Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 7:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:11 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:27 pm
Posts: 1575
Location: Clearwater, FL
Likes: 3
Liked: 4
So, instead of confronting and opposing a supreme court nominee who appears, by all indications, to be a judicial activist and also made some very unfortunate comments that some are calling "racist"; what do they do? They run to the media and attack their own out of fear that they will loose Hispanic voters who they don't currently have in the first place.

Google "Miguel Estrada" and it tells me all I need to know which party is a coward and which party stands up and defend their positions, on ideological grounds, not matter the cost.

I have never lived in a country where there is no opposition to confront the party in power, and sadly, I think that is all about to change.

_________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
~~ Edmund Burke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:16 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
I know most people around here think that 3rd parties are a dumb idea, but this is why you REALLY should consider the Constitution Party. Help them elect local reps and people to the senate/congress (both fed and state). Nothing says you can't vote for the Rep Prez nominee.

Anyway, Travis, this is why I can't stand the Repubs. They have no spine. They're a bunch of sniveling cowards with no interest in protecting this country. They have the same governmental philosophy as the Dems -- appease to please; buy votes to govern, not according, but for the sake of power.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:23 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
I have never seriously considered a third party until recently. After Clinton won in 1992, it was followed by the Contract With America and Republicans taking the House and Senate in 1994. I see no similar leadership today (outside of Huckabee). In light of all the assaults on the core of who we are as a nation that is stunning.

However, for another party to be a serious contender, there needs to be a substantial movement of leaders to that party in addition to a grassroots movement. It needs momentum.

In a number of ways, the Constitution Party lines up with my views but I am not sure that it can build the coalitions that are needed. IMO, they would need to recruit some visible leaders, such as Huckabee, JC Watts, John Linder, et al.

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:38 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
Oh yeah, now I remember why I never seriously considered the Constitution Party:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_ ... .php#Taxes

They oppose the Fair Tax and believe taxing corporations is an appropriate source of federal income.

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:51 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:01 pm
Posts: 884
Location: Indianapolis
Likes: 166
Liked: 73
what about the American Independent Party?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:51 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
As a Constitutionalist, let me respond, Ken. Yes, they oppose the FT, which I strongly support. The reason they do not support it, though, is that they reject ALL non-apportioned federal taxes (which the FT is). I'd be just fine with the tax system they suggest (it's the one set up by the FFs), although I would also, of course, love the FT. Actually, I think the FT is a step in the right direction, although fundamentally, I really wish that the Fed. Gov't would get out of the tax business pretty much entirely and leave that to the states, but that in line with having a smaller Fed. Gov't.

The point I am trying to make is that their tax position CANNOT be used as a basis for accepting or rejecting their general platform unless it is put in the larger context of their plans for gov't. Fundamentally, they want to massively reduce the size of the Fed Gov't and put the power back into the hands of the States. In THAT case, there is no need for even a FT. I agree with the FT insofar as looking for a tax system to replace our current code and that fits with our current form of gov't. But if we had a Fed Gov't operating like the FFs envisioned, we souldn't need the FT, and thus, even it would be opposed.

The question is if you agree with their BROADER picture, and if you agree with their specific ideas IN LIGHT OF that picture. Certainly, it wouldn't work in the current system now, and we recognize that. But in the meantime, why support a party (the Reps) that don't support the FT anyway? And if they aren't going to support social conservatism, why bother with them?

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:55 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
Indiana4Huck wrote:
what about the American Independent Party?

I don't know much about them. I'm fine with a coalition of conservative parties. They'll pretty much vote together on both social and fiscal issues, and I'm fine with that. The big issue then would be Prez. races, but that's another discussion. I just fundamentally think the Republican party needs to be downgraded. They aren't conservative, they want power for the sake of power, and they'll always take conservatives for granted. We need a real party, or parties, that truly represent our ideas.

edit:

From Wiki:

    Since 1992, the American Independent party has been the California affiliate of the national Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party. However, in 2008 one faction of the AIP broke with the Constitution Party and gave the ballot line (which it controlled) to Alan Keyes, candidate of the similarly-named America's Independent Party.

I hoped Keyes would have gotten the CP nomination, but Baldwin did. I completely understand if people want to do something like that based on a prez. candidate. That's fine. The two still have pretty much the same views, and I suspect if we ever do get a viable third party (one of these, anyway), the one will lose its supporters to the other (given that they are so similar).

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:04 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
Thanks for the response. I sent an email to the Constitution Party to ask for an explanation. What you explained is what I expect to hear from them, but would like to see how they answer my questions.

Yeah, the GOP doesn't support the FT but there is a substantial movement with the GOP for it. It is getting pushed at the state level in several states and I can only hope that it will pick up momentum.

I agree that the ultimate goal is to significantly reduce the government's income and thus power over the states and individuals, but I think their position is a bridge too far.

IMO, the best approach is to go to the FT, reduce that tax rate, and then go to the state apportioned taxing.

I also think that one of the best ways to jump start that party would be to support the Fair Tax as an interim step to change Washington. If they did, they would have the potential to draw in a number of informed and passionate people. The other major job they would need to do as I mentioned in my previous post is to recruit significant and visible leaders.

I am pretty much at the point of believing that the GOP is an old wineskin that can't hold new wine without bursting. I think it is time for a new wineskin.

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:08 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
Ken Neikirk wrote:
Thanks for the response. I sent an email to the Constitution Party to ask for an explanation. What you explained is what I expect to hear from them, but would like to see how they answer my questions.

Yeah, the GOP doesn't support the FT but there is a substantial movement with the GOP for it. It is getting pushed at the state level in several states and I can only hope that it will pick up momentum.

I agree that the ultimate goal is to significantly reduce the government's income and thus power over the states and individuals, but I think their position is a bridge too far.

IMO, the best approach is to go to the FT, reduce that tax rate, and then go to the state apportioned taxing.

I also think that one of the best ways to jump start that party would be to support the Fair Tax as an interim step to change Washington. If they did, they would have the potential to draw in a number of informed and passionate people. The other major job they would need to do as I mentioned in my previous post is to recruit significant and visible leaders.

I am pretty much at the point of believing that the GOP is an old wineskin that can't hold new wine without bursting. I think it is time for a new wineskin.

I agree with everything you said. I have talked to the party chairman here in GA a couple of times. I think I'm going to talk to him about trying to get the party to adopt the FT, and then call the national director (I've talked to him as well). It would be a GREAT way to both get MAJOR support and get moving in the right direction. The CP plan is great, but it really isn't going to happen without incremental steps, and I see the FT as a great way to do that. Once the income taxes are gone, all the states will adopt a FT type system. Then, you start making the Fed Gov smaller, and you can implement an apportionment while simultaneously reducing the FT rate until it gets to zero. A very reasonable path, I think . . .

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:10 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Ken Neikirk wrote:
I am pretty much at the point of believing that the GOP is an old wineskin that can't hold new wine without bursting. I think it is time for a new wineskin.


It's definitely looking that way. I guess we should pray that God will work things out according to what's best.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:26 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 1993
Location: Iowa
Likes: 6
Liked: 13
Its not just "the system" which feeds the two-party model; its the American psyche, imo. Americans are essentially pragmatic. They believe in principles yes, but... the principles are broad-based, not narrow issue-specific items.

For example, they (we) believe in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (and also in private property). These are not "issues": Americans have no enduring issues. Issues are quarrels of the moment.

The other side, up to this time, has largely won the "abortion issue" because they anchored it within the "principle" of liberty. The "pro life" movement got portrayed as an anti_liberty movement which wanted Uncle Sam to monitor things which, intuitively, are of a most private nature. The pro_life movement was not sufficiently prepared to make the philosophical civil case for life.

Had the pro_life/pro_family movement anticipated this a little better they may have been able to seize the rhetorical high ground, and been able to turn back the abortionist movement on principled grounds of life. Which is to say, they would've had to have had the person-hood literature already circulating out in the culture.

Anyway, more generally, Americans are moderates (not "moderate" as pro-lifers mean). "Moderate" here means: reasonable, practical, sensible --lacking extremist intentions, and plans. It finds its clearest meaning as an antonym to "radical". Americans are not by nature radicals. They don't like radicalism.

We had our radical moment in 1776. Thereafter, we desire to not perpetuate incessant upheavals, but to form a more perfect union, through insuring domestic tranquility, by promoting the general welfare of all our partisans.

We do not want to degenerate to the place we were in the 1850s & 60s. Rather, we want follow the spirit of the 1950s & 60s.

_________________
'If you drive God out of the world then you create a howling wilderness' --Peter Hitchens


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:41 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
IMHO a third party would guarantee the democrats win. We need to get back to the basics the Republican Party stands for, not switch to a third party. We the people need to decide who will lead the Republicans, not Washington establishment or media. When I read all the coverage Ensign's visit to Iowa will get, it just amazed me that....here we go again. Media picking and choosing who The Republican leaders should be....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:52 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 2158
Likes: 4
Liked: 32
I see the issue as a battle within the republican party between the grassvotes average voter and the republican establishment. It seems to me that the two frontrunners -- Huckabee and Romney -- are each at least considering running in 2012 (if the environment for republicans is somewhat encouraging), and are putting in place strategical maneuvers right now based on an initial assumption that they will run.

Toward that end, Romney is stalking out the republican establishment and Huckabee is reaching out to the hearts and souls of the grassroots. Time will tell which is the more successful route, although, very prejudicially, I believe the grassvotes passion will prevail.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:54 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
Verticon, I agree with you about most Americans being moderates and not liking radicals. However, I believe that this moment in our history calls for radicalism and just as in 1776, a determined and principled minority brought the necessary change.

nrobyar, you might be right but the last part of what you wrote is why I am personally on the precipice of leaving the GOP. IMO, the path the GOP is pursuing will guarantee that the Dems will win for some time so why not find a new vehicle to advance our issues?

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:16 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
nrob wrote:
IMHO a third party would guarantee the democrats win. We need to get back to the basics the Republican Party stands for, not switch to a third party.


Ken wrote:
IMO, the path the GOP is pursuing will guarantee that the Dems will win for some time so why not find a new vehicle to advance our issues?

My fundamental problem is with the Republican internal leadership. It doesn't matter who is President. Reagan was a great prez. Did he change the party? No. Why? Because he didn't change the internal leadership. That's why the Repub. party can't be fixed. At their core, they are out of touch with America.

Whether it is the CP or the AIP or whoever, a people's party needs to replace them. A genuinely conservative party built from the bottom up. Until that happens, conservatives in the GOP will be like abused women too scared to leave because life on the streets will be hard, longing for the glory days of when her husband was once nice to her, and constantly making excuses of how things could change.

Look, even being a member of the CP, if the Repubs run a candidate (i.e., Huckabee) I can believe in, then he will get my vote. But I'm not WORKING for that party anymore. I'm doing what I can to help replace them. I think that should be all of our attitudes. If they run someone like Huckabee, then we should all vote for them. But that doesn't mean we have to be members of the party, and it doesn't mean we have to vote for their senators and congressmen, and it doesn't mean that we can't fight to build up a replacement that can and will be strong enough to take over. This is the only way that I see to get at the root of the problem, which is embedded within the fundamental leadership/money of the Republican Party.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:18 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:41 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: Western Virginia
Likes: 368
Liked: 133
I probably have an "issue" with the Constitution Party, but they lost me when they nominated Chuck Baldwin. Specifically, this article, which he mass-emailed caused me a lot of trouble with other Christian conservatives and homeschoolers.

Now, tell me, what did he have to gain by this smear campaign?

I admit I am still holding a grudge against him, and against Phyllis Schlafly (and a couple others). They did more damage to MH's primary campaign than any Democrat could have done in the generals. I might forgive them, but I don't trust them!

Anyway, in light of this, I can't really see MH moving on over to the Constitution Party any time in the near future.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/c ... 71102.html

Quote:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
by Chuck Baldwin
November 2, 2007



With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly's national Eagle Forum, said, "We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor." Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles." She went on to say, "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

Even one of Huckabee's strongest supporters within the Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." Of course, my question for Rick Scarborough is, With an indictment such as that, how can you continue to support Mike Huckabee?

According to an opinion piece written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, "Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, 'I know of no conservative he [Huckabee] appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.'"

Fund went on to say that "Mr. Huckabee's reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton."

Fund also said this about Huckabee: "'He's just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,' a former top Huckabee aide told me. 'As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I'll guarantee is that won't lead to competent conservative governance.'"

Mike Huckabee is also terrible on immigration. According to Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, "Rudy Giuliani spent years defending the right of New York City to remain a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee."

Regarding Huckabee's stance on immigration, Mr. Minton said, "Until of late, he has been an open-borders guy on immigration--amnesty, the whole works. As governor, he wanted to give free college scholarships to all illegals."

Minton's assertion is backed up by Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. He said, "Like his fellow presidential candidate [who recently dropped out of the race], Sen. Sam Brownback, Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together, they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens."

Ann Coulter agrees: "On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, 'I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.'

"Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up 'those who are racist and bigots.'

"He also made the insane point that companies such as Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn't allow non-citizens to vote, because it would 'send the message that, essentially, "If you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don't want you."'

"Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking--unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant."

A former state lawmaker, Minton also said, that Huckabee was not a "fiscally conservative Republican." Rather, Huckabee was regarded as just another liberal "tax and spender" in fiscal matters. This is in direct opposition to Huckabee's boast of "90 tax cuts during his tenure." And the facts seem to validate Minton, not Huckabee.

An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration report showed a "net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth" on Huckabee's watch.

That Huckabee is a liberal "tax and spender" is also affirmed by Tom Roeser. According to Roeser, "[Huckabee] hiked state spending 65.3%, from 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the 'Club for Growth' to call him a liberal in disguise . . ."

Roeser also points out that "The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over 20% and Arkansas' general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion."

Furthermore, according to the Washington Times, "Until recently, he [Huckabee] had refused to sign the famous no-tax pledge offered to candidates by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform."

In spite of Huckabee's proven big-government, big-spending, and pro-amnesty record, however, some Christian conservatives are falling for his conservative rhetoric. It seems that all a Republican candidate has to do is start talking "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" and he or she will gain the support of certain Christian conservatives.

First it was Bob Jones, III endorsing the liberal former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and now it is Janet Folger endorsing the liberal former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Why any Christian leader would want to support a man with such a dubious record truly escapes me.

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee. He is not a conservative. Even worse, he is not a constitutionalist. He is an opportunist, however. This is demonstrated by the fact that many of his supporters are openly posturing (with Huckabee's consent, obviously) for an opportunity to run Huckabee as a potential Vice Presidential candidate with either Giuliani or Romney at the top of the ticket.

Let me ask the reader something. How could a principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution conservative be willing to run on a ticket with a liberal presidential candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney? That's right, he couldn't.

I say again, beware of Mike Huckabee!

P.S. I would like to invite everyone who lives within driving distance of Pensacola, Florida to come hear the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore, "The Ten Commandments Judge," this Sunday, November 4, 2007 at Crossroad Baptist Church. The service begins at 10am CST. In my opinion, Judge Roy Moore is one of America's greatest Christian statesmen. He will be speaking live and in person to the people of Crossroad Baptist Church this Sunday, November 4. The church is located at 6800 Mobile Highway (US Highway 90), 1/2 mile past the Fairgrounds in Northwest Pensacola.

As a point of reference, Pensacola is located in the western-most tip of the State of Florida, about 50 miles East of Mobile, Alabama. Pensacola is approximately a 5 hour drive from Atlanta; a 6 1/2 hour drive from Orlando; a 3 hour drive from New Orleans; and a 7 hour drive from Nashville.

© Chuck Baldwin

_________________
"Never, Never, NEVER GIVE UP" Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:22 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
WhatsNotToLike? wrote:
I probably have an "issue" with the Constitution Party, but they lost me when they nominated Chuck Baldwin. Specifically, this article, which he mass-emailed caused me a lot of trouble with other Christian conservatives and homeschoolers.

Now, tell me, what did he have to gain by this smear campaign?

I admit I am still holding a grudge against him, and against Phyllis Schlafly (and a couple others). They did more damage to MH's primary campaign than any Democrat could have done in the generals. I might forgive them, but I don't trust them!

Anyway, in light of this, I can't really see MH moving on over to the Constitution Party any time in the near future.

Remember, there was a big fight to nominate Keyes, who I'm sure you would have been ok with. Obviously, I hated the smear campaign, too. But you can't hold his campaign tactics, even against our beloved Huckabee, against the entire party. The question is whether or not you support their platform.

And, as I said before, if not the CP, then fine. I'm okay with that. Your choice, but find a third party you can support and go to work for them. Again, I'll emphasize, that doesn't mean you have to vote for them in the presidential race. But all politics is local, and until we start building a real conservative party from the ground up, we will ALWAYS be on the outside complaining that the evil establishment won't really listen to us. Why should they? Really? WHY SHOULD THEY? They know we are going to vote for them anyway, so what does it really matter? It's put up or shut up.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:28 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 1993
Location: Iowa
Likes: 6
Liked: 13
WhatsNotToLike? wrote:
I probably have an "issue" with the Constitution Party, but they lost me when they nominated Chuck Baldwin.


One problem with "third parties", or whatever you want to call them (be they left or right) is they tend to attract not only incorrigible ideologues like Baldwin and Keyes, but also extremist malcontents, be they racists, or those who advocate violence to further the cause, or secession, tax evasion, etc.

The reason why they will never win is really very simple, its because they cannot form winning and governing coalitions with others who are not in 100% agreement with them. You're post is good example. Both Baldwin and Keyes bashed Mike publicly, and refused to support him because of their puritan ideology.

_________________
'If you drive God out of the world then you create a howling wilderness' --Peter Hitchens


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:31 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
yeah, I was put off by Baldwin because of that

I agree that the platform is important but how the party's leaders handle themselves is also important because it affects whether they can win elections or not.. it's important to stick to your principles but you don't have to be angry and ornery about it and the third parties tend to be that way unfortunately... I would like to see some vertical politics

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:37 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
VertiCon wrote:
WhatsNotToLike? wrote:
I probably have an "issue" with the Constitution Party, but they lost me when they nominated Chuck Baldwin.


One problem with "third parties", or whatever you want to call them (be they left or right) is they tend to attract not only incorrigible ideologues like Baldwin and Keyes, but also extremist malcontents, be they racists, or those who advocate violence to further the cause, or secession, tax evasion, etc.

The reason why they will never win is really very simple, its because they cannot form winning and governing coalitions with others who are not in 100% agreement with them. You're post is good example. Both Baldwin and Keyes bashed Mike publicly, and refused to support him because of their puritan ideology.

That's only due to their small size. As more and more people come in, you are forced to relax your response against those who disagree with you. When you are small, you can have a very tightly controlled message. There will be very little inter-party debate over such things, and so party heads are free to speak very ideologically. That, of course, changes as the party grows.

Imagine, for example, that you were to start your own party. You would have a message you wanted to spread. You would perhaps be willing to bend in some areas, but in others, you would flatly reject a change as it being fundamental. Start adding people and the same applies to them. Eventually, you get to the problem Repubs have today: what are our CORE principles around which we can build a big tent? The problem with the Repubs is that conservatism are NOT at the CORE. Power is. They see conservatism as a tool to get power. They'll pander to us so long as we help them win, and snub us otherwise.

So the answer: get onboard with a third party and start an inter-party dialogue. You'll win some and lose some, but that is what it takes to moderate and craft a message that can actually appeal to people. If they change, then they really are a people's party, which is what we need. If they don't, then they have the same core the Repubs and Dems currently do, and they aren't who we are looking for anyway.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY