Huntsman calls for third party

[KingOrfeo]

Can't we all just get along. Remember after they hit the towers we were all just one big party? That was cool. I got to stand on top of the pile.

Sure, let's just scrap political parties elections and stuff, they're all so divisive. Everybody now holding elected office gets to hold it for life and pick their successor, m'kay?

 

[1sickbastard]

Can't we all just get along.

No.
Next question.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Center always tips elections one way or anuther, but by themselves theyre impotent cuz no real conservative or liberal is gonna compromise. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? Uh, no.

 

[1sickbastard]

Sure, let's just scrap political parties elections and stuff, they're all so divisive. Everybody now holding elected office gets to hold it for life and pick their successor, m'kay?

Seems to work pretty good for the PRC...

 

[1sickbastard]

The Center always tips elections one way or anuther, but by themselves theyre impotent cuz no real conservative or liberal is gonna compromise. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? Uh, no.

Funny how some refuse to learn history's lessons.

I seem to recall the USSR refusing to find pragmatic solutions to the many problems that nation faced, because it conflicted with the official ideology. And when its leaders finally did start discarding ideology for working solutions, it was too little to late.

The PRC, on the other hand...

 

[Liar]

Does Hunstman want a new third party to the right or to the left of the Pubs? Probably the latter, I should think; but only the former has any chance of happening, at least as a result of an exodus from the GOP.

Judging by where he (says he) stands on issues, he doesn't want one to the left or right of the GOP per se. Just a new semi neo-con GOP free of John Birch freaks and rampant bigotry. Cause he feels the actual GOP is beyond saving.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Funny how some refuse to learn history's lessons.

I seem to recall the USSR refusing to find pragmatic solutions to the many problems that nation faced, because it conflicted with the official ideology. And when its leaders finally did start discarding ideology for working solutions, it was too little to late.

The PRC, on the other hand...

I have a crazee theory of what goes wrong with most governments: I call it the CRAYOLA CONSPIRACY. Every regime in the history of Earth awards itself the really big box of Crayolas with all the colors and the sharpener, and the peasants share a cigar box fulla broken fat storebrand crayons. Officials in between get the 16, 24, 48, 64 etc packs.

 

[garbage can]

How fucked stupid is that?



Santorum just proved his credentials as a man who will say anything to get elected, but he may be dumb enough to believe it.

Uhmmm, it appears as if the Muslim brotherhood will be the controlling party in Egypt.

What say you...?...

 

[Wrong Element]

Does Hunstman want a new third party to the right or to the left of the Pubs? Probably the latter, I should think; but only the former has any chance of happening, at least as a result of an exodus from the GOP.

I don't really understand Huntsman's disenchantment with the Republican field. On the issues, he's a conservative in pretty much every respect. The main differences between him and the guys still running are ones of style rather than substance: he doesn't give bumper sticker responses when it comes to foreign policy, and doesn't seem to care much about rightwing preoccupations on social issues.

If you read between the lines, it's as if he's saying that the problem with the current system is that it didn't work for him personally.

I thought at one time that if Romney won the nomination, you might get a significant third party challenger on his right, running an explicitly Christian campaign in the fall. But the most likely person I could have seen doing that would have been Bachmann, and she's decided to try retaining her House seat. Santorum would never do it because he is a party man at heart (Romney hammered him in the last debate on just that point). Gingrich is enough of an egomaniac to think about it, but I know he has pride in being the first Republican House speaker in 40 years, so I doubt he'd want to end his career being responsible for the GOP losing 40 states.

Basically, you'd need someone who is rich, very conservative, and has a massive ego, but doesn't have any real loyalty to the Republicans -- a rightwing Nader -- and I don't know who would fit that description. So I'm starting to believe Romney might be safe from such a challenge.

 

[ryan8558]

Nope. Don't see a Ross Perot in the wings at this time. The problem could be if no one wraps up the nomination by convention time. There will backroom deals and all sorts of drama. Could be the most interesting convention in a long time if that happens.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't really understand Huntsman's disenchantment with the Republican field. On the issues, he's a conservative in pretty much every respect. The main differences between him and the guys still running are ones of style rather than substance: he doesn't give bumper sticker responses when it comes to foreign policy, and doesn't seem to care much about rightwing preoccupations on social issues.

If you read between the lines, it's as if he's saying that the problem with the current system is that it didn't work for him personally.

I thought at one time that if Romney won the nomination, you might get a significant third party challenger on his right, running an explicitly Christian campaign in the fall. But the most likely person I could have seen doing that would have been Bachmann, and she's decided to try retaining her House seat. Santorum would never do it because he is a party man at heart (Romney hammered him in the last debate on just that point). Gingrich is enough of an egomaniac to think about it, but I know he has pride in being the first Republican House speaker in 40 years, so I doubt he'd want to end his career being responsible for the GOP losing 40 states.

Basically, you'd need someone who is rich, very conservative, and has a massive ego, but doesn't have any real loyalty to the Republicans -- a rightwing Nader -- and I don't know who would fit that description. So I'm starting to believe Romney might be safe from such a challenge.

You need a candidate who guarantees 2 things: Prosperity for all, and protection of rights for all. That is, we're all gonna make money, and noone's gonna push you around so long as you dont start any shit first.

And no candidate I know of has an iota of allegience to either of those principles.

 

[VoteForMe]

Uhmmm, it appears as if the Muslim brotherhood will be the controlling party in Egypt.

What say you...?...

Not to worry. That's why we HAVE the nucular weaponry.

 

[1sickbastard]

Uhmmm, it appears as if the Muslim brotherhood will be the controlling party in Egypt.

What say you...?...

It's not the MB's ideology that's attracted it's voters so much as it's ability to provide basic social services, like clean water, better housing, food and health care. In other words, a solid track record of doing useful things for their constituents, not just making speaches.

Politicians in this country could borrow a page from that book...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Judging by where he (says he) stands on issues, he doesn't want one to the left or right of the GOP per se. Just a new semi neo-con GOP free of John Birch freaks and rampant bigotry. Cause he feels the actual GOP is beyond saving.

Well, that would be a new party to the left of the GOP (as it is now).

 

[1sickbastard]

I heard a funny line last night, decribing the two parties that dominate American politics.

One is insane and the other is spineless.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Basically, you'd need someone who is rich, very conservative, and has a massive ego, but doesn't have any real loyalty to the Republicans -- a rightwing Nader -- and I don't know who would fit that description.

Not when Donald Trump has already ruled himself out this cycle, and the Koch Brothers don't seem to like the spotlight . . .

 

[richard_daily]

Basically, you'd need someone who is rich, very conservative, and has a massive ego, but doesn't have any real loyalty to the Republicans -- a rightwing Nader -- and I don't know who would fit that description. So I'm starting to believe Romney might be safe from such a challenge.

Ron Paul.

 

[Sean]

Ron Paul.

That"s a possibility, actually. His supporters actually, you know, support him.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ron Paul.

Not nearly rich enough. Not nearly conservative enough, for that matter, to mobilize the base under discussion; libertarians are still marginal in the GOP, the whole Tea Party insurgency, despite its rhetoric about biggummint and fiscal responsibility, is really not about libertarianism of any form, it is all about social-religious RW frustration.

 

[TexasWife25]

Not nearly rich enough. Not nearly conservative enough, for that matter, to mobilize the base under discussion; libertarians are still marginal in the GOP, the whole Tea Party insurgency, despite its rhetoric about biggummint and fiscal responsibility, is really not about libertarianism of any form, it is all about social-religious RW frustration.

You forgot "Hes too batshit crazy"

 

[richard_daily]

Not nearly rich enough. Not nearly conservative enough, for that matter, to mobilize the base under discussion; libertarians are still marginal in the GOP, the whole Tea Party insurgency, despite its rhetoric about biggummint and fiscal responsibility, is really not about libertarianism of any form, it is all about social-religious RW frustration.

Ron Paul is anti-gay, and doens't like black people... that should help get the RW religious base fired up.

Plus, his supporters are wingnutty enough to pull a stunt like this.

If anyone is running 3rd party from the current crowd of republicans, I think it will be Paul.

 

[richard_daily]

You forgot "Hes too batshit crazy"

"TOO batshit crazy"? Look at his contemporaries... He's a moderate by comparison to some of those yahoos.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You forgot "Hes too batshit crazy"

No, for purposes of mobilizing the base, or bases, under discussion, that would not a handicap. The problem is that he's the wrong kind of batshit crazy. Everything he says about paring down national defense will alienate the neocons and warhawks, drug-legalization alienates social-religious conservatives, he's not immigration-hawkish or trade-protectionist enough for the paleoconservatives, etc.

 

[Wrong Element]

Ron Paul.

That won't happen, because it would torpedo any ambitions his son might have. There's actually a school of thought that Paul's attacks on Romney's rivals are an effort to boost Rand's VP chances. Rand is a liar and a kook, but so was their last VP nominee.

 

[CandiCame]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1gzQC92ggzQ/Tsb_tFRtjTI/AAAAAAAAOxM/jSgsXJ0kqSs/s1600/daken_2009_by_localstigmatik-d33usrx.jpg

I got all excited and then it was another stupid political thread.