, in my opinion, way more votes from Obama than from the Republican.
No, it’s breakaway movements from our right, such as from Trump or R. Paul (who occupies an ideological perch not so much on the “right” as somewhere best described as “suicidally extreme libertarian/appeaser” but enough honest if misinformed conservatives think he is of the “right” to qualify him as such for present purposes), that must be prevented at all costs.
Anyone else think it odd that a guy who happens to get 3 Pulitzers is married to a woman who sits on the Pulitzer Prize Board? Or why that never seems to get mentioned?
Perhaps if you marry into one of the worlds wealthiest families the normal rules don’t apply ?
Some ” journalists ” get where they got ’cause they married well.
Otherwise they would still be smoking dope in San Francisco.
“Anyone else think it odd that a guy who happens to get 3 Pulitzers is married to a woman who sits on the Pulitzer Prize Board? Or why that never seems to get mentioned?”
Because it’s not true – certainly not during the years that Friedman won his prizes. Thomas Friedman himself sat on the board in 2010. But keep it up, Menachem; some mud is bound to stick sometime.
Menachem are you saying they dont smoke dope now? then it must be something else,
Oh, please, let him do it! If he spends all of his time setting up a third party…
Can we encourage Krugman to help?
PajamasMedia is in the same page as Robbing America who has just published the piece “Beware of a Liberal Fifth Column – A Conservative Third Party.”
They make a bit more of it, though, by saying that “it is a liberal strategy and the stooge is Ron Paul”. “It is a typical fifth column in the game of politics”, they continue, as “is proved by the piece, ‘Expect a Third Party Candidate in 2012′, that the WSJ naively published today by two Democratic operatives”.
They believe this is a major strategy that if succeeds it can destroy the Republican Party for some time to come, besides ensuring the re-election of Obama, of course.
Might be worth while to look at it at http://robbingamerica.blogspot.com/2011/08/beware-of-liberal-fifth-column.html
They think it is a major danger.
“They believe this is a major strategy that if succeeds it can destroy the Republican Party for some time to come, besides ensuring the re-election of Obama, of course.” -Exactly. Friedman is “running interference” for Obama.
Who still reads the thinkings of Thomas Friedman, or Paul Frugman,
These guys are so committed to the Elite Left Political Class, they do not understand what is really going on in the national economy.
Let Thomas Friedman start his “third party.” It will be him and perhaps fifteen other wan, woeful celebrants in drooping paper party hats with flaccid noisemakers amid the overdecorated cake, sagging streamers, and melting ice cream.
And it will do the nation the immense service of siphoning money from the pockets of malevolent fools who might otherwise put it to more destructive use.
I keep hoping for more polarization. The differences between Dems. and Repubs. is always muddied by the fools in the middle. Why do I dislike the fools in the middle? Because every compromise costs more money and is less effective. I defy any of you fools in the middle to tell me what government program, or law that has been enacted has done what was promised, on time and on budget. Maybe a third party is a good idea. it can be the Middle Party that all thinking people can hate.
I’ve always looked at the (I) in independent as standing for idiot – preferably capitalized. Nothing better than fence-sitting IMO. (L)ightweights will be blown to one side or the other but are just too squishy on the issues that count.
kt put down the koolaid I am an independant and I vote in every election. I was a registered republican and changed to independant because I would wrather be called a son of a bitch than a democrat,I dont even like democrats,
(i) independent stands for people who have refused to surrender their conscience or common sense to walk in lockstep with one political party. ours is a rebellion from the pressures to conform in today’s hyper-partisan debates
kt stands for idiot
When I became eligible to vote I went to my town’s one polling station to register as my state allows initial and change of registration on voting day (party primaries are otherwise closed). I stood in front of a lady I’d known since I was 7 and flipped a quarter (to her disgust :p), heads – R and tails – D, to decide. The coin flipped 3 consecutive times heads and then 4 in a row tails. I registered for my first primary as a D. Immediately after voting I returned to the registration desk and changed my affiliation to I. Since then I’ve followed the pattern of finding either (at least) one candidate I want to vote for (or against, if need be) and changed my registration to the appropriate party, voted, and then re-changed back to I.
Am I an “Idiot” for doing this? No. Everywhere one looks/reads/hears it is the Independent vote that swings elections. Party affiliated voters are mentally locked into voting for their party’s candidate. Any candidate that speaks to me gets the same statement of, “I’m an Independent…and you COULD win my vote depending upon your answers to my questions.”
Quite bluntly, KT, you are and those that ‘demand’ voters register as ‘one party or the other’ are the foolhardy ones. We Independents decide who gets elected. The good news for the GOP is most of the ‘I’ registered folks I know are generally conservative. Of course, if the GOP runs an idiot we vote for the other candidate. Quite often the choices boil down to who we think is going to do the least amount of damage at whatever level…hence, I held my nose and voted McCain in ’08 as I knew Obama was anathema.
I am with you– more polarization, please.
Now that the lunatic left is in charge of the Demorats, it is decision time for America. Choose the direction of America and choose it now. The debt ceiling debate and result showed what will happen to this country with more compromise.
Friedman is not an honest broker. He has been sucking up the fumes from liberal fantasyland for decades, and any attempt by him to create a third party is absolutely a ploy to re-elect Obama. Friedman sees several potential Republican candidates who he might recruit to blow up the November, 2012 race and result in another term for the Indonesian President. No way Friedman tries to recruit the control freak who is running NYC into the ground, since that would be the end of both Obama and Bloomberg.
Friedman is part of the problem.
I almost hate to do this being an atheist and all but wasn’t Jesus quoted as saying “Be either hot or cold for if you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth”. I take that to mean don’t be a mushy middle of the road moderate.
I’m going with Kinky Friedman Ron. Appears ol’ Kinky has buried the hatchet with Rick Perry and has gone as native as a former bandmate of Capt’n Beefheart possibly could – putting his endorcement in writing – @ The DAILY BEAST of all places. No truth to the rumor that Perry has promised to make Kinky the RR Comish of Tarrent co, or that Tina Brown offered up all her unscratched Beatles Singles – opened and even unopened and never used – as a bribe!
Tom Fried-out-man is a dope. The only reason he still gets on Charlie Rose is because his publicist is a twenty-something hottie – and – Charlie uses the NYT dopster for a slow tuesday newsday filler up.
Now it’s American Elect – what happen to the NO LABLES movement? This ‘rise of the independents’ nonsense is just that Ron, nonsense. We have always had third, fourth and fifth parties, and they are called the FRINGE for a reason.
Just as theres always been wealthy kooks like Lyndon LaRouch to fund this kind of nonsense. It’s all good fun and entertaining as long as they don’t go off half cocked and start getting violent – like the KKK or the Black Panthers – in which case it is a job for the professional police as opposed to the censors.
I am 53, and was born 11/22/58. The first political kook who illustrated that our ‘politics are broken’ was during my 5th birthday party, the first one where we invited neighorhood kids – there was no pony – but my mom did make this fantastic angel food cake into a five car choo choo train. Once all the adults (mainly female but not exclusively) started crying – we stopped having fun and did the same.
The first and only time I fell for this third party tripe was as a freshman at Kent State in 1980 – only for love I might add. My Long Island jewish girfriend made it very clear; vote for John Anderson or you can forget any more Mishuguaina. (goy spelling)
Translation: Ron Radosh I have been hearing this same song and dance my entire life since that dreadful day in nov ’63. ‘Our politics are broken.’ It’s ‘different this time’…the two party system….kupt…malfunction…need to reboot!!!!!
In 1952 it was Television. In 1969 it was sex,drugs and rock n roll – plus feminism. Now according to the #1 (or to some #2 because of Krugman) NYT resident idiot colunmnist, it’s because of the internet. I think its really because this fried out crappy excuse for a NYT writer didn’t have anything else to write about this week.
Which is why I’m going with Kinky Friedman, Rick Perry, the Electoral college and WHOOOHA! I think the Tea Party proves our politics are fine – in good operating order.
Obama/Biden/Jarrett/Sustien/Jackson/Solis-need kicked to the curb.
Nothing is wrong with the Rodeo – it’s the clowns in it Ron.
Beautifully said. Preach on, brother!!
“Sometimes, it is best to simply ignore the enthusiastic bromides of pundits like Tom Friedman.”
It is ALWAYS best to ignore the bromides of Tom alFriedman and Paul alKrugman, whether they are enthusiastic or not! If the two of them form a third party, it will be difficult for the party to field two teams for a beachball scrimmage!
How does a third party survive with first contact with the issues?
It’s one thing for people to fling around the term “centrist” or “the middle” but a candidate is going have to take stands on the issues.
Is Obamacare constitutional? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Will you raise or lower taxes? Should terrorists picked up on the battlefield get civilian trials?
A president can’t avoid those issues. He may have to nominate Supreme Court justices. Once people know where the candidate stands, he won’t seem so centrist anymore.
I would like to see the Green Party break out of the democrats’ tent and pronounce their amazing anti-industry agenda for the world. The greens have to be disgusted with the union guys who make all of those polluting durable goods and won’t go vegetarian. The greens already have pushed a great number of regulatory agendas and should be able to campaign on their own merits of their own science. The Green Party for 3rd party with AlGore as their candidate, more clowns for the rodeo!
Isn’t another Lib party the same thing as primarying Obama? Must be that the idea is somehow less toxic, less of a rocked boat than a primary would become.
This sounds similar to the Coffee Party which made for some great photos of fat hippies sitting in a Starbucks stroking their beards and smelling their armpits.
“Their focus groups of 100 people held around the country found even former Obama voters undecided, and ‘desperate for a leader who stands outside of the political establishment currently running Washington.’ ”
Term limits would also accomplish this goal. If we can re-define marriage and call stripping speech we can certainly figure out a way to eliminate career politicians.
Ever notice how there is always talk of a third party when the Republicans, and especially conservative Republicans, are gaining momentum? Friedman is, quite unabashedly, an elitist snob who despises those of us who live in flyover country or who fail to march in lockstep to the tune of whatever idea he is pushing at the moment. Who can forget his homage to the Peoples Republic of China and his wish that “for one day” all political activity in the U.S. could be suspended so that an enlightened all-powerful ruler or set of rulers could do “what we need.”
For guys like Friedman, and Krugman and Mayor Bloomberg and the rest of the NYT-centered elite the problem is us – That irrational and untidy group of people known as “citizens.” He takes seriously Bertolt Brecht’s waggish line…”Can’t we just dissolve the people and elect another?” Friedman’s political views seem to be increasingly lifted from Ralph Nader’s bizarre tome of two or three years ago – “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”
“Can’t we just dissolve the people and elect another?”
No–but the next best thing is to import voters from the Third World who are used to respecting and obeying their leaders without question. It justs takes time, but its happening now.
Formerly famous but still rich for no reason, dedicated water carrier Thomas Friedman is desperate to steal about 5% for his bro Little Lenin.
“Friedman tells us only that its funds come for “serious hedge-fund money.”.. Sounds allot like Soros …
Considering that the only analogy that Friedman knows how to employ is “Flinstones vs. Jetsons”, I’m wondering what pop culture artifact he would use for his third party. Any nominations?
I don’t know about Friedman but I’m voting “Homer”.
“Their focus groups of 100 people held around the country found even former Obama voters undecided, and ‘desperate for a leader who stands outside of the political establishment currently running Washington.”
That may be true, but that doesn’t mean they are looking for a “centrist”. The left is fed up with Obama becaues he didn’t totally transform (destroy) America when he had control of both houses of congress– and both houses had lunatic lefties leading them. Obama thought he had time, and did not expect the backlash at the ballot box. Libs are incensed that he blew his one chance, and the opportunity will never happen again.
So, don’t confuse Dems wanting an alternative with Republicans who want alternatives. And conservatives are not interested in more RINO candidates. But squishy Republicans might get fooled again, and that is what Friedman is hoping for.
This is decison time for America, not “reach across the aisle” time.
If a third party emerges, it will be bad news for everyone who is hoping to see Obama defeated in 2012. Ross Perot’s entering the race in 1992 gave the election to Clinton who got only 43 percent of the nation’s popular vote. The electoral college as it has operated in recent decades gives all of the electoral votes of a State to the candidate who gets most of the popular votes in that State. In short, the cards are stacked against a third-party candidate running for President.
The only events that could give the third-party candidate a chance of winning the presidency are (1) the collapse of one of the two major parties, (2) all of the losing candidates in the Republican primary endorse the third party candidate, or (3) there be a massive defection of Democrats and Republicans leaving those parties to vote for the third-party candidate. Kearney
Any “third party” will more likely split the opposition to Obama than to undermine the Democrats. Were I more paranoid, I’d seriously consider any so-called “centrist” movement emerging this election to be a scheme of the Dems.
I also consider “third party” simply the phrase of disappointed might-have-been politicos, right there on par with “brokered convention” as an unfulfilled political fantasy. These political journalists really need to stick to reporting the facts rather than write their wishful thinking in the guise of op-eds.
So this new subversive venture is being supported with hedge-fund money.
Could this be George Soros? Maybe he’s so disappointed with the Obama Administration that he wants to hedge his bets in case the Dems collapse out of existence. This supposedly “moderate” party will, in practice, be as leftist as they think they can get away with.
The endorsement of this megamansioned hypocrite is worth what I paid for it.
In Israel over many years one didn’t have two parties but two political focii – the Labor and the Likud parties – around which clustered a myriad of smaller parties. There too many lusted for a more “centrist” party, and Kadima emerged. Today it’s widely recognized as a party of political opportunists and no clear principles beyond gaining power. Indeed, it’s far too easy in Israel to create a party – so easy a political columnist (!) and a failed (and jailed) political operative may well create their own parties. And out of the ongoing “tent” protests there is talk of creating yet another party based on “social justice” – whatever that means.
Where once the accusation was of *little* difference between the two major parties in the US – that they were “tweedle dee and tweedle dum” or Wallace’s “not a dime’s bit of difference” – today the charge is they are *too* different, that the center is weakening and there’s no willingness to compromise. But a new party created by self-important elites and lacking in principles, programs, or records of achievement may be someone’s fantasy, but nothing more.
Interesting analysis. Just one thing: “community organizer” is not “a real job”. It is a euphemism for “Communist rabble-rouser”.
One by one, we’re just recapitulating the death throes of the Carter Administration with this Obama Administration.
Liberals are making all the same excuses for Obama’s failures that Carter and his apologists made for his own failures:
1. It’s due to external forces over which America has no control.
2. The country has become ungovernable.
3. Americans are just too stupid (or greedy, or selfish, or evil) to understand just how wonderful the President really is.
4. We need a third party because the GOP is nuts.
The Dems employed each and every one of those excuses in 1979-80 too. The goal of #4 was to try to marginalize the GOP as not within the range of acceptable discourse, not to push a third party.
And of course, the subsequent course of events proved they were dead wrong. In the 1980 election, third party candidate, John Anderson, got very few votes; and the country was in better shape at the end of the Reagan presidency than it was at the end of the Carter presidency.
“One must also recall that if a candidate to the right or left of the Republican Party does run — let us say a Trump, Bloomberg, or the like — that candidate would be most likely to gain the votes not of Republicans, but of Democrats….”
Trump gain votes from the Democrats? Trump, who was the GOP frontrunner for a bit? Not likely.
The problem, and it is a good thing (TM) is that American Constitution is steered towrds having two and only two parties. That is why, real nuts, have it harder then in Europe. At the same time the sestem of primaries gives _far_ more leverage to the citizens over the Parties than in Europe where most of the time citizens only get to vote for a party so a known paedophile could be elected wiothout citizens being able to do anything about it and who governs is decided behind the backls of citizens in negotiations between one of the dominant party and a a small one required for majority (who doesn’t care about losing half its voters as long it remains key to having the majority).
In America you can steer Parties through primaries so if you are unhappy about what your Party is becoming then instead of staying at home seeping beers and dreaming of a third Party, vote in the primaries or start an analog to the Tea Party. And stop whining.
Did I miss something? A complete range of existing group spheres of political influence have emerged here with the center-of-road compromise being held up for consideration as acceptable process to sustain a healthy republic, yet completely void of the words patriotism and treason. It most definitely will take a new twist to apply with so many enemies of the state commonly accepted as US citizens complete with first amendment rights but preferable to the other option. Just what else is needed to continue this farce perpetrated on the population other than continued media led misdirection and fear of anything that can challenge the status quo?
Diminishing principle of least privilege compromise is exactly what Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he added the phrase “If you can keep it” when answering a question referring to the emerging national government.
TV media, although the most vulnerable, is doing its job well providing only some minimal fraction of truth mixed with more popular over amplified events of the day, whether sports, weather, a tax paid “trial for TV” production, or a bear on a trampoline. Don’t expect any specific truth from them relative to treason even with an excess of whistle blowers striving to light the fuses. Internet owns the only timely exposure of first hand knowledge along with documented history.
The eras of 6/15/1804 to12/6/1865 and 2/3/1870 to 2/3/1913 do not represent rest of the wicked because of absence of constitutional convention but diligence by seizure of opportunity to milk the oppressed independent native Americans and proud southerners until new words were composed for another round of interpretation and financial gain. You have only one guess as to who has been continuously milked since 1913 without reprisal.
As far as presidential re-election in 2012, it can only be dream that the courts will continue the foot dragging delay process now being employed without exposing their treasonous judicial complicity while stacking continues since they can’t blame past administrations.
Mr. Establishment thinks anything that threatens his orthodoxy is bad and horrible.
i’m shocked.
/sarc -off
Let them start a third party. That would still only get us back to having two parties. The parties we have now remind me of a ball of night crawlers, all slimmed up and inter woven. Disgusting!
until “social issues” stop dividing the country, we are stuck with the extremes of the duopoly choosing our presidential candidates, and the media tearing every possible candidate to pieces.
Mitch Daniels was correct in syaing the “social issues” should be set aside at this point in history. A majority of voters are FISCAL conservatives who agree with Daniels.
The hurdles for gaining ballot access in all 50 states are real. I think this is a good idea until both extremes stop putting abortion before fiscal sanity.
Not that I ever agree with anything Tom Friedman proposes, or think internet-only access is fair, but I saw how the New York Dems made “protecting abortion rights” the MAIN issue in 2010 to drive female voter turnout, when Medicaid is driving NYS into bankruptcy.
Perry-Daniels 2012 for this still registered dem even though they threw the Blue Dogs under the bus in the age of Obama/Pelosi.
It is certainly true that a third party candidate in 2012 would almost certainly result in the reelection of President Obama. However, if things don’t get better soon, say by 2014, the American voters may be very open to a 3rd party candidate who can convince them that he/she is serious about reducing federal spending and about tax reform. In fact, if things aren’t better by then, the Republican party will collapse entirely, IMO.