OT - way OT - 3rd party

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:39:08 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or
>> Republicans. Change from within.
>
> While I consider myself pretty much a moderate, the current
> occupation of the Republican party by the tea party and the religious
> right would drive me up a wall if I attempted to work with them.

The motivations of the religious right and a moderate conservative do not,
usually, result in a conflict on the result. Take reducing welfare. The
religious right may be motivated in cutting welfare claiming that should be
the province of the charitable-minded in the community of the faithful. The
conservative's inclination may be to reduce government expenditures by
cutting-off those able to work. Two different approaches, same outcome.

Point is, the agenda of your colleagues should be irrelevant to the result.
Why not a good result for both?

Consider the Keystone Pipeline endeavor. The unions want the jobs, the
conservatives want the oil. It's a win-win even though the unions have no
truck, generally, with conservatives and vice-versa.

>
> That leaves the Democrats and their "we know what's good for you"
> attitude.
>
> Sigh. It would be so nice if just once I didn't have to pick the
> lesser of two weevils.

You don't. On the election for president, there will probably be eight or
more candidates (Communist, Socialist, Flat-Earth, etc.). Your choice, then,
is between a vote that matters and one that doesn't.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:45:12 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:



>
>A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose
>party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes
>from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson.

So it can make a difference.


>
>No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot,
>not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference.

So we should stop and embrace the present corrupt parties? Rather
than accept the status quo, do something to change it.

>
>Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It
>gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on
>with business.
>

Who would those serious folds be? Certainly none of the present slate
of Republicans strutting in front of the camera. Nor the guy in
office, nor most anyone in Congress. You are welcome to accept and
vote for second rate candidates though, rather than try to find good
ones.

On 12/29/2011 08:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:45:12 -0600, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose
>> party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes
>>from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson.
>
> So it can make a difference.
>
>
>>
>> No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot,
>> not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference.
>
> So we should stop and embrace the present corrupt parties? Rather
> than accept the status quo, do something to change it.
>
>>
>> Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It
>> gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on
>> with business.
>>
>
> Who would those serious folds be? Certainly none of the present slate
> of Republicans strutting in front of the camera. Nor the guy in
> office, nor most anyone in Congress. You are welcome to accept and
> vote for second rate candidates though, rather than try to find good
> ones.

You can find all the "good ones" you want. The problem is getting them
elected. The majority of the electorate is clueless. The majority of
them couldn't tell you who the VP or their congressman is, let alone
what their position on issues is or what that position means to the
country. They'd vote for Justin Bieber if his name was on the ballot.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
>> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread
>> and unicorns.
>
> That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).
>
> Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys
> it in the next sentence.

Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to
hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want
them to, you know, actually RUN things.

CW wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
>>>> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread
>>>> and unicorns.
>>>
>>> That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).
>>>
>>> Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately
>>> destroys it in the next sentence.
>>
>> Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings
>> used to
>> hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just
>> didn't want
>> them to, you know, actually RUN things.
>
> For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal,
> fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted
> the place, to actually run things, now can we.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have very few of those left. Most are defeatists, like Heybub,
> who's motto is "There's no point in trying, we can't win".

Ah, but you can succeed - if you go about it the right way.

The libertarians have been trying the same thing for, what, 60 years with
exactly the same result each time: failure. Recall the definition of
insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different
result. They have not won. They will not win. They cannot win.

The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans.
Change from within.

There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has
the following story today:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politics/americans-elect/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.

Larry

On 12/29/2011 6:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
> thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
> political parties is doing its job.
>
> That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
> should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every
> one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political
> spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the
> beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That
> means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views.
> Not exactly the desired effect.
>
> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main
> agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the
> like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some
> leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced?
>
> Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win
> even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their
> opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless
> one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which
> is unlikely.
>
> Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make
> phone calls and type envelopes :-).
>

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
> thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
> political parties is doing its job.
>
> That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
> should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback.
> Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the
> political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of
> voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up
> as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party
> furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect.
>
> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose
> main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up
> Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of
> the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep
> things balanced?
>
> Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win
> even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be.
> Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to
> pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number
> of seats, which is unlikely.
>
> Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make
> phone calls and type envelopes :-).

A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose
party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes
from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson.

No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot,
not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference.

Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It
gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on
with business.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
political parties is doing its job.

That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every
one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political
spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the
beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That
means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views.
Not exactly the desired effect.

But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main
agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the
like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some
leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced?
==================================================================================

What you are proposing is electing people that actually represent the
majority. Blasphemy! :) :)

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

CW wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
>>>> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread
>>>> and unicorns.
>>>
>>> That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).
>>>
>>> Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately
>>> destroys it in the next sentence.
>>
>> Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings
>> used to
>> hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just
>> didn't want
>> them to, you know, actually RUN things.
>
> For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal,
> fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted
> the place, to actually run things, now can we.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have very few of those left. Most are defeatists, like Heybub,
> who's motto is "There's no point in trying, we can't win".

Ah, but you can succeed - if you go about it the right way.

The libertarians have been trying the same thing for, what, 60 years with
exactly the same result each time: failure. Recall the definition of
insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different
result. They have not won. They will not win. They cannot win.

The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans.
Change from within.
==================================================================
I really didn't expect that you would come back and confirm that you are a
defeatist but, apparently, you are proud of it.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:45:12 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the
>> Bull Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt
>> drew enough votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the
>> election to Woodrow Wilson.
>
> So it can make a difference.

Definitely yes. You'll need a candidate who was a former president,
implemented the equivalent of the Panama Canal, busted the trusts (i.e.,
Standard Oil), winner of the Nobel Prize, and so forth.

Now it just so happens I know a fellow that fits that bill. His resume
includes: Yale graduate, War hero, Congressman, Chairman of the Republican
Party, Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador to the People's Republic
of China, Director of Central Intelligence, Vice President of the United
States, President of the United States, and many lesser posts. But I don't
think anyone has approached him...


>
>
>>
>> No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not
>> Ross Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference.
>
> So we should stop and embrace the present corrupt parties? Rather
> than accept the status quo, do something to change it.

Exactly right. Choose the party closest to your views and get to work
changing it. To do so via a third party process is equivalent to building
the nation's best-selling car company from scratch.

>
>>
>> Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd
>> parties. It gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the
>> serious folks can get on with business.
>>
>
> Who would those serious folds be? Certainly none of the present slate
> of Republicans strutting in front of the camera. Nor the guy in
> office, nor most anyone in Congress. You are welcome to accept and
> vote for second rate candidates though, rather than try to find good
> ones.

I don't think you realize the complexity of a party's apparatus. It's not
just the office holder. There are, literally, tens of thousands of employees
within a party plus an equal number of active financial supporters. For
example, in a congressional district that might be vulnerable, a candidate
recruitment group will come into being. They'll seek out, wine and dine
prospects for the position. Research will be done, polls taken, pitches
made. Money will be collected to sustain the candidate during the campaign
(his family will need to be fed). There will be a dozen or so "elders" who
promote and create the candidate and his initial campaign. From there, the
campaign grows (or not).

No, it's not like somebody pops up and says "I want to be a congressman (or
govenor, or whatever)". There is a massive, and I do mean massive,
background process that is never seen by the public.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05:02 -0600, Gramp's shop <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has
>the following story today:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politics/americans-elect/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
>
>It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.

Perhaps. I view it with a cynical eye and raised eyebrow after seeing
who started it.



>On 12/29/2011 6:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
>> thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
>> political parties is doing its job.
>>
>> That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
>> should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every
>> one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political
>> spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the
>> beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That
>> means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views.
>> Not exactly the desired effect.
>>
>> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main
>> agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the
>> like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some
>> leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced?
>>
>> Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win
>> even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their
>> opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless
>> one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which
>> is unlikely.
>>
>> Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make
>> phone calls and type envelopes :-).

Ross Perot, for whom I proudly voted, won 20% of the vote in 1992.
That was our best chance. The Reform Party would have been our ticket
out of this mess the totally corrupt Reps and Dems have brought us
down to. BUT, the PTBs and Reps and Dems did everything in their power
to see him out of it. They even threatened his daughter during the '96
race and made Perot drop out.

--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05:02 -0600, Gramp's shop wrote:
>
>> There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has
>> the following story today:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politics/americans-elect/index.html?
>> hpt=hp_t2
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.
>
> It is interesting. But according to the article, they're
> concentrating on a presidential ticket. As the article says, "The
> U.S. Constitution requires the House of Representatives to pick the
> president if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes." That
> pretty much dooms any 3rd party presidential run.
>

Specifically, it's the NEWLY ELECTED House and each state gets one vote.
Right now, I THINK the Republican state majorities outnumber the Democrats,
but I couldn't find that breakdown.

On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
> thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
> political parties is doing its job.
>
> That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
> should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every
> one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political
> spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the
> beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That
> means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views.
> Not exactly the desired effect.
>
> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main
> agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the
> like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some
> leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced?
>
> Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win
> even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their
> opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless
> one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which
> is unlikely.
>
> Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make
> phone calls and type envelopes :-).
>
Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party
candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views.

For the last several presidential elections the vote has been about
50/50 +/-1. If the 3rd party is conservative, their votes will be
subtracted from the more conservative major party's 50%, thus the more
liberal party wins. (Liberal 50% 3rd party 10% + conservative party
40%) hence the all of the conservatives loose as the liberals win. (If
Ross Perot had not run the Republicans would have take the White house.)

The way a 3rd party could influence the election is if the conservative
group promoted a very liberal candidate so the 3rd party would detract
from the less liberal candidate, and then the sponsors of the 3rd party
vote for the more conservative major candidate.

Machiavellian but it would work.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
> thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
> political parties is doing its job.
>
> That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
> should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every
> one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political
> spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the
> beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That
> means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views.
> Not exactly the desired effect.
>
> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main
> agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the
> like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some
> leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced?
>
> Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win
> even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their
> opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless
> one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which
> is unlikely.
>
> Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make
> phone calls and type envelopes :-).
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


It is already happening. Two members of the Senate do not belong the the
Democrats or Republicans. The biggest stumbling block is local statutes
regulating elections. The Ds and Rs have the rules locked in their favor.
The Primary system is the best example; if you are not a D or R, the first
time your name appears on a ballot is November. Then they make the rules for
the legislatures. Those rules favor ONLY a two party system. All of them
have to go. The system may even need to go.
--
--

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
>> thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current
>> political parties is doing its job.
>>
>> That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it
>> should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback.
>> Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the
>> political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of
>> voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up
>> as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party
>> furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect.
>>
>> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose
>> main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up
>> Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of
>> the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep
>> things balanced?
>>
>> Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win
>> even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be.
>> Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to
>> pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number
>> of seats, which is unlikely.
>>
>> Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make
>> phone calls and type envelopes :-).
>
> A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull
> Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough
> votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow
> Wilson.
>
> No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross
> Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference.
>
> Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It
> gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get
> on with business.
>

Neither party could withstand three successive "Throw The Bastards Out!"
elections. Forget a capital 'T' third party - vote Against All Incumbents.

--
--

On 12/30/2011 10:37 AM, HeyBub wrote:

>
> Now it just so happens I know a fellow that fits that bill. His resume
> includes: Yale graduate, War hero, Congressman, Chairman of the Republican
> Party, Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador to the People's Republic
> of China, Director of Central Intelligence, Vice President of the United
> States, President of the United States, and many lesser posts. But I don't
> think anyone has approached him...

Well, he *is* eligible. He didn't do such a good job of it the first
time, although he probably is a better choice than any of the current
candidates.

Trouble is, he couldn't possibly win the election unless the Dems dump
Obama and run someone else. Hadn't you noticed that the winning
candidate in a Presidential election is nearly always the more polished
speaker? [*] IMHO the only reason he won in 1988 is that the Democrats
somehow managed to find, and nominate, the only politician in the United
States who is an even less articulate public speaker than he is.

* -- just look at the last 7 or 8 elections, and you'll see what I mean.

2008 As long as he has his Teleprompter, Obama is as articulate a
speaker as you'll find. John McCain is obviously ill-at-ease speaking in
front of large audiences.

2004 GWB isn't a polished speaker by any definition of the term, but
John Kerry does a pretty good imitation of a cigar-store Indian.

2000 Al Gore's imitation is nearly as good as Kerry's.

1996 Bill Clinton. Bob Dole. 'Nuff said.

1992 Bill Clinton. GHWB. 'Nuff said.

1988 Michael Dukakis? Oh, please. Did the man ever take a course in
public speaking in his life?

1984 Ronald Reagan, the "Great Communicator". Walter Mondale. 'Nuff said.

1980 Ronald Reagan. Jimmy "Ah will never lah ta yoo" Carter. 'Nuff said.

1976 Neither Carter nor Ford wins any points in my book as a public
speaker. That one's a tossup on that basis. Ford had that in the bag
until he pardoned Nixon.

1972 Nixon vs. McGovern -- McGovern wasn't too bad a speaker, as I
recall, at least as far as style is concerned, but the content was so
loony that he hadn't a chance.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:28 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

>>
>> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose
>> main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington"
>> or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road
>> candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things
>> balanced?
>>

> Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party
> candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views.
>

See my quote above - much of my post was dedicated to overcoming that
problem.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05:02 -0600, Gramp's shop wrote:

> There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has
> the following story today:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politics/americans-elect/index.html?
hpt=hp_t2
>
> It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.

It is interesting. But according to the article, they're concentrating
on a presidential ticket. As the article says, "The U.S. Constitution
requires the House of Representatives to pick the president if no
candidate wins a majority of electoral votes." That pretty much dooms
any 3rd party presidential run.

That's why I suggested running candidates for the house.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:51:02 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

>>
>>It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.
>
> Perhaps. I view it with a cynical eye and raised eyebrow after seeing
> who started it.
>

Seems to me to include moderates from both parties. Not necessarily my
favorites any more than yours. But a lack of compromise got us where we
are now in DC. I'm willing, are you?




>
> Ross Perot, for whom I proudly voted, won 20% of the vote in 1992. That
> was our best chance. The Reform Party would have been our ticket out of
> this mess the totally corrupt Reps and Dems have brought us down to.

FWIW, I voted for him as well. But I knew it was a futile protest. As I
pointed out in a previous response the rules would have thrown the
election into the house unless he got a majority of electoral votes.

That's why I suggested candidates for the house. While each state sets
its own rules for house elections, they're generally less restrictive
than those for presidential elections.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 12/30/2011 8:47 PM, HeyBub wrote:
[...]
> Fortunately, our current president cannot be, in the coming campaign,
> charismatic. Shouting "Hallelujah" and "Come on down," and "The seas will
> retreat!" are totally unbecoming for a president. If he acts that way, he'll
> be labeled a clown.

He already has the ears for it...

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and
> unicorns.

That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).

Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it
in the next sentence.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:39:08 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

> The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or
> Republicans. Change from within.

While I consider myself pretty much a moderate, the current occupation of
the Republican party by the tea party and the religious right would drive
me up a wall if I attempted to work with them.

That leaves the Democrats and their "we know what's good for you"
attitude.

Sigh. It would be so nice if just once I didn't have to pick the lesser
of two weevils.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:11:24 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:28 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose
>>> main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington"
>>> or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road
>>> candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things
>>> balanced?
>>>
>
>> Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party
>> candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views.
>>
>
>See my quote above - much of my post was dedicated to overcoming that
>problem.

Uh, Keith, voting for one guy in a two way race detracts from the
votes for the other party, too. Doh!

--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:44:45 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
>>>> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread
>>>> and unicorns.
>>>
>>> That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).
>>>
>>> Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys
>>> it in the next sentence.
>>
>> Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to
>> hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want
>> them to, you know, actually RUN things.
>
>For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce
>attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place,
>to actually run things, now can we.

<giggle> Yeah, we need to maintain the quasi-feudal path we've been
on, and keep calling it a democratic republic. Just ask him.

--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:33:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:51:02 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>>
>>>It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.
>>
>> Perhaps. I view it with a cynical eye and raised eyebrow after seeing
>> who started it.
>>
>
>Seems to me to include moderates from both parties. Not necessarily my
>favorites any more than yours. But a lack of compromise got us where we
>are now in DC. I'm willing, are you?

What, to compromise? ;) I'll give it a "we'll see", OK?


>> Ross Perot, for whom I proudly voted, won 20% of the vote in 1992. That
>> was our best chance. The Reform Party would have been our ticket out of
>> this mess the totally corrupt Reps and Dems have brought us down to.
>
>FWIW, I voted for him as well. But I knew it was a futile protest. As I
>pointed out in a previous response the rules would have thrown the
>election into the house unless he got a majority of electoral votes.

I thought the electorate was mad enough then to get the job done, but
I heard it over and over again after the election "I just didn't know.
I wanted someone I could trust." Like, gag me with a spoon.


>That's why I suggested candidates for the house. While each state sets
>its own rules for house elections, they're generally less restrictive
>than those for presidential elections.

Yeah, getting good people into the house and senate come first, and
maybe even last. CONgress controls things, not the President.

--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
>>> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread
>>> and unicorns.
>>
>> That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).
>>
>> Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys
>> it in the next sentence.
>
> Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used
> to
> hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't
> want
> them to, you know, actually RUN things.

For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce
attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place,
to actually run things, now can we.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have very few of those left. Most are defeatists, like Heybub, who's
motto is "There's no point in trying, we can't win".

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:11:24 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:28 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose
>>>> main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up
>>>> Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of
>>>> the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to
>>>> keep things balanced?
>>>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party
>>> candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar
>>> views.
>>>
>>
>> See my quote above - much of my post was dedicated to overcoming that
>> problem.
>
> Uh, Keith, voting for one guy in a two way race detracts from the
> votes for the other party, too. Doh!

It's the reverse with a vote for a 3rd party candidate. Voting for a Ross
Perot wannabe subtracts votes from his nearest party, the Republicans.
Voting for a Ralph Nader type subtracts votes from the Democrats.

Doug Miller wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 10:37 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>
>>
>> Now it just so happens I know a fellow that fits that bill. His
>> resume includes: Yale graduate, War hero, Congressman, Chairman of
>> the Republican Party, Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador
>> to the People's Republic of China, Director of Central Intelligence,
>> Vice President of the United States, President of the United States,
>> and many lesser posts. But I don't think anyone has approached him...
>
> Well, he *is* eligible. He didn't do such a good job of it the first
> time, although he probably is a better choice than any of the current
> candidates.
>
> Trouble is, he couldn't possibly win the election unless the Dems dump
> Obama and run someone else. Hadn't you noticed that the winning
> candidate in a Presidential election is nearly always the more
> polished speaker? [*] IMHO the only reason he won in 1988 is that the
> Democrats somehow managed to find, and nominate, the only politician
> in the United States who is an even less articulate public speaker
> than he is.
> * -- just look at the last 7 or 8 elections, and you'll see what I
> mean.
> 2008 As long as he has his Teleprompter, Obama is as articulate a
> speaker as you'll find. John McCain is obviously ill-at-ease speaking
> in front of large audiences.
>
> 2004 GWB isn't a polished speaker by any definition of the term, but
> John Kerry does a pretty good imitation of a cigar-store Indian.
>
> 2000 Al Gore's imitation is nearly as good as Kerry's.
>
> 1996 Bill Clinton. Bob Dole. 'Nuff said.
>
> 1992 Bill Clinton. GHWB. 'Nuff said.
>
> 1988 Michael Dukakis? Oh, please. Did the man ever take a course in
> public speaking in his life?
>
> 1984 Ronald Reagan, the "Great Communicator". Walter Mondale. 'Nuff
> said.
> 1980 Ronald Reagan. Jimmy "Ah will never lah ta yoo" Carter. 'Nuff
> said.
> 1976 Neither Carter nor Ford wins any points in my book as a public
> speaker. That one's a tossup on that basis. Ford had that in the bag
> until he pardoned Nixon.
>
> 1972 Nixon vs. McGovern -- McGovern wasn't too bad a speaker, as I
> recall, at least as far as style is concerned, but the content was so
> loony that he hadn't a chance.

I agree. Charisma counts for a lot. Often it's the only thing that counts.
But sometimes it can be overcome. Look at the current crop.

Herman Cain - by far the most charismatic speaker of the bunch. But he's
gone.
Mitt Romney - Adequate. Not great. Not bad.
Newt Gingrich - Not charismatic, but listeners hang on his every word.
Rick Santorum - As uplifiting as most preachers
Rick Perry - Good ideas, but no one can tell what they are. At least not by
listening to him.
Michelle Bachman - I'm reminded of the famous quote by Samuel Johnson (bear
with me): "A woman in the pulpit is like a dog raised up on its hinder legs.
It is not surprising that it does it poorly. What is surprising is that it
would want to do so at all." She needs to show more cleavage so people will
pay attention to her.
Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent
in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns.

Fortunately, our current president cannot be, in the coming campaign,
charismatic. Shouting "Hallelujah" and "Come on down," and "The seas will
retreat!" are totally unbecoming for a president. If he acts that way, he'll
be labeled a clown.

On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite
>>> eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread
>>> and unicorns.
>>
>> That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-).
>>
>> Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys
>> it in the next sentence.
>
> Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to
> hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want
> them to, you know, actually RUN things.

For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce
attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place,
to actually run things, now can we.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop