SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

Welcome, Halfback, to A2K and to one of the political threads here. As we get deeper into the election cycle you will be stunned at the pretty charts that Nimh posts. Awesome charts.
The concept of "a viable third-party candidate" is an oxymoron in our system. It just can not happen.
I note that this past weekend a group of "socially conservative republicans" (not my phrase) got together and ended up stating that if Rudy is the nominee, they would vote with their feet. They can not support him. They would either look for a 3rd party candidate or they would stay home and not vote for the "lesser of two evils."
It is unclear how many folks are inclined that way, or where they are clustered geographically (potentially hurting the repub nominee).

Again, welcome. We look forward to your comments. -rjb-

they seem to already be backing away from this, rjb. today tony perkins stated that this was "meant more as an opening shot across the bow".

recently jimmy carter commented that the christian right's influence had "reached it's zenith" in terms of political influence. i temd to agree with him.

Realjohnboy: Thanks for the welcome. In some of my posts, in other topics, I thought I had walked into a hostile fire zone!

You stated that a third party "viable" candidate was impossible. I tend to agree. Which begs the question: Is this situation good for the Country overall?

The problem with a two party system is that, once in control, a party can pretty much do what it wants, particularly if the President is of the same party and follows the "party line". This is termed "Tyranny of the Majority." In addition, the two party system leads to efforts to attack or demean the party in power with the objective to reverse the pecking order in future elections. In short, it is conflict prone.

Now, let's look at a multi party system. A multi party system generally slows down the pace of getting things done legislatively speaking. In some instances this is good, some bad. In some cases leading to complete stagnation. Again this is not necessarily bad, in that if one cannot gather the support necessary to pass legislation amongst the numberous Parties, perhaps it should not be passed at all.

In a multi party system, coalition building is more prevalent. i.e. legislative efforts are tempered with consideration for more points of view on the matter. With the two party system, the ruling party tends to pander to their Party's voters (and their agenda) and (as has been demonstrated upon occasion) relatively ignore the other Party's voters (and their agenda). This, of course, creates friction.

One can readily find examples of this friction of the Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Republican/Democratic hostile rhetoric, attacking and name calling right here in these forums. In fact, one can say the pages are literally dripping with the blood spilt.

At the very least, a multi party system would tend to water down the effects of Lobbists as they would have to "cover more bases" so to speak. Wouldn't last long, they'd hire more Lobbists to fill the void.

Just me thoughts on the matter. Particularly for one searching for a candidate that is moderate. Despite the observation that virtually every candidate, Rep or Dem, avers to be either "Moderate" or "A Uniter".

Under the caution that a leopard cannot shed his spots, I look for past behavior as an indication of how a person will proceed if elected. :wink:

Halfback

The Vigurie, Perkins, Dobson crowd are now making noises about a third party even more acutely than before. Though I consider some of these people pathologically insane, I don't think most of them are that stupid. Nor do I think the RNC is that stupid. The new conservative movement was a coalition of seriously differing goals and interests (eg, corporate goals are fluid and amoral...social conservatives are frozen and hot on the trail of Satan). That coalition is now coming apart as was bound to happen sooner or later. And if it is a contest between church and business, there's really no contest. But I don't see a formal breakup as in a third party.

Blatham
Blatham, you are so on target. I get so amused when Bushco claims that the religious right is his base. It's his base only in that he needs their votes to win and sustain power for his real base, the corporate world.

I was surprised to watch a video of Bush speaking to a corporate fundraising event a couple of years ago where he said, knowing the camera was on him, that the CEOs are his "real" base.

BBB

these are the types that i am pointing at when i carp about american christians. not the folks who just go to church and live their lives by that teaching.

it's the religio-zealot lunatic fringe who want everybody else to live by their religion (no matter which one that is) and seek to codify those rules in our government that really make my blood boil.

yesterday, perkins admitted that abortion is the issue that defines their vote.

aside from the thing that almost none of the anti-abortion bunch actively adopt unwanted children that result from their efforts, it is just bizarre to me that with so much going on in the world, these people invest their entire focus on minding somebody else's business and only care to vote for like minded busybodies.

wasn't it dobson who was going haywire a few years back about some sci-fi action figure that, he claimed, "sprayed demonic mist" at the "good" action figures ?

dude... it's a toy...

let 'em start a third party... it would be interesting to see how many of those wackos there really are.

You guys may have got wind of this, but here are some of the serious connections between the administration, the christian right, and Blackwater. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/

DTOM: Don't forget those religeous zealots who were all against the "Harry Potter" books, for belief in witchcraft, magic, et. al.

What really disturbs me is how a large group of ostensibly thinking humans can offer up such contorted thinking? It's a bloody fairy tale for crying out loud!

Halfback

Blackwater
Blatham:
How could Condi Rice tell the head of Blackwater, what not to testify on? Is this America's "private" army, that is paid better, equipped better? The "shoot first or kill first" and then ask questions, if you feel like it?
All seem to be former Navy Seals, CIA, or Special Ops people and are probably being used for other special operations, around the world, that we are paying for with our tax dollars and know NOTHING about, from this SECRET government; the "shadow government"!

yeah.. i really don't get those people.

SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008
I'm voting for Fred Thompson. I think he will do well in the White House and don't think he will let anyone "tell" him what to do. He's one of those people that must think first about what they are saying or doing. I'm from Arkansas, and I would Absolutely NEVER vote for a Clinton. Anytime we flushed our toilet, we were taxed for it. Let's not even get started about the alleged use of government to do things we wouldn't let our children do (even if it's Bill's definition of non-sex). (I'm also censoring myself!) I think Hillary knows all and she's using all she can get. I'm ready for a stable world. There might not be world peace, but stability is always a "good" thing. I want muslim leaders of the middle eastern countries to be able to shake our president's hand. They will not be able to with a woman president.

The Moslems were quiet for a long, long time b4 Laden

David

Uh...well...not really.

Re: SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008


Not that I'd vote for Hillary, but...



And...

Damn, Blatham beat me to it.
It must be my faulty internet connection.

Nice to see you, fbaezer.

Anyway, Aimus' post tells us a lot about prejudices.

Re: SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008


You seemed obsessed with the Repug's theory of give em sex instead of intelligence! You state all of the negatives, associated with Democrats, but seem to forget that it's your Repugs that gave us the congressional pages scandal, Katrina, the Afghan War, the Iraq war, Blackwater, Abramhoff, 9 Billion unaccounted for, down a rat's hole, for the Iraq/Afghan war, Enron, Tom DeLay and on and on! A President's "Mission Accomplished", 4 thousand dead American Soldiers, the Walter Reed Scandal and you worry about what Hillary knows?
Remember England had a female Prime Minister, Margart Thatcher and so did India, Indira Ghandi, also a Middle Eastern woman! I'm sure hey shook their hands! Haven't you heard? Elizabeth II, is the QUEEN of England! I'll bet the BOW to her!

Re: SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008


Have a look at the maps, please.
India is not in the Middle East.

I wonder exactly how much joy they feel on the inside when they are required by State functions to do that? Being politicians, they probably are not so hung up on the Man/Woman thing as the rank and file.

Old Marine Corps saying about orders: "Ya doesn't hasta like it, but ya gots to do it!"

Halfback