Voter disaffection an opening for third party?

[The Real Hawkeye]

A third party of moderates would mean that neither the left nor right would get elected, since people more toward the middle are where the real numbers are. In other words, nothing would change except the rhetoric.

The only kind of third party that would have any chance of saving our nation would be to the right of both the current two. I don't know anyone who is pushing for a party which bridges the gap between police state internationists (the Republicans) and socialist internationalists (the Democrats).

 

[RealGun]

This is also why we need to vote for the US Constitution Party. Nothing will change until enough people become sick and tired and start feeling rebellious enough to just up and leave the Republicrat plantation. I, for one, will only vote US Constitution Party from now on. The Republicans have now thoroughly proven that, even if we give them all the power they want, they will do nothing to restore the Constitutional Republic.

Is this "US Constitution Party" the same as the Constitution Party? If so, I can understand your attraction to the name of the party, but the Constitution is not really what they are about when you look under the hood.

 

[Bruce H]

People will say anything to make a news article. Come election time they will always vote for those who promise to keep the coffers sending them money.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Is this "US Constitution Party" the same as the Constitution Party? If so, I can understand your attraction to the name of the party, but the Constitution is not really what they are about when you look under the hood.

I have been following the positions of this party since long before they changed their name from the US Tax Payers Party. I am fully aware of their stances on all the issues, then and now. Please be specific as to what you are referring to.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Tell that to the whig party. Bet that never thought those upstart Republicans would ever have a chance.

The Republican Party immediately won multiple seats in the House of the Representatives with the 1854 election. They lost the 1856 Presidential election but increased their hold in the House. They won the 1860 Presidential election and further increased their lead in the House.

Personally, I've looked long and hard at third parties and I don't see any of them out there that look like they are on track to follow the Republican party from third-party obscurity to major party. Right now, I'd be happy to see one that could get someone elected to the House of Representatives.

Actually I say that; but the third party that has been most successful in the last two elections is the Green Party and they are decidedly socialist. So I am not all that sure how I would feel about the success of a third party in getting someone elected.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I joined the Libertarian party so long ago, you'd have to have been in Nolan's living room to have joined much earlier. I put in hundreds of hours working on campaigns, wrote letters to newspapers all over the country, and donated so much to the party I was on a first name basis with some of their staff. So, take me seriously when I say this:

The third party movement is dead.

Even when I joined the LP, I was aware that we had a limited window to work in, that if we took too much time growing, the major parties would notice the threat, and pass laws to eliminate it.

They noticed it, and passed the laws. Game over. While third parties aren't facially illegal, they're subject to sufficient discriminatory burdens, (Which can and are adjusted as necessary.) that they have no hope of success.

 

[stevelyn]

Well at least I can say "Don't blame me, I voted for Badnarik." When people complain about the Dems and the GOP.

Sig line proudly displayed on this and other forums since the election.

........but the Constitution is not what they're really about when you look under the the hood.

I've been following the positions of this party since long before they changed their name from the U.S. Taxpayers Party. I'm fully aware of their positions on all the issues, then and now. Please be specific as to what you're refering to.

Oh? Then you must be fully aware the CP is nothing more than a bunch of Christo-Fascists that would like to establish a christo-fascist theocracy.

 

[Strings]

I think I'll leave the debate about the Constitution Party alone...

As for third parties: the ONLY way a third party will become viable is to start small: get people elected locally, then at the state leve, and so on. you don't build a pyramid by placing the capstone, then filling in the structure...

Personally, I like a "Kick the Incumbants Out!" movement: we pass a resolution throughout the country to remove EVERYBODY currently sitting in a seat, and replace them. THEY are not allowed to run...

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Oh? Then you must be fully aware the CP is nothing more than a bunch of Christo-Fascists that would like to establish a christo-fascist theocracy.

To the contrary, unless you think the Constitution is "Christo-Fascist." Believe it or not, under the Constitution, your city council is perfectly at liberty to vote to put up Christmas decorations in the town square that actually have something to do with the event being celebrated in our National Holiday of Christmas. Is favoring independent local self government the same as "Christo-Fascism" in your book? Naturally, the city council is also free to vote against such displays under the real US Constitution. I am in favor of either outcome, so long as it reflects the values of the community that put that city council in office.

The real Constitution says nothing about what city councils are able to do regarding the public celebration of the National Holiday of Christmas. The Constitution Party is in favor of the real Constitution, the one which establishes a Federal Government whose powers mainly look outwards, while leaving internal State matters to the States. I suggest you read James Madison's Federalist No. 45 for an accurate understanding of the Constitution visa vis State vs Federal powers. The Constitution Party stands with Madison on this point, as do I. I suppose that just makes Madison and myself a couple of "Christo-Fascists," though.

 

[dasmi]

The next election will boil down to McCain versus Hillary.

If that be the case, I'm voting libertarian, or not at all.

 

[yucaipa]

The whole purpose (of this article) for a 3rd party is to put Hilliary in the WH in 08. Her negatives are so high that she can't get to 50% plus 1 in a two way race against anybody.

For her to win somebody has to jump ship on the right, Mcain,Rudy,or ?
who's going to be the "Ross Perot" (sucker throw away your vote) candidate in 08.

 

[The Drew]

The whole purpose (of this article) for a 3rd party is to put Hilliary in the WH in 08. Her negatives are so high that she can't get to 50% plus 1 in a two way race against anybody.

For her to win somebody has to jump ship on the right, Mcain,Rudy,or ?
who's going to be the "Ross Perot" (sucker throw away your vote) candidate in 08.

You know... You would think that Republicans would've learned their lesson after Perot... In fact I believe they did and immediately after the perot debacle that cost the Repubs the white house, there was a great sea change in politics and a resurgence of the conservative movement... The republicans retook congress for the first time in years based on the contract with america.

Then came the 2000 election, With repubs so solidly in power, they forgot their constituents, and for the past 5 have shown their true colors... The authoritarian corporatists have taken over the party, and are driving many traditional republicans from the party...

I too have left the party, My epiphany was the last primary I voted in, when True conservative Pat Toomey was defeated by a slim margin by RINO Arlen Specter ONLY because he had "party" support... I was disillusioned... I believed that we the people could change things working within the party framework...

With the exception of my local officials, I am done voting for traditional party candidates. If I don't have a 3rd party choice, I'm voting against the incumbent.....

 

[White Horseradish]

To the contrary, unless you think the Constitution is "Christo-Fascist." Believe it or not, under the Constitution, your city council is perfectly at liberty to vote to put up Christmas decorations in the town square that actually have something to do with the event being celebrated in our National Holiday of Christmas. Is favoring independent local self government the same as "Christo-Fascism" in your book? Naturally, the city council is also free to vote against such displays under the real US Constitution. I am in favor of either outcome, so long as it reflects the values of the community that put that city council in office.

The real Constitution says nothing about what city councils are able to do regarding the public celebration of the National Holiday of Christmas. The Constitution Party is in favor of the real Constitution, the one which establishes a Federal Government whose powers mainly look outwards, while leaving internal State matters to the States. I suggest you read James Madison's Federalist No. 45 for an accurate understanding of the Constitution visa vis State vs Federal powers. The Constitution Party stands with Madison on this point, as do I. I suppose that just makes Madison and myself a couple of "Christo-Fascists," though.

So if they are all about the Constitution why do they keep talking about Biblical law in their platform? US law is a far cry from Biblical law, and I would prefer to stay with the former, thank you very much. They sure sound more like a Biblical Party than anything else.

Town councils and Christmas decorations do not enter into it. As a matter of fact, I would prefer the said councils to avoid spending my money on frivolous things like that. I can put up my own decorations just fine.

Fascist is a misnomer here. The word is totalitarian. Anyone that wants to legislate moraltiy is a totalitarian. So it seems the proper name would be the Biblical Totalitarian Party.

 

[Strings]

>The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.<

Hmmm... where DOES that leave Pagans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, etc? Or should we just leave?

 

[stevelyn]

To the contrary, unless you think the Constitution is "Christo-Fascist." Believe it or not, under the Constitution, your city council is perfectly at liberty to vote to put up Christmas decorations in the town square that actually have something to do with the event being celebrated in our National Holiday of Christmas. Is favoring independent local self government the same as "Christo-Fascism" in your book? Naturally, the city council is also free to vote against such displays under the real US Constitution. I am in favor of either outcome, so long as it reflects the values of the community that put that city council in office.

The real Constitution says nothing about what city councils are able to do regarding the public celebration of the National Holiday of Christmas. The Constitution Party is in favor of the real Constitution, the one which establishes a Federal Government whose powers mainly look outwards, while leaving internal State matters to the States. I suggest you read James Madison's Federalist No. 45 for an accurate understanding of the Constitution visa vis State vs Federal powers. The Constitution Party stands with Madison on this point, as do I. I suppose that just makes Madison and myself a couple of "Christo-Fascists," though.

How did you manage to extrapolate my comments about the CP as having anything to do with Christmas decorations? Or that I was somehow against local control? It would go against my Libertarian values to do so.

My comments had to do with the CP attempting to establish law/public policy based on ancient Hebrew scribblings in a Diety handbook similar to how the Taliban established law in Afghanistan based on their Diety handbook.

Our govt is secular for a reason. Just because individuals have the right to worship/believe as their conscience sees fit does not give those same individuals the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of us through the legislative process.
Religion is an individual relationship between the individual and the invisible supreme being of their choice, not a vehicle for public policy.
The wall separating church from state would get knocked down if the CP had its way and soon after other religious beliefs/practices eventually would no longer be tolorated.

White Horseradish, I stand corrected. Totalitarian is a more accurate term.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

>The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.<

Hmmm... where DOES that leave Pagans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, etc? Or should we just leave?

The fact that the organizers of a party are predominantly Christians doesn't mean that they favor a theocracy. Read their views on their site regarding issues of the use of Federal power. Religion come into the picture with them only in their opposition of the use of Federal power to suppress local expressions of religious belief through local government. This is not a power delegated to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. It was usurped.

Where does it leave pagans and such? Where does the Constitution leave them? They are free to exercise their religions as they see fit. I don't see any history in our nation of government suppressing the free exercise of religion, although the leftists have been trying hard to do that for many decades now.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

How did you manage to extrapolate my comments about the CP as having anything to do with Christmas decorations? Or that I was somehow against local control? It would go against my Libertarian values to do so.

My comments had to do with the CP attempting to establish law/public policy based on ancient Hebrew scribblings in a Diety handbook similar to how the Taliban established law in Afghanistan based on their Diety handbook.

Our govt is secular for a reason. Just because individuals have the right to worship/believe as their conscience sees fit does not give those same individuals the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of us through the legislative process.
Religion is an individual relationship between the individual and the invisible supreme being of their choice, not a vehicle for public policy.
The wall separating church from state would get knocked down if the CP had its way and soon after other religious beliefs/practices eventually would no longer be tolorated.

White Horseradish, I stand corrected. Totalitarian is a more accurate term.

Although the organizers are predominantly Christian, Americans are that as well. This does not mean that they favor trashing the Constitution and replacing it with a theocracy. The Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from establishing an official religion, let alone a theocracy. I would challenge you to provide one quote from their site which supports such a ludicrous claim.

 

[Strings]

I'll warn ahead of time that I'm going to do something I try NOT to do: I'm going to post a link to a pagan site. I think you will find it's germain to the current discussion. Mods, if I'm overstepping my bounds, PLEASE PM me...

>Where does it leave pagans and such? Where does the Constitution leave them? They are free to exercise their religions as they see fit. I don't see any history in our nation of government suppressing the free exercise of religion, although the leftists have been trying hard to do that for many decades now.<

You don't get out much. Of course, the MSM doesn't cover things like this all that often...

http://www.exploringthecauldron.com/October05/DarlaWynne.htm

Read through the interview, and THEN tell me that there aren't abuses. THEN tell me that having people of enough religious zeal that they put "acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States." on the first page of their bloody site is a good idea?

As someone of a non-Christian faith, the thought of such in office worries me just a bit. Good thing that, of the people who have offered to use me as firewood, I've been the one with the guns, eh?

 

[BigG]

Most any organization starts out with noble sounding goals, to perform some purpose. Once the party gets large enough to gain self awareness, the aim often switches to survival at any costs and the purpose gets thrown out in favor of beefing up the perks and influence of senior party officials. The only way I see short of a shooting war to change the two party system currently in place is to change one of the parties from within. It's a long term goal.

Politics is the art of compromise and a person who can't understand that does not understand politics. You will have to work with these people anyway, why not do it productively? I see the attempts to drum up support for these fringe parties destructive. YMMV

 

[White Horseradish]

Although the organizers are predominantly Christian, Americans are that as well. This does not mean that they favor trashing the Constitution and replacing it with a theocracy. The Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from establishing an official religion, let alone a theocracy. I would challenge you to provide one quote from their site which supports such a ludicrous claim.

Let's go read their platform, shall we?

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Bible-based jurisprudence sure sounds theocratical to me.

Here's some more:

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

So, which faith do we educate everyone in? Bet it ain't Shinto...

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

So they are going to tell me about he true nature of sex and eforce laws based on their religion. Nope, nothing theocratic about that...

The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property - not to redistribute wealth. Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft.

Welfare policy defined by the Bible? How is that not establishing a religion?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let's go read their platform, shall we?
Bible-based jurisprudence sure sounds theocratical to me.

Here's some more:
So, which faith do we educate everyone in? Bet it ain't Shinto...

So they are going to tell me about he true nature of sex and eforce laws based on their religion. Nope, nothing theocratic about that...

Welfare policy defined by the Bible? How is that not establishing a religion?

None of that is an advocacy of a theocracy, since the Constitution does not establish a theocracy. What you have quoted represents the value system that the heads of this party advocate, not the form of government they advocate. They believe that the Constitution was somehow influenced in its origins by Biblical values. Hey, so long as they support the Constitution, I don't care where they think it came from.

As for religion in school, they advocate that the Federal Government get out of that business entirely, leaving it to the States, as it was before the Leftists took over our country. In such a situation, some schools will have some form of generalized prayer, and some won't. That's federalism. You are free to influence your own school via the school board. If you cannot influence it the way you'd like, you are always free to send your kids to private school, or home school them, or to move to a community with schools that reflect your values. The Constitution was not intended to create uniform school standards. In fact, it was not supposed to have anything to do with schools.

As for porn and such, under federalism, these folks would promote anti porn laws in their States and communities, and you would oppose such laws. Again, Federalism. Some places will reflect your kinds of values and some places will reflect their kinds of values. You don't seem to even know what a theocracy is. It is when the Church is the government. When regular Christians attempt to get their values reflected in their communities and local governments, that's not a theocracy. The word for that is federalism. You are free to advocate for your values in your local laws too, and if you are unsuccessful, you are free to find a community more to your liking. Again, federalism, not theocracy.