Bush has taken the republican party down with him permanantly

Vote Libertarian..

anything but Democrat or Republican... This two party system we're stuck in is NOT WORKING. They're all buddy buddy.. same disease, different face.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 23 2007, 06:28 PM) [snapback]411152[/snapback]</div>

I'd love to see a viable third party, but in this age of advertising dollars/coporate lobbying, I can't imagine one ever getting off the ground. I expect any third party that coalesces around a polarizing issue missed by the other two will have that issue quickly co-opted as soon as the Dems and Repubs notice it.

 

Yes my friends.. it is a sad state of affairs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 23 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]411173[/snapback]</div>

It would be the party of people who aren't swayed by the media and lobbying machines. It's when enough of us stop listening to them and they take notice that we'll get our third party in place. It won't take the cooperation of politicians and corporations, just the will of the people and then they'll be forced to follow us.

 

And here I thought it would be the Democrats who split into two parties; if I were a real conservative Republican (as opposed to a Neocon) I'd be demanding a new party.

On the other hand, Nixon didn't kill the Republican party. On the third hand, Dubya makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 23 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]410988[/snapback]</div>

Vote Green.

Otherwise I agree with the above.

I'm amazed, however, by all the people, every time a ruling party suffers a defeat, who predict that that party is dead forever. The electorate has a very short memory, and is very easily manipulated. And with our two-party system so thoroughly entrenched that any alternative party is very effectively locked out, the power is just going to shift back and forth between the two mafias that call themselves political parties.

Correction: The power will stay with the people who back both parties simultaneously: the big corporations. But the two parties will trade off governmental offices back and forth. The Dems have a slight majority in the legislature, and the Repubs are down in the polls and may lose the executive in 2008, and in a few years it'll shift back, and then forth, back and forth. In 4 years, or maybe 8, the voters will have forgotten what the shrub did to the country, and they'll vote Repub if the repubs can mount a better campaign of lies than the Dems can...

And if the voters ever elect a true outsider, the power behind the two big parties will kill him or her. Power does not let go easily, because there's a lot of money being made by running the show.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 23 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]410988[/snapback]</div>

Libertarians are Republicans without the charm.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 23 2007, 06:18 PM) [snapback]411192[/snapback]</div>

I think the Green Party is the most likely to become a viable third party.

What I'd like to see is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party. The closest I can find is at Centrist Party. But they are so small they are not likely to become a strong third party.

Until there is a strong enough third party, a vote for a third party basically becomes a vote for Republicans as they are votes that are not cast for Democrats.

Centrist Party

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 23 2007, 06:20 PM) [snapback]411237[/snapback]</div>

This is really very amusing, since it makes just as much sense if you turn it around and state that a vote for an alternative party is a vote for the Dems because it's not a vote for the Repubs.

In fact, a vote for an alternative party is a vote AGAINST BOTH parties. It is a statement that when two mafias are battling for who gets to rob the shopkeepers of a neighborhood, we don't think either one should be allowed to do so.

Republican = criminal
Democrat = criminal

A vote for either party is a vote for crime. :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 23 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]411274[/snapback]</div>

Democrat = murder
Republican = rape and murder
Green = smoking dope
Libertarian = illegal possession of an AK

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 23 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]411173[/snapback]</div>

Our current winner-take-all election system virtually eliminates the possibility of have more than two real parties. Voting for a third party essentially throws away your vote. I'd like to see some sort of progressive or preferential voting system where voters vote for more than one candidate in the order of preference.

Tom

 

When a party get to this ebb, the opposition can run on their failures 2-3 general elections. Then they either stay on their accomplishments or get run out themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 23 2007, 09:20 PM) [snapback]411237[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the post, Godiva. I first joined their lists last year. Woefully small. Insufficient support. But we'll see.

 

I used to like Repub fiscal responsibility, but now I see it as a lie, just an excuse to limit democratic power.

I used to like Repub competence in defense matters. Today there is no such thing.

I tend to be an old-fashioned person in my approach to values and responsibility and that was once a Repub value. Today they are twisting Christianity into the service of hatred. Hatred for gay people, hatred for Muslims, hatred for liberals and in their actions, hatred for American Soldiers. I may have hated out of weakness at times, but I would never call it family values.

I used to like that Repubs were aware of how hostile foreign leaders really were behind their friendly facades. Today dubya gives pootie-poot BJs that Monica could only envy. I don't doubt that when the visit is over, pootie-poot chuckles at "Monica's" talents. An American critic of Vladimir Putin's was killed only a few miles from here. The police said it was a robbery, his wife said nothing was taken. Pick one.

I used to like that when Repubs favored white successful, accomplished and educated males, it was usually about posting intelligent, experience and competent people who knew what they were doing and cared about doing their jobs well. Today the incompetents posted by the Bulsh administration harbor contempt for the people who actually do know what they are doing and care about doing a good job. The Repubs are too busy "creating realities" to notice that they have taken the world's most advanced and capable military and used it with such utter incompetence as to render it ineffective.

By the way, for what it's worth, the new Secretary of Defense who wants to get rid of the prison at Guantanamo and who fired Army VIPs over the mess at Walter Reed -- you know, actually holding people accountable -- I like him, he's old school and he knows what he's doing.

Make fiscal responsibility real, don't torture, no rendition, EVERYONE honors the laws, honor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, LIVE by family values (instead of talking about them), honor freedom of religion (don't foist the most ignorant and simplistic interpretations of Christianity over the general populace!), strengthen the economy (not profligate spending!) -- these were all consistent with Repubs that I would vote for -- but those guys are gone and one fears they may never be back.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Mar 23 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]411291[/snapback]</div>

 

You folks have it backwards. A vote for the Greens is NOT a vote taken away from the Democrats. A vote for the Democrats is a vote taken away from the Greens.

Although it looks like they FINALLY got it. Unless they nominate Hillary "Show me the money" Clinton. Although if nominated, I'd probably vote for her anyway, since even though she's a walking example of every negative stereotype about politicians, anyone who upsets Rush and Bully Bill so much is someone worth supporting.

 

I like Edwards and think an Edwards-Obama or an Edwards-Clark ticket would win.

I'm surprised to find a lot of other DailyKos visitors also like Edwards. The last online poll there had him at first with 38% while Hillary was at something like 8% there. I have to suspect that Repub manipulation of the media is somehow behind Hillary polling so much higher in the MSM reported polls.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 23 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]411323[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 23 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]411274[/snapback]</div>

I made the statement based on the few elections when viable third parties make a large dent. I don't remember what happened with Ross Perot. But I think Nader cost the Democrats the election by taking Democrats and independents away from voting for a Democrat to vote for him. And that's how Bush got elected. A simplified one paragraph explanation.

A third party attracts independents that don't like either party (and who would likely vote Democrat) and it takes more Democrats than it takes Republicans. So....Democrats lose.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. What I'm saying is that a third party doesn't have enough clout to get their candidate elected. So it's a token protest but essentially a wasted vote. The third party candidate is going to lose.

If there were a chance a third party candidate would win, I'd go there. But I'll vote Democrat just to make sure the Republican candidate does not win.

note: I never used to vote this way. I used to be registered non-partisan and vote for anyone. It is only in the last SEVEN YEARS that I have changed my voting pattern. Read what you like in to that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Mar 23 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]411289[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to do away with the electoral college and vote direct. I'd also like to do away with primaries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 23 2007, 07:39 PM) [snapback]411283[/snapback]</div>

From what little I've seen of the Green Party, I think Greens stopped smoking dope about the same time the Democrats and the Republicans stopped. I know a couple of people who've continued to smoke dope well into their adult years, and I know one old lady who smokes it. But mostly it seems to appeal to young people, who drift away from it as they get more mature.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Mar 23 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]411289[/snapback]</div>

I don't remember her name, but Clinton nominated a person who advocated electoral reform along those lines, for some high government post. The opposition and the media tarred her with accusations of communism (calling it "undemocratic" to advocate proportional voting or any of its cousins) and Clinton dumped her.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 23 2007, 09:58 PM) [snapback]411357[/snapback]</div>

You are entitled to your opinion. But I say that alternative candidates do not take votes away from the big parties. You make a slanderous assumption when you assert that those voters would have voted for the democrat. Speaking for myself, I will not vote for a criminal. I will look for an alternative candidate to vote for. When there's a prominent alternative candidate I may pick him or her, but in the absence of such a candadate (e.g. Nader in 2000) I'll vote for some lesser-known alternative candidate.

I assert that the people who voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 would simply have stayed home had he not been on the ballot, or else they'd have voted for some other alternative candidate.

Gore lost because he ran a crappy, stupid, dull, and lackluster campaign. And the Republicans in Florida were better at fraud that year than the Dems were. And even with the fraud, Gore would have won if he had had a competent campaign. The Dems lost because of themselves, not because of a handful of Nader voters, or even because of the fraud in Florida. The Dems have totally abandoned the values they once pretended to hold. If they just continued to pretend to believe in justice, the voters would be dumb enough to keep voting for them. But they decided to admit that they really support big business (which they have all along) so they lost to the party that pretends to support family values.

BTW, the Republicans claimed that Ross Perot threw the election to Clinton in his first election. But that's bull also. Clinton won because Bush Sr. raised taxes after promising he wouldn't, thereby losing the greed vote, which makes up a big part of the Repub base.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 23 2007, 09:50 PM) [snapback]411383[/snapback]</div>

Just because you disagree with that premise does not make it slanderous. Many political scientists agree that enough of Nader's voters would have voted for Al Gore in 2000, had Nader not been on the ballot, to have changed the outcome in New Hampshire and Florida.

Now, please do not try to convince me that the country is not worse off with Bush as president than it would have been with Gore.