Thursday, December 17, 2009

Third Party, Tea Party, Whatever. Just Call It Suicide.

Intentionally dividing your army into two distinct, warring factions would be unthinkable for a military commander. It is equally suicidal for a resurgent conservative movement. That is why talk of a third-party run is nonsensical and defeatist.

But don't believe me: consider the history of third-party presidential candidates in America:


YEAR PARTY CANDIDATE VOTE% ELECTORAL OUTCOME in Next Election
1832 Anti-Masonic William Wirt
7.8
7
Endorsed Whig Candidate
1848 Free Soil Martin Van Buren
10.1
0
5% of the vote, absorbed by GOP
1856 Whig-American Millard Fillmore
21.5
8
Dissolved
1860 Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge
18.1
72
Dissolved
1860 Constitutional Union John Bell
12.6
39
Dissolved
1892 Populist James B. Weaver
8.5
22
Absorbed by Democratic Party
1912 Progressive Teddy Roosevelt
27.5
88
Returned to Republican Party
1912 Socialist Eugene V. Debbs
6.0
0
Won 3% of the vote
1924 Progressive Robert M. LaFollette
16.6
13
Returned to Republican Party
1948 States' Rights Strom Thurmond
2.4
39
Dissolved
1948 Progressive Henry Wallace
2.4
0
Won 1.4% of the vote
1968 American Independent George Wallace
13.5
46
Won 1.4% of the vote
1980 Independent John Anderson
6.6
0
Dissolved
1992 Reform H. Ross Perot
18.9
0
Won 8.4% of the vote
1996 Reform H. Ross Perot
8.4
0
Did not run
2000 Reform Ralph Nader
2.7
0
Ran Next election
2004 Green Ralph Nader
1.0
0
--

The Republican Party must be the vessel for conservatism to succeed. Ronald Reagan ran as a GOP outsider and won two successive landslides.

We must politically crush the Republican moderates, who stand for nothing, and replace them with those who believe in the Constitution. We must stand for limited government, national defense, free markets, legal immigration, fiscal prudence and -- most of all -- the Constitution as the founders intended it. And we must do so from within the GOP.

Ross Perot delivered us the disastrous Clinton presidency and crime syndicate -- a legacy of terrorism, Chinese missile deals, and Fannie Mae accounting scandals. A 2012 version of Ross Perot would result in another Obama term and a true catastrophe.

That is why talk of a third party run must be dismissed. Consider it a fool's errand -- or the surreptitious work of a Pelosi-Obama-Reid Democrat.


Hat tip: Mark Levin.

10 comments:

fboness said...

The Republican party has no right to rule or even a right to survive.

Larry Sheldon said...

Short and sweet:

If the Republicans continue put up Rino's or worse (think: Scuzzyfava)

And there are no worthy candidates or ballot measures, I will stay home.

And there are worthy candidates under any party, I will vote for them.

Anonymous said...

But which is the third party? The Republicans or the Tea Party?

In another nearby country the right-ish party went from a solid majority to having only 2 seats in parliament in the space of one election. The US has a long history of being a two-party system, but the two parties have not always been our current ones.

Anonymous said...

The Republican party needs to find a spine. Pussy's like Lindsey Graham and his ilk don't help.

Keep putting up RINOs, RNC.

ArlJim78 said...

a third party challenge is absolutely essential. it wouldn't last for long as the republican party would fold its tent in short order because it would have no basis to survive, no constituents. a true conservative teapartylike challenge would wipe out the Republicans and not a moment too soon. people should stop being pussies and wringing their hands over a third party threat. it would be the greatest boon to the conservative movement since Reagan. the party is broken, it has no leaders that resonate. we need some creative destruction, it would be a healthy thing.

Anonymous said...

Reagan did not run as a third party candidate for reason; he knew that would be a losing pursuit.

Run insurgent Conservatives in the Republican Party.

It's that easy.

Larry Sheldon said...

I'm not going to bite on the "third parties are bad" meme any more.

I'm just going to serve notice that I am not going to make the 24-mile round trip to vote for RINO's, for Nota S. Badaz, for people who are not committed to doing things the right way.

I'm tired of "you Republicans were in power for...why didn't you....?"

I guess they are going to enforce a if-you-vote-you-must-vote-every-question (which is just wrong, but for another day), and there are people or questions that make the trip worth doing, I'll vote for the D, not the RINO.

RNC, the ball is in your court.

If you think it is important to have only two parties, you best decide if you want to be one of them.

directorblue said...

Larry Sheldon -- if you think the Marxists in power now are acceptable, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The GOP is starting to get the message: they're standing strong against health care and the House -- without a dissenter -- resisted Cap-and-Tax.

So don't tell me the parties are the same.

Don't want to vote? Then why not just welcome Obama as your new Marxist overlord?

Larry Sheldon said...

Where, exactly, did I say that the Leninists (or maybe Maoists--not Marxists) were acceptable? Show me exactly, please.

I think I did say something to the effect that I wasn't going to vote (at a 24-mile cost) for a Scuzzyfava just because she is a "Republican).

I did say that if thee is no choice among the parties, I would vote for the D so they can take the credit instead of providing a way to get on my case because I am registered as a Republican. (I also said, I think, that if the socialists say that if I vote on anything I have to vote on everything I would pick the D if there was nothing any better.

I did vote for Nota S. Badas, and what did I get? I lots of people doing what I will do, if there was no reason to vote at all, I would stay home. It's what lots of you did.

Just for the sake of some rare intellectual honesty, a little 5-point pop quiz:

1. What was the official party affiliation of the President who sign the TARP legislation?

2. What was the official party affiliation of the candidate for President in the recent election who "suspended" his campaign to focus on twisting arms to get the disastrous TARP legislation enacted?

3. What was the party affiliation of the candidate for Congress in New York's 23rd District who came in third in the vote-count?

4. On a continuum of +10 (free market capitalist) to -10 (socialist) where would many people agree that the third-party candidate in #3 should be placed?

5. In 25 words or less, why would a free market capitalist drive 24 miles to vote for such a person?

For extra credit, place the following people on that continuum and identify their official party affiliation and with a "yes" or "no" identify the desirability of each as a candidate a free market capitalist would find acceptable.

a. Mitt Romney
b. Colin Powell
c. Arnold Schwarzeneger
d. Lindsay Graham
e. Michael Steele.

And for the rest of the semester off with qa guaranteed "A", justify the Republican Party's treatment of Sarah Palin. That as many words as you like--I'll wait.

Larry Sheldon said...

I didn't mention it, because I am too lazy to look up the facts, but do you happen to know the party affiliations of the people who made the key votes to enact the first "Stimulus" package? If I have the opportunity, should I drive all the way to Valley and back to vote for them?