Time for a New & VIABLE 3rd PARTY? MAYBE

This is a discussion on Time for a New & VIABLE 3rd PARTY? MAYBE within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; DRUDGE REPORT: PEGGY NOONAN Third Time America may be ready for a new political party. Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Something's happening. I ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Time for a New & VIABLE 3rd PARTY? MAYBE

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation Time for a New & VIABLE 3rd PARTY? MAYBE

    DRUDGE REPORT:
    PEGGY NOONAN

    Third Time
    America may be ready for a new political party.

    Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.

    All my adult life, people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats' and Republicans' control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it's said they are too much alike--Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it's said they're too polarizing--too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses.

    In 1992 Ross Perot looked like the breakthrough, the man who would make third parties a reality. He destabilized the Republicans and then destabilized himself. By the end of his campaign he seemed to be the crazy old aunt in the attic.

    The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it's coming back, I think it's going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history.

    This week there was a small boomlet of talk about a new internet entity called Unity '08--a small collection of party veterans including moderate Democrats (former Carter aide Hamilton Jordan) and liberal-leaning Republicans (former Ford hand Doug Bailey) trying to join together with college students and broaden the options in the 2008 election. In terms of composition, Unity seems like the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan group (Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey) that warns against high spending and deficits.
    Unity seems to me to have America's growing desire for more political options right. But I think they've got the description of the problem wrong.

    Their idea is that the two parties are too polarized to govern well. It is certainly true that the level of partisanship in Washington seems high. (Such things, admittedly, ebb, flow and are hard to judge. We look back at the post-World War II years and see a political climate of relative amity and moderation. But Alger Hiss and Dick Nixon didn't see it that way.) Nancy Pelosi seems to be pretty much in favor of anything that hurts Republicans, and Ken Mehlman is in favor of anything that works against Democrats. They both want their teams to win. Part of winning is making sure the other guy loses, and part of the fun of politics, of any contest, of life, can be the dance in the end zone.

    But the dance has gotten dark.

    Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous. The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low.

    The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.
    On the ground in America, people worry terribly--really, there are people who actually worry about it every day--about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power--Republicans and Democrats--stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it's worked in the past. A hunch: It's not going to work forever or much longer. They've really run that trick into the ground.)

    On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn't. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

    There is a widespread sense in America--a conviction, actually--that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you'd notice. They're only worried about seeming unconcerned.

    More to the point, people see the Republicans as incapable of managing the monster they've helped create--this big Homeland Security/Intelligence apparatus that is like some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound. As for the Democrats, who co-created Homeland Security, no one--no one--thinks they would be more managerially competent. Nor does anyone expect the Democrats to be more visionary as to what needs to be done. The best they can hope is the Democrats competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down.

    Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.
    Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it's a serious issue, face it. Don't play with it.

    I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

    Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array curtm1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    82
    Peggy Noonan is one sharp lady, she see's things the way they are, not the way some spinmeister wants you to see it. And she is not afraid to say so either. I wonder if she would accept my invitation to the range, hmmmm...........

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Dakotaranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    1,858

    I keep hoping the Constitution Pary will get traction

    because then we would at least have a chance of having our country ruled as our Founders intended. I'm just tired of the RINOs try to make us conservatives look like rednecks, not that I don't brag about being one, but I know who we are and were as a people when we were founded, the RINOs and the liberals just act as they have know what's best for us and we should just take it. I'm kinda fed up with them expecting us to say "thank you can I have another"

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array tegemu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Orange Park, Fla.
    Posts
    997
    I have been seeing more about the Unity Party, a blend of the best of all the rest. www.unity08.com. You don't have to leave your current party.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf. - George Orwell

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Old Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southwest Tennessee
    Posts
    10,586
    One problem that seems to be inherent in the political system is that politicians, by nature, are corrupt. The American people seem to reelect the same passel of crooks every election. It has been said that we have the government that we deserve, or we would change it at the ballot box.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array David III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Sturgeon, MO
    Posts
    810
    Someone here made the comment that we should have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot --- which is completely different from just not voting, it would be saying that I'm voting to have NONE of the people on the ballot.
    I sure hope we don't have the government we deserve (we likely do..) but a government of picking the theoretical best of the evils.

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    I know I'd vote for a viable 3rd party. My favorite would be Libertarian, but I know most people don't understand their position on drugs - too bad.

    I also like the "None of the above" option, that if it won, would eliminate ALL the candidates listed for that election, forcing new candidates. That will NEVER happen with Dems and Republicans contolling all 3 parts of the government.

    But a 3rd party has only been successful 2 or 3 times (depending on how you count it) on a national level.

    But stranger things have happened. The fall of the Soviet Empire comes to mind...

  9. #8
    Closed Account Array Steelhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    178
    The last viable third political party was Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive party—also called the Bull Moose party, in which Roosevelt attempted to secure a third presidential term.

    In the resulting election he split the Republican party base and ran second to the Democrat candidate, Woodrow Wilson.

    Roosevelt: 4.1 million votes (27%)
    Taft: 3.5 million (23%).
    Wilson: 6.3 million (42%)

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array Zundfolge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    516
    Mention "3rd Party" and you get a lot of responses.


    Thats the problem. When it comes to non liberal/progressive folk there are at least 3 "3rd Parties"; Constitution, Libertarian and Reform Party.

    Clearly the "3rd party conservatives" are so heavily divided that there is little chance that any of them will be more "viable" than the occasional Mayor or state legislator will get elected and on super rare occasion a US Congressman.

    The left's 3rd party situation is even worse.


    So this notion that there is any way a 3rd party president will be elected is just wishful thinking bordering on delusional fantasy.

    Our next president will either be a REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT ... the Democrats are a lost cause as far as gun rights and liberty in general are concerned. Thats why I'm still a Republican, not because I agree 100% with the platform, but because thats the place where my beliefs and ideas have the best chance of being implemented (to paraphrase Milton Friedman).

    www.rlc.org is honestly I believe the last hope for the return of liberty in the United States. The DNC is basically the unofficial American Socialist Party and there is a power struggle in the GOP between several factions.

    The best chance for getting pro-liberty principles actually implemented into public policy is for the RLC to rise in power within the GOP and "libertarianize" the Grand Old Party.

    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan
    My favorite would be Libertarian, but I know most people don't understand their position on drugs - too bad.
    I agree ... it frustrates me to no end that most "conservatives" can't get it through their thick heads that just because something is bad for you that its a good idea to make it illegal.

    You do drugs you're an idiot ... but its bigger idiocy to allow your government to FORCE you not to use the drugs at gunpoint.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Zundfolge
    Mention "3rd Party" and you get a lot of responses.


    Thats the problem. When it comes to non liberal/progressive folk there are at least 3 "3rd Parties"; Constitution, Libertarian and Reform Party.

    Clearly the "3rd party conservatives" are so heavily divided that there is little chance that any of them will be more "viable" than the occasional Mayor or state legislator will get elected and on super rare occasion a US Congressman.

    The left's 3rd party situation is even worse.


    So this notion that there is any way a 3rd party president will be elected is just wishful thinking bordering on delusional fantasy.

    Our next president will either be a REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT ... the Democrats are a lost cause as far as gun rights and liberty in general are concerned. Thats why I'm still a Republican, not because I agree 100% with the platform, but because thats the place where my beliefs and ideas have the best chance of being implemented (to paraphrase Milton Friedman).

    www.rlc.org is honestly I believe the last hope for the return of liberty in the United States. The DNC is basically the unofficial American Socialist Party and there is a power struggle in the GOP between several factions.

    The best chance for getting pro-liberty principles actually implemented into public policy is for the RLC to rise in power within the GOP and "libertarianize" the Grand Old Party.


    I agree ... it frustrates me to no end that most "conservatives" can't get it through their thick heads that just because something is bad for you that its a good idea to make it illegal.

    You do drugs you're an idiot ... but its bigger idiocy to allow your government to FORCE you not to use the drugs at gunpoint.
    Thanks for the link to the rlc, that's a group I could get behind!

    I have to agree that there is no viable 3rd party on the horizon and we are stuck with what we've got. As I have said all along, we the people must TAKE BACK our Grand Old Party and give it the vision
    of the Founders.

    I completely disagree on the drug arguments. You must realize that there are scores of people who don't currently try drugs simply BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LEGAL...right? I would say a majority of Americans, especially most mature or senior adults fall into this category. Once legalized, how many GO-zillions of new addicts would be created by the stroke of a pen? Addicts are a drain on the already scarce resources of society. Drugs like prostitution are NOT victimless crimes. Both are vectors for the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

    Libertarianism relies too much on "less government," which is not the vision of the Founders, either. There has to be a balance. That's what Federalism and Checks & Balances are all about. Libertarianism is almost anarchy. Besides they'd have to sweep all the branches to be effective. Not gonna happen.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan
    My favorite would be Libertarian, but I know most people don't understand their position on drugs - too bad.
    I switched over to Libertarianism. I especially like their outlook on how the US govt should be held to their Constitutional powers; protect us from foreign invasion and make sure our civil rights aren't violated. That is it. Simple and leave the power to the people, just like it is supposed to be.

    They aren't perfect, but IMO are tons better than Democrats or Republicans.

    [QUOTE]Once legalized, how many GO-zillions of new addicts would be created by the stroke of a pen? Addicts are a drain on the already scarce resources of society. Drugs like prostitution are NOT victimless crimes. Both are vectors for the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
    [QUOTE]

    The drug issue is a personal choice. How many drunks are there? Compare that to the number of responsible drinkers. Far less abusers of substances than casual or "recreational" users.

    When speaking of "victimless crimes", it is only the user that is affected. If someone wants to smoke crack, they are ingesting it into their own bodies and not forcing it into your body. If someone wants to do any drug in their own home that is their business. It is their body. If they want to smoke weed or shoot heroin, that is fine.

    The point when it should become criminal is when minors are involved, they drive or operate heavy machinery, or commit a crime while under the influence and then their condition of being high while in the commission of a crime should be used as a multiplyer. Someone is sober and commits a robbery, they get x years. Someone is high and commits a robbery, they get x years PLUS 10 years on top of that for being high while committing the crime.

    I am sure there is more VD spread by casual sex than by drugs, so are you going to support a ban on casual sex?

    The Libertarian Party is based upon personal choice. Abortion? Personal choice. The government nor anyone else has any right whatsoever to tell someone what to do with their own body.

    Gays? Who cares? It is their adult personal choice to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Is that really any of your business what consenting adults do? No. If some dude wants to play tummysticks with another guy, good for them. I don't care what they do.

    Libertarianism relies too much on "less government," which is not the vision of the Founders, either. There has to be a balance. That's what Federalism and Checks & Balances are all about. Libertarianism is almost anarchy. [/
    Far from anarchy.

    See that is the problem with today's society. Too much reliance on the government to come by, run their life, wipe their ass, cut their meat, butter their potatoes. I don't need someone telling me what to do. Back off and let me live my life. As long as I don't hurt anyone else, leave me alone. That is Libertarianism.

    The government has gotten too big. They have two departments to do the same job. DHS and NSA. One or the other, not both.

    The government is too involved in everyone's life. There are far too many regulations to deal with. Just think, most gun laws would be repealed too. No need for a carry permit, no pistol free zones, no transfer tax for NFA weapons as that law would be vaporized, no registration, no fingerprinting, no BS.

    C&B is a good system and IMO is needed. However, if the government was smaller, there would be less to check and balance, so the government would run smoother.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  13. #12
    Member Array amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marysville, WA
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Chief
    One problem that seems to be inherent in the political system is that politicians, by nature, are corrupt. The American people seem to reelect the same passel of crooks every election. It has been said that we have the government that we deserve, or we would change it at the ballot box.
    Absolutely! Why in the world would an honest person spend millions of their own money (when it is actually theirs) for a job that only pays a couple of hundred thousand at best? Hmmm, let me think. Could it be that there might be more in it than just the paycheck? Power maybe? If you follow Bill Clinton's net worth from the time he was elected Governor to today I believe you might see the answer.

    As to a Third Party, unless there is a major defection from one or both of the major parties there never will be a viable third party. At best it will be a "spoiler". It will siphon off enough votes so that one or the other major party will have to "romance" the third party in order to get enough support to maintain power. It is kind of like the "goat rope" that goes on in other countries that use more of a parliamentary form of government. Where seats are up for election and the majority forms the government.

    What we currently experience is a situation where most of the voting public is equally divided between Republican and Democratic parties with about 10% being "Independents". Notice how, when election time comes around how much attention is paid to the independent voter. They are the ones that actually decide the elections and the power truly lies in this groups hands.

    What would be more effective would be for the voters that are too lazy to vote, to get off their a$$es an go to the polls. In the majority of elections barely more than half of the eligible voters cast ballots. This would minimize the power of the few that decide elections and make the voice of the people truly heard.

    Hint, Hint, There is an election coming up this year that will elect a whole bunch of Representatives. How about we go out and elect some that represent us for a change.
    ""If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying, I either won't need more or, more won't help me.""

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    Nope there is no such thing as the "victimless crime." Drug addicts are no longer contributors to society. They don't work and they are eventually forced into a welfare situation. YOU may say let them die but American society is never so heartless. So the addict becomes another welfare recipient. Alcholoism is a verifiable DISEASE and it runs in families. Both alcoholism and drug addiction rip at the fabric of society by destroying the building blocks of that society: The nuclear family. Broken families, dysfunctional families....usually there is either a direct link to alcoholism, drugs or mental problems.

    As far as STD's specifically AIDS, the odds of transmission are roughly 1 in 400 for every heterosexual sex act. But if you share an IV needle it's a virtual lock. Also, unprotected sex with an IV drug user. AIDS spreads far faster in the IV drug community than anywhere else. MAny prostitutes (male and female) are IV drug users.

    Anywhere there is anonymous gay sex taking place becomes a disease vector. This is simply for the incredible numbers of contacts. They are simply the most promiscuous creatures on earth. That is why AIDS spread in the gay community like wildfire. An unattached gay male can have over a THOUSAND anonymous sexual contacts in a year. That is not uncommon. I got this number from an AIDS awareness program I was sent to by my school district to become a certified AIDS educator. There is a LOT of IV drug use in the gay community.

    AIDS victims are a HUGE drain on society. How would a Libertarian government act in regards to them? Hand out condoms and free hypodermics? Does that stop or reverse the problem? How about social security and entitlements?
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array Zundfolge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    516
    I completely disagree on the drug arguments. You must realize that there are scores of people who don't currently try drugs simply BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LEGAL...right? I would say a majority of Americans, especially most mature or senior adults fall into this category. Once legalized, how many GO-zillions of new addicts would be created by the stroke of a pen?
    Once upon a time in America there was no such thing as an "illegal drug". Cocaine, marijuanna, all could be found at the local drug store, or growing in someone's yard or in many consumer products.

    Back then approximately 10% of our population was addicted to some form of what would later become "controlled substances".

    Currently today, after half a century of these drugs being illegal they are still easy to come by and approximately 10% of our population is addictted to one or more of them.


    I'm convinced that the fear that once drugs are made legal that "GO-zillions of new addicts will be created" is just as wrong as assuming that if you wiped out every gun law back to the 1911 Sullivan act that our streets will become awash with blood.

    The problem is that those who support the War on Drugs often do so not because they believe they can prevent people from becoming addicts, but because they can use it as yet another way to control the people.

    Today it is now a federal law that you sign your name in a registry if you buy Sudafed ... and you're not allowed to buy more than two boxes a month ... and this is part of the PATRIOT ACT which is supposed to be about terrorism.

    If you look at the so-called "dammage to society" done by drugs, most of this dammage is done by the illicit trade in drugs, not the drugs themselves.

    My position (and the position of many Libertarians and libertarians) is that it is better to err on the side of freedom.




    Anyway, sorry for the thread hijack


    AIDS victims are a HUGE drain on society. How would a Libertarian government act in regards to them?
    You're thinking of the problem all wrong ... you're still stuck in collectivist thinking.

    The only resason AIDS victims and drug addicts are a "HUGE" drain on society is because we allow useless people to drain us.

    A Libertarian government would tell you if you're stupid enough to put that needle in your arm then you're just going to have to suffer the concequinces, now go away and either use your own money or find a charity to save you and stop stealing from honest hard working people.

    There is no Welfare system under a Libertarian government.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,048
    Correct, no welfare under Libertarian government. The way it should be. Most everything is private and contributions would be 100% dollar for dollar tax-dudectable. With private companies dolling out the money to help those that need it, they can better regulate those that actually need it from those deadbeats that abuse it. Private companies are more quick to pull the plug than the government.

    For a better look at the Libertarian outlook visit: http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 27th, 2010, 03:49 PM
  2. Is this a viable option?
    By notez88 in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 10th, 2010, 09:42 AM
  3. Is 380 a viable option right now?
    By cuban11182 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: June 21st, 2009, 10:12 AM
  4. Any one here went to a Tea Party?
    By CR2008 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 20th, 2009, 11:26 PM
  5. Swords: Viable Weapons Even Today
    By Phil Elmore in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 10th, 2006, 11:37 PM