Third Party Viability…. Scene 3, Take 2

3RD_PARTYI covered this topic once upon a time. In fact it was the 4th blog post that I wrote way back when I started. I covered the topic OK then, but I think I can do better this time around. More importantly, the last time I covered it I only had about 3 readers, lol. I got 3 responses other than my own, one was Revolution, whom some of you have become acquainted with, and another was my wife. I would say we have grown a bit with a couple thousand page hits a day. It is hard for me to tell how many people actually come to the site, but I am sure that the number is significantly larger than it was the last time I talked about this. When I started writing this blog, I was disgusted with the outcome of the elections and disgusted with the Republican party. Those two factors in the equation have not changed. I was also in the firm belief that moving to a third party, possibly the Libertarians, was the absolute best move for me. So let’s talk about a third party and whether that is a viable move in today’s political climate…

What we need on the ballot is a none of the above box. I think that is clear. Remember the Richard Pryor movie where he ran as none of the above… and won. We all laughed. But sadly, I think none of the above might have won some of the most recent elections. Not this last one. The Obama love-fest was a bit too strong. But Bush/Kerry? None of the above might have won that one. I hear all too often that the Presidential election is really a decision between the lesser of two evils. Since I think most of the stuff said on the campaign trail is bullshit (lying to get your vote!), I tend to say the election is a choice between the less smelly of two “manure” piles. But since the big boys refuse to give America that “None of the Above” box, a third party is our only other option. But can that really happen?

Whig Party RallyQuick quiz… Who can name the last President to be elected from a party other than the two big parties of today? How many of you said Zachary Taylor of the US Whig Party in 1848? And to be fair, leading up to this point the Whig party was the precursor to the Republican party. The Whig party was the 2nd major party at the time and after Taylor’s election the party began to split up over the issue of slavery expansion. The voter base of the Whig party then went to the Republican party, and the rest is a twisted history of the Democrats vs. Republicans that shows the American voters to be masochists. Third parties didn’t just go away. Teddy Roosevelt ran under the Bull Moose Party flag in the 1912 elections, and finished second with 27.8% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes. Since that time only 3 third party candidates have received a double digit percentage of the popular vote:

  • 1924 – Robert M. La Follette (Progressive Party). 4,831,706 votes for 16.6% of the popular vote.
  • 1968 – George Wallace (American Independent Party). 9,901,118 votes for 13.5% of the popular vote.
  • 1992 – Ross Perot (Independent). 19,741,065 vote for 18.9% of the popular vote
Maurice Duverger

Maurice Duverger

So why is the two party system so impenetrable in today’s political arena? There are lots of reasons. Let’s start with the basics. Why is the two-party system the norm in American politics in the first place? It is the natural outcome of our particular voting system. Duverger’s Law is a principle which asserts that a single member district plurality rule election (SMDP) (the way we roll here in the US of A) system tends to favor a two-party system. Why you ask? Because in the SMDP system there are no points for second place, meaning a third party that finishes in third consistently in an election gets zero representation, and thus cannot build from election to election. The two big boys have a split of 1st and 2nd places and get representation.

The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger proposed an example of an election in which there were 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters who are voting to fill a single seat. There are three candidates: two moderates (a Democrat and a Republican, for example) and a radical (Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney). The radical would win because of the splitting of the two moderate camps. The only way to stop the radical from winning is to ensure that one of the moderates gets more than 80,001 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the moderate candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal being to ensure the radical candidate is defeated. Either the two moderate parties must merge, or one moderate party must completely fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strongest parties.

So there you have the “technical” answer for why the two party system continues to blight the American landscape. So does a third party have a shot of ever reaching the Presidency? The short answer is YES, but not for a long time and a lot of things would have to happen first. I could write an entire blog that addresses the electoral college and how the Constitution set up elections in a way that keeps a third party from gaining the White House unless that third party has significant representation in the House of Representatives. If someone would like an explanation let me know, but the reality today is that if a third party took a third of the electoral college votes in the 2012 election, the next President of the United States would be….. Nancy Pelosi. How scary is that?!?

Now the one way that a third party could realistically take the White House would be if that third party replaced one of the two major parties today. This happened in the mid-1800’s. The third party was the Republican party, and they lost the 1856 election, but replaced the Whig party and Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. So a third party is not a viable alternative to the two big boys in terms of the Presidency unless that third party can replace one of them. Obviously, the word on the street is that the Republican Party is dead. I don’t know if that is true or not. They are certainly flailing, but I don’t think they are flailing any more than the Democrats were after Kerry lost in 2004. So I expect that the Republican party is going to rebound and do so strongly. As I have said before the best thing that can happen to the Republican party is a period of hardcore Democratic rule. It reminds people, and the party leaders, how bad an idea the Democrats are in terms of liberty and capitalism (two things that most Americans still like, despite the claims of the statists in power).

Nader, Barr, McKinney

Nader, Barr, McKinney

But the reality is that many people who traditionally vote for Republicans are very unhappy with their party. They are walking away from the party in droves and declaring themselves “Independent”. Some even go as far as to declare themselves Libertarians (which for many of them means that they are Republicans who are just afraid to admit so anymore). But here is the reality of that fact: They are still going to vote for the Republican candidate for President. Know why? Because they are smart enough to know that it is the right strategic move. They know only the Democrats and Republicans can win, and they are not going to vote for a third party if it means that the Democrat will win. That would be total failure rather than partial failure. It sucks, but that is the reality. And as a side note, until a third party puts up a REAL candidate, they are destined for failure. Bob Barr? WTF? Crazy ass race card player Cynthia McKinney? Really? Santa Clause had a better shot than McKinney. Ralph Nader? He just seemed creepy.

Jesse "The Body" Ventura

Jesse "The Body" Ventura

So if a third party is going to begin to rise, it is going to have to start in state level elections. This is where it actually can happen. Jesse Ventura became Governor of Minnesota as a third party candidate. A third party candidate completely messed up the Minnesota Senate race last year, which will allow Stuart Smalley to actually become a United States Senator (I can’t wait for the press conferences with him. He will make the a mockery of our political system)(OK, he will make more of a mockery of our political system). But if a third party is, in fact, going to make any moves what-so-ever in today’s political environment, what is it going to take?

I would submit that the first thing it is going to take is a realistic platform that mainstream Americans can get behind. The Libertarian platform, for example, is one that we covered extensively here. So many good things that people can get behind: individual liberty, government getting out of our private lives, purely defensive military. But then they go and add something like legalizing all drugs and they alienate the majority of the people out there. A viable third party has to be what the people are looking for if it wants to make an impact. Unfortunately that means that they are not going to be able to make a 100% principled stand. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are making that kind of principled stand on many issues. And they are established. 

So the first order of business is for third parties to put together a platform that the average American can rally around. I think there is room for a party in the middle of the two big ones now, that would eventually force one of them out of the picture. America is not happy with our Congressional representation (or lack thereof). Despite the claims of a “mandate” from the left, the Democratically controlled Congress has approval ratings below the approval ratings for George Bush. Can you find anyone outside of her District that likes Nancy Pelosi? 

Young Voters: Future VDLG Supporters

Young Voters: Future VDLG Supporters

And begin targeting America’s youth. America’s youth is different than their parents. They aren’t tied to a political party. They are tied only to ideas. And let’s be honest, the democrats and republicans are quickly running out of those. Reach the young voters NOW and a third party has the ability to gain party loyalty that is largely determined by the age of 30. Choose not to act now and these young voters will go with one of the two options currently available. We all lose if that happens.

But it isn’t just the youth. All of America is looking for something different. I am not talking about the 20% of Americans on each side who will live and die for the two big parties. I am talking about the 60% in the middle that find themselves disenchanted with the big boys. They find that neither party really fits with what they believe. More important, they find that neither party has delivered on any of the promises they made in the last 25 years worth of elections. All of these people are looking for an option. 

But they aren’t looking hard. It could be argued that apathetic American voters aren’t willing to do any of the legwork necessary to understand a party and what it stands for. Too many vote on a single issue or based on what the media tells them. So they aren’t going to do the work to seek out a party that is more in line with their beliefs. The message will have to be taken to the people. But Americans are disenchanted with the two big parties, and that means there is an opportunity. It wasn’t a third party that showed this opportunity this time. It was the Democratic party that ran a campaign based on ideals rather than a platform… and won. Has there ever been a stronger message that the American voter is ready to listen to the ideals that a third party can offer?

Long live the Very Damn Little Government Party. Oh.. And God Bless America.



  1. SFC Dick says:


    I’m a traditionalist, that’s why some continue to label me conservative, and like to remember institutional things, traditions and such.
    I was reading back into the blog, I came across something.
    I looked at it and it made me feel good.
    So I post.

    1. USWeapon said
    November 28, 2008 at 11:49 am
    Absolutely send it to every one you know! It is meant to be for everyone. I am hoping to get millions of readers and commenters, lol. This is meant to be a public thing that everyone is welcome on.

    “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

  2. SFC Dick says:


    Nice, I think even Lortz was able to read through the first paragraph without any consternation.

    But here’s the thing I argue there is nothing wrong with our 2 party system that a 3d party would fix.

    What are today’s problems, or better yet, what are Republicans seeing as the problems today.

    Do you see too many freedoms and liberties?

    Are you saying to yourself “ Boy, those darn Democrats, I wish the Republicans were in power. I wish government was more involved in my day to day life.”

    So what are you going to do, form a 3d party, get them in office and then…?

    I’ll tell ya what. You will get a third party in office and then continually petition this 3d party to “ACT” on your behalf.

    Yes, everyone wants things repealed, so that is the first in the agenda, but then what?

    Are you arguing that this 3d party is going to reset to a basis of government built around the constraints laid out in the constitution?

    Screw the Democrats; let’s look at the Republican Party for a bit.

    If in the past republicans were sitting around the house and a news story came out that… well, here’s one, the republican were sponsoring a law to “outlaw” ( classify as X actually,) steroids.

    Did republicans have this type of discussion with their family at home?

    Father; “Gee honey, seems they are trying to reclassify synthetic testosterone”

    Mother; “I wonder, on what basis?”

    Insert the BLAH BLAH BLAH here…

    Father; “that seems quite hysterical. Logic tells me that something is amiss and my first year college biology tells me there is no basis of fact in this argument.”

    Mother; “yes, quiet the straw man, additionally the unintended consequences of such action will tend to restrict or cancel further research using synthetic testosterone. Being one for progress through science, which seems to me that is a bad thing.”

    Father; “come to think of it, wasn’t junior prescribed synthetic testosterone to help in the healing process after his severe burns. Yes, he has no scaring today* and that fact seemed to astonish good Dr. Goode, our family GP”

    Mother; “yes this whole thing seems quiet odd”

    Cut forward, election time, it is bizzaro world here.

    Mother and Father get ready to go to the polls, news comes out that steroid legislation was passed making it law.

    All republicans find out this fact on the way to the polls.

    Republicans, critical thinkers based in reason and science are outraged on this government action. Some thinking “this is not government’s purview” and others “wow, this is just bad law” and at the polls every incumbent republic that voted or supported the measure is voted out.

    Ok, think in that world that representatives are going to overstep their bounds?

    No, problem is, every republican representative is bombarded daily with request to enact legislation from their constituents to control this that or the other.

    Constitution be damned.

    So these representative become accustomed and more importantly realize to get elected you have to continually subvert the constitution for you republican voters, they DEMAND IT.

    Were republicans kicked out of office every time they supported or voted for a law that subverts the constitution I can guarantee you that these dudes would be the most ardent defenders of that document.

    So now we are upset with a business as usual, that we created and the “other side” has control over now?

    We as a people need to change. People need to hear “so what. Mind your own business, what that man does is none of your business and on top of that you trying to dictate and control him are hugely immoral”

    That aint happening. So, 3d party. Who cares?

    “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

    * i was in an explosion, Suffered 3d degree burns to my face, full frontal, across the nose cheeks eyelids and right arm, other 2d on my body, but face and right arm were bad. The doctor would not prescribe “steroids” because this pops her up on an FDA, DEA watchlist. I do what I need to do in todays world. I acquired test and self treated, following a regimin I found on the net. I was investigated by authorities for possible impoartation of a class X controlled substance. They were a step or two behind the whole time and as far as I know that case is done.

    • I have to agree. We the people have created the monster. The politicians will, for the most part do what they think the people expect and want, because their number one goal is re-election.

      • Right now, the idea of the 3rd party would come down to a threat to the Republican party. I see Republicans as the most politically disenfranchised people, and therefore the most vocal about change of the political system. Mr. Duverger did have a good point.

        A good threat is a viable method in politics. If Republicans see themselves as losing members to a 3rd party, things may change.

        However, any 3rd party that is considering coming forward would have to think about the additional damage this may create to the Republicans.

        There is the hope that 2-3 years down the line that moderate Democrats will be thrown into consternation [Yes, SFC Dick, I used this because of your post, 3 hours ago I didn’t know what it meant. I hope I used it correctly] because of the direction the Obama administration is taking. Feelings of “this isn’t what I voted for” will drive them to this new 3rd party.

        However [x2], from a “marketing” or “propaganda” point of view, the current channeling of energies should be towards finding what makes this new party more palatable with members with Democrats now. You shouldn’t fight a battle by weakening your own army.

        For instance, relating to the Tea Parties: My personal summary of a less antagonistic approach to those events would be a ‘tea-partier’ going up to a ‘Animal Rights Activist’ and saying, “I need to give you more credit, this crap is hard. People berate you, brand you a ‘potential terrorist’ and yet you feel strong enough to get out there and do what you believe in”. Afterwards you can invite them to discuss their views over a steak dinner, or, if they prefer, you could barbecue a Democrat. The point being, you’ve made that step at humanizing at least ‘something’ that you have in common.

        The optimistic approach:
        “You’ll attract more flies with honey than vinegar”

        The pessimistic approach:
        “A dead woodchuck will get you more flies than honey or vinegar combined”

        Being a self-confessed liberal, I have no problem stating that my biggest gripe [granted I have not been looking for them] is that Obama continued the bailouts. Pointing out what people from both parties dislike is more productive.

        Anyway, it’s late, I still have lots of reading to do, but I wanted to make at least one post.

  3. Vinnster says:

    US, thanks for breaking down why it is so hard to get a third party person in office. I dream of the day the Republican Party is gone.

    Back in 1994 when they took the majority in Congress, I told my wife, this is their last chance, if they blow this they are done forever. I did not realize my casual statement would be so prophetic ( I wish I had the same ability with the stock market).

    With the Republican Party win in 1994, they had the last chance to stop America’s rapid turn down the Socialist path. They did OK for about five years then they “went Washington” and blew it. They truly turned into the Democrat Lite Party and in the process handed the Socialist, America on a silver platter.

    I do not think another party has any chance of doing anything until the current Democrat/Socialist movement runs its course, which may take twenty years to implode, but implode it will.

    Margaret Thatcher said it originally, I think, “The problem with Socialism, is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money”. And at the rate Obama is spending and what he is proposing to spend, it will be sooner rather than later.

    You touched on the youth of today being a major player in the next party and I agree. Depending on how well the media and the education system can keep them ignorant of financial numbers, will determine when the youth wake up move to a new party that is not Democrat or Republican.

    I also believe there is another group that is just as important. The Hispanics. Depending on which numbers you use, they will be the majority around 2040. I have no doubt the current illegal aliens will be granted citizenship in the near future and the borders are never going to be sealed. That may accelerate their majority status before 2040.

    It may be ironic the illegal aliens and their children might be what saves America. I am no expert on Hispanics in America, but from what I have observed there appear to be two types. One I will characterize as those gaming the system to take advantage of America’s social programs, and the other that is the majority, which have conservative roots and are very familiar with political corruption from their own countries. As they gain citizenship and get on the books ( and see the majority of their income stolen by the government) and today’s youth will be our only hope of creating another party capable of stopping the Democrat/Socialist Party

  4. Older generation here. I have said for years that we need a new party. Yes, we do have other partys but they always run for president. A third party to gain voters would take years. It must start at grass roots. That is local and state. Some changes need to be changed. Shorter campaign times, since JFK the campaign has become a televison show. Changing the deligate and electorial college. In Pa. It is winner take all and Philly controls the state. Two other hurdles are funds and the media. Shorter campaign time would help with the funds and as said above, the younger generation would be the key to fight the media.

    • Naten53 says:

      Philly up to Wilkes-barre Scranton, and cities of State College, Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, and Altoona control the state. The rest of the state is so red you can hardly even look at it. (except for Centre and Elk counties, not really sure what happened there.)

      • You are correct but if you look at the concentration of deligates you will see that, what 90 + % go to Philly. Pittsburgh hasn’t had a republican mayor or council member since Hoover was in office and that goes for most of the other large urbon citys in Pa.

        • It’s always a shame about Philly, the place is a mess and cries out for an effective non-democrat candidate. Bret Shuldner won in Jersey City as the first republican in 70 years precisely because he offered a plan and then stuck to it. Rudy G. did the same in NY followed by Bloomberg who may not be a Republican but is certainly not a Democrat. The first thing you need is a city that is a basket case, the second thing you ned is an articulate candidate who offers an alternative.

    • Up with the VDLG!!

  5. Naten53 says:

    I want a third party because then you do not have the party line votes on every issue, with the larger party winning. With a third party you have to appeal to at least someone else to pass legislation. Anything too radical and it will not pass.

    Am I the only one that gets the feeling that the empty suits on both sides of the isle in Washington only vote on party lines so when they come up for a bigger office, they get the support of the big dogs?

    I long for independent thinking, but independent thinking gets shot down in the primaries because only the radicals vote then.

    Government: If you don’t like the problems we make, just wait until you see our solutions.

    • “Am I the only one that gets the feeling that the empty suits on both sides of the isle in Washington only vote on party lines so when they come up for a bigger office, they get the support of the big dogs?”

      That is the primary reason you see party line votes in congress. It has to do with getting choice committee assignments or getting legislation passed that will help the folks back home, which of course will help you get reelected.

      Cookies….eemmmmmmmmm……more cookies.


  6. CWO2USNRet says:

    We have always talked about the VLDG tongue in cheek. Perhaps it’s time to consider solidifying our views into something concrete. Explore the notion of going live.

    • Coming from a former Warrant it must be done, I concur.

      Dudes99 (ETC USN ret.)

      • CWO2USNRet says:

        Thanks Chief. I don’t recall seeing you post here before. Welcome aboard from a retired Bubblehead!


  7. US, it’s scary how I have paralleled your political lines irt party choice. Still not sure on the total Libertarian thing yet but definately not in line with Repubs any longer. I have a gut feeling that if things currently stay on course the Independent vote will be even more of a deciding factor in 2012. As you said, I hope there is someone out there that will stand up that can pass muster for us.

  8. George Washington spoke against political parties. He later joined one as the lesser evil, when one party was becoming dominate. I agree with Georgy, a third party may be the lesser evil, but its still not what the system of government was intended by our founders.

    As a founding member of the VDLG party, I may reluctantly support it, but will still advocate total elimination, even outlawing, political parties.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I will stick with that view also LOI.

    • LOI

      We can not outlaw political parties because it violates our base principles.

      We can however construct barriers to limit its ability to contol the situation.

      That is the real challenge and it must be done on a state by state basis because each state has different rules regarding political parties and conduct of elections.

      I personally don’t care if we have parties or not. I share your and Naten’s concern that truly independent, and I might add constructive, thinkers have no chance in the current system.

      By the way, good morning.

      • And a good morning to you JAC.

        The problem with all parties, if your candidate votes with party lines instead of voting how they campaigned, we never break the cycle. Eliminate parties so it becomes all about individual issues.

        Have you looked at GOOOH? Not a party. I like their requiring a candidate to put in writing how they stand on issues. If they break that promise, they have signed a contract that requires them to resign. So if they vote for a tax increase, but had stated they were against any tax increase, they HAVE to quit.

        • CWO2USNRet says:

          I have looked at GOOOH and like what I see. I encourage any who post here to check it out.

        • RWBoveroux says:


          The problem that jumps right out to me is the fact that we then have special election after special election when someone gets thrown out.

          One of the other problems I have with GOOOH is the fact that someone who is well off is not able to run. If i have been fortunate enough to get ahead in this life and make a ton of money, that should NOT preclude me from being involved in the political process.

          I can understand why some would say that we need to get rid of the Electoral College, and just go by the popular vote. I am very hesitant to throw away something that has worked on an OK basis for over 200 years.

          The other issue with getting rid of the electoral college is the comment that some have made about PA being controlled by the city of Philly and surrounding areas. If we go by popular vote, then the East coast and West coast will decide who is the president. This will just perpetuate the Democrats hold on power.

          • CWO2USNRet says:


            Concerning special election after special election: you presume that the GOOOH selected representatives would be like Homer repeatedly going for the electrified donut. It is more realistic to assume that the representative would vote as (s)he agreed to vote to avoid being fired.

            Concerning not being able to run: anyone who is Constitutionally eligible is able and encouraged to run for the seat in the GOOOH process. If you are wealthy enough and prefer to make a go of it on your own you can of course do so as a Dem, Rep, Ind, or some 3rd party candidate

            I support the GOOOH process to the point that I think it deserves a fair shot. I couldn’t let those misconceptions stand.

            • RWBoveroux says:

              Hey… If I am wrong or misled on something, please share your opinion. You may actually change my mind.

          • RW,

            I do not pretend GOOOH is without shortcomings. I do not agree with excluding anyone worth more than 11 million or for being a lawyer, but those are suggested guidelines that the membership is free to accept, reject or alter as they see fit.

            I am a member but am not advocating anyone else join, I am suggesting they have some points worth consideration and discussion.

          • “I am hesitant to throw away something that has worked on an OK basis for over 200 years”
            If the US was a car, I’m sure you would agree it needs a tune up, oil change, etc.. I am not advocating trading it in or scraping the whole thing, I would like to see it RESTORED to close to original condition.

            • RWBoveroux says:


              I admit that Revolutionary War history is not my forte, but the Electoral College is close to it’s original form. I don’t think I would have any issues with divvying up the electoral college votes based on popular vote, but I think it is something that has to be done across the whole nation at once in order to avoid the issues that I mentioned before about one part of the country over ruling the rest of the country.

        • Yes I have checked it out.
          But have to admit I couldn’t get over them dancing rattle snakes.
          Still gives me the creeps.

          Just realized they make a good metaphor for the situation we are discussing.


      • I agree, outlawing parties restricts freedom–particularly freedom of speech, as does limiting contributions to parties (though I’d draw the line at foreign contributions).

        Even if you did outlaw parties, people would still coalesce into two sides, it’s the nature of people.

  9. USW, I think your idea of a third party making gains at the local level initially is the key to success. It will take longer to grow, but the roots will be deeper. It’s the only way to crack the onerous bureaucracy involved with establishing a third party, develop a base of support, including critical funding, and get the people used to voting for a third party. People are more likely to vote a third party at the local level because a) they know the candidate personally, b) it’s not as “dangerous” or considered a waste of a vote and c) it’s easier to get people behind ideas, not just a D or R, when the candidate and the issues are up front and personal.

    The Tea Party movement is an excellent way to build on the base for a third party. It was clearly a gathering of people across the political spectrum, all income levels, and all ages, who got behind the idea that their government leaders were no longer acting on their behalf. It was purposely kept non-partisan. This week, we are formalizing into a 527 here in RI, so we can raise funds and endorse candidates who adhere to the principles espoused by the tea parties, regardless of political affiliation. Because it is about ideas, not parties. People are sick of both parties and simply want to be heard. We are the big tent, sticking to the core principles of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and Constitutional values, and that is a platform that hardworking taxpayers across the political spectrum can embrace.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      MadMom – much as I poo poo’d the Tea Party idea I find it interesting that it is forming as a 527 – is this purely local driven? I’d like to learn more about this….

      • The RI Tea Party is forming a 527. This is not a national phenomenon, and I have no idea what other tea party organizers are doing in their areas. We’ve got huge problems at the state level here and the tea party was the most successful rally in the history of RI. It became an instant game changer, so we felt that we should harness all of that built up energy and put it to good use to really effect change in our government. It is a lot of work; I am out talking to various groups at least a few nights a week, with meetings during the day. But this is huge here, and I have no intention of letting the momentum die.

    • The Northwest Tea Party (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho) has coalesed into a more formal group as well, but I am not aware of whether they have legal standing as a group. I’ve volunteered to be a local organizer for them in my town. Last time I just went, but from here on out, I want to be more a part of it.

      • That’s great Michelle! More people need to get involved and take action. Local organizers are instrumental in getting people to attend town council meetings to demand change and to identify and support good candidates for local offices. We’ve already had some success stories here. Organizing people really works at the local level. That’s why the left has “community organizers”.

        • There has got to be a name change in the future. I know its cheap, trashy, etc. but the “Tea Bagger” label will be hard to shake. And labels, snipets, one liners win/lose elections.

          • Just to keep the 1776 linkage going, how about some variation on the “Sons/daughters of Liberty” (gotta be more snazzy)instead of tea baggers.

  10. Ray Hawkins says:

    “A third party candidate completely messed up the Minnesota Senate race last year, which will allow Stuart Smalley to actually become a United States Senator” – so are you only “for” third parties when your guy wins?

    “As I have said before the best thing that can happen to the Republican party is a period of hardcore Democratic rule. It reminds people, and the party leaders, how bad an idea the Democrats are in terms of liberty and capitalism” AND “It was the Democratic party that ran a campaign based on ideals rather than a platform… and won. Has there ever been a stronger message that the American voter is ready to listen to the ideals that a third party can offer?” – last I checked a platform was a set of ideals. The more times I read this post the more it felt to reek of GOP part deux – take some conservative ideals, spinkle just enough moderate in to balance the taste and re-brand as something “new”. It’d be real tough for any left leaning moderate to see that there is more for them in this supposed third party than what they may have perceived the Democrat party as offering when you continually crap on what and who they voted for. Keep yelling at the fat kid at the lunch table to stop eating so damn much and what does he do? usually he eats more. Talk is incessant around “mainstream America” but what in your mind is that really? So if I am not Mainstream America am I……..a…..different…..class? Point is its still a tent at the end of the day – you’ll have to decide how big it is and not so much who you bring in but who you keep out.

    • I am curious Ray, how would you classify the Democratic Party Platform?
      Also, what would you consider a “moderate” position?

      You are correct in that when you define who gets to be under the tent you have by de facto rule established who does not. Perhaps it would be easier to describe who is not included and let the rest come under. That is an iteresting approach to finding meta values.

      Hows things in the east this AM?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        In the East? Weather is beautiful and I am stuck inside battling Chinese hackers.

        Am still wrapping my head around this but:

        If a 1-10 scales means 5 is straight center, 10 is extreme liberal and 1 is extreme conservative I’d give the platform is this iteration a 7.5 ( The thing I will always disdain of platform documents is the ‘yes but how’.

        Maybe we need a ‘pragmatic party’

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Lack of yes but how – devil in the details.

        • I thought you said you were residing east of the Rocky Mtns. From my perspective there is the west, the mideast and the east.

          You know I hate “pragmatism” so was that just a little test this morning. Sorry I missed it while the caffiene level was still up high.

          I’m going to take time to look at the site you referred to before commenting. But I share your disdain for platforms. The are a position paper prepared by ideological committees. And you thought the camel was a bad example.

          Until later

        • OK Ray, checked out the moderate party.

          Looks like standard campaign rhetoric to me. Much like the stuff Obama used, generic with no way to get you teeth into it. And before you react McCain was worse, because he muddled his meaningless phrases. I thought if I heard “my friends” one more time my head would explode.

          The Mod party isn’t addressing the kind of hard stuff you see people here tackling. I have wondered how long it would take for many phony third parties to show up on the radar. If there is a middle that is mad you have to keep them confused.

          The other site said page didn’t exist. Was this the Dem platform?

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      The more times I read this post the more it felt to reek of GOP part deux – take some conservative ideals, spinkle just enough moderate in to balance the taste and re-brand as something “new”.

      We are the big tent, sticking to the core principles of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and Constitutional values, and that is a platform that hardworking taxpayers across the political spectrum can embrace.

      Ray, do you consider fiscal responsibility, accountability, and Constitutional values to be conservative ideals or big tent American ideals?

      • CWO: I happen to consider “fiscal responsibility” as a very bad slogan as it sets a trap.

        You see, it means nothing more than “balancing the budget”. Are you prepared for spending and taxes to equal 50% of GDP, or more?

        We must “Reduce Spending” and “Balance the Budget”.

        Best Wishes

        • CWO2USNRet says:

          JAC, I completely agree! I was quoting from Mad Mom’s post about the RI Tea Party 527. Trying to get a better feel for where Ray stands on these somewhat fuzzy ideals.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          “We must “Reduce Spending” and “Balance the Budget”.”

          I could not agree with this more – where I differ with many here is that I believe it can be done and accomplish the platforms/ideals/planks of the Democratic party. I don’t believe in big government but in effective government.

          • So how do we keep govt from becoming Big Govt?

            The same human and govt tendancies will exist if we only shrink it. So how do we keep it in check?

            And, how much of our income do you think is “fair” to give for the “effective government” cause? Does this float based on the platform goals or do we set a fixed amount for them to stay within?


        • I consider myself fiscally responsible as a person, and thus I think this is a valid slogan, because if government is as fiscally responsible as I am, I would be thrilled! Cutting spending fits under the broader tent of fiscal responsibility. It doesn’t mean just balancing the budget; I look for spending cuts all the time at home and in my business in my fiscally prudent manner.

          As far as the fuzzy ideals; that’s the point of making the tent big and that is why it attracted so many people across the political spectrum. The more you drill it down, the more people you lose, and the less powerful voice you have to effect change. The tea party is not a political party; it’s a group that endeavors to support smaller government by promoting certain principles and candidates who espouse them.

          • We also require any candidate we support to sign a No New Tax Pledge which we track via a website called The Transparency Train to keep them accountable. This is not some arbitrary wording. We are working with organizations around the state who have various resources available to assist us in our endeavors. The problem is that have never been able to coalesce into a unified voice before because they all have slightly different agendas. But they all share this same core belief in smaller government. The tea party is the first group EVER to pull all of these people together to show a strong opposition to the special interests in this heavily unionized and democratic state. It is all about making it work in reality, on the ground, and not just on paper. And for that you need to market very carefully to ensure real buy-in from the largest number of people. Our tea party was one of the biggest in the country, here in the tiniest, most politically apathetic state. This thing struck a chord.

          • Mom: I commend you for what you’ve accomplished in RI. I also understand you know what fiscal responsibility means but having spent 30 years in the political/federal govt arena I am telling you those in power will twist it until it has no life.

            The Dems were using this very term to describe increased programs and higher taxes. Your comments constantly refer to reducing the size of govt. Is everyone really on board with this?

            If so then why not just say so?

            I am also suspicious that you have the same slogan as two other Tea Pary groups. Was it suggested to you by someone else? If so, do you know who they really are?

            Not trying to be a pain here, I really want this effort to work and there are alot of folks on one side who don’t and the other who would like to take it over.

            Lots of Hugs

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I consider them to be words highly susceptible to interpretation depending upon what your agenda is and what outcome you are trying to affect.

    • USWeapon says:


      As for the Stuart Smalley situation, no I am not just for a 3rd party when it suits me. I have no problem with the fact that a 3rd party “messed up” the Minnesota election. I don’t like the result, because I do not like Al Franken. However, it was an example of where a third party had a significant impact on an election. And I was discussing the impact a third party can have. You were looking for something bad in that statement. I was not saying that I would have not wanted the 3rd player taken out of the Minnesota race.

      I am sorry it hurts your feelings that I continually crap on the Democratic party. I personally think the Democratic party has its head up its ass. It espouses a form of socialism and I cannot get behind that. It takes away people’s liberty and I cannot get behind that. When the Republican party wins an election on ideals rather than a platform, I will point out that they suck too. For the record I also believe that the best thing for Democrats is any sustained time with the GOP totally in control. They are bad for our liberty as well.

      You seem a bit too sensitive on these points. Yesterday’s post did nothing but attack the RNC Chairman. That you are OK with, but as soon as I talk about Democrats and call them what they are, your feelings are hurt. As for your belief that this is nothing more than taking conservative and sprinkling in a little moderate, perhaps it is. But the fact is, in my opinion, that what I was doing was taking the views of most of those folks in the middle and using them as a base. Unfortunately, and much to the shock and dismay of many Democrats, most Americans are fairly conservative with some moderate sprinkled in.

      • USWeapon says:

        Oh, and “hope and change” are not platforms. Obama was elected on hope and change without really ever defining what those two things would look like. Americans voted for something they hoped would look very different from what the two parties in Washington looked like for the last 50 years. They voted for that ideal. Little did they know that when he said change he only meant changing back to Democrat principles, not changing Washington in any way.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          So what is a platform them? Anytime I have asked for specificity here I seem to get a mish mash of I dunno’s or crickets. Tell me – what was the delta between election day and your first Obama sucks posting? Tell me – why exactly did you vote for him?

          • USWeapon says:

            Reply below #23

          • Alan F. says:

            Isn’t the platform really “the pitch” which of course has to draw in those on its fringe while still managing to look genuine? You really have only two choices and neither base is heading on over to the other side, so they are without a doubt outside of needing to be sold anything. So who needs to be watching the party infomercial?

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Obama does not follow the Democratic Platform except Just maybe in as broad a definition as he can make of it. He follows his own separate agenda. This is one reason he is beginning to hear grumblin’ and mumblin’ from his own Party.

        Per my post above though; it’s not enough to stop this dumbass from getting most of his garbage passed. Another thing is, he is smarter than most Democrats realize. He has probably 98% of the Minority voters locked up, heart and soul. You’re not going to get them to change their vote regardless of WHAT he does.

        Then you have all those left-wing wackos. He’s not quite as left wing as they wanted, but he’s for damn sure close enough that they’ll keep supporting him.

        US is right. Most Americans are Conservative with some moderation sprinkled amongst us, or Center-Right.

        Hope your day is going good US, and Hope you kick those Chinese Hackers asses Ray!

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Sorry, my post is BELOW! Busy day here in Teenville

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Per at least cursory review he is following the platform in most respects. I’d be curious here how many that voted for him ever read all 59 pages?

          • esomhillgazette says:

            I did. I had it saved on my computer. It AND the Republican Platform. I wanted to see how close the candidates were to their Party’s goals. Neither one was very close. Obama has moved father away towards outright Socialism since election.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Yes but you are ignoring the fact that I also have stated that a strong Republican party is needed. Your not hurting my feelings attacking the Democrats – you’re simply proving a point I have made before that some of your logic gets twisted in the sophomoric sniping that does little but piss the very same people off that you’re trying to get to see a light of sorts.

        • USWeapon says:

          I don’t have enough confidence that I am 100% right to want to get them to see the light. Perhaps they can get me to see theirs. The point for me is to have dialogue. Just because I take shots at the left, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take the same shots at the right. But at the moment there isn’t any “right” stuff to take a shot at. They have no power, no legislation, no voice, and nothing to say. I can bitch about them having nothing to say daily if it would make you feel better.

          I do admit to sophomoric sniping at the Democrats in power. But that is real easy when they are somewhere around the third grade level. On the other hand, point out where my logic is “twisted” and I will be happy to clarify, debate or alter it.

  11. Ray Hawkins says:

    Remember also – we are becoming a society of 140 characters

    • Ray

      I have no clue as to what your reference is about.
      Please explain!


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        140 characters is the limit for text messaging 🙂

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Twitter – you thought people had short attention spans before….

      • Texting…..How todays youth communicates:140 characters at a time.

      • Thanks. I can now say I learned one new thing today.
        A goal everyone should have, by the way.

        I can’t text…..geneticaly advanced thumps. At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

        Does make me one tought dude in a thumb wrestling contest though!!


  12. Everybody makes strong claims that support the need for a third party, however as US Weapon said it would be very difficut to establish at a Presidential level; especially given the morons currently running this country. They would not allow it and Pelosi as President…well I think I would rather have Kerry…Oh God I almost threw up.

    It can start at a local and then state level, and yes it would take some time, but it would also have an almost immediate positive affect. It would rally the troops and help define the platform. It would put some fear into the incumbents and challenge them to re-think their positions.

    There is some talk out there relative to a Congressional Congress organized to repeal the 16th ammendment so that we can starve the government and stop the tyranical spending. It probably would not gain any legs, but the threat might wake up enough representatives and get them listening.

    There in lies the key – fear. The fear of current representatives losing their footholds. It got Arlen Spector to flop.

    To get started local folks need to step up and make a bid based around a Constitutional position. Minimal government, fair taxes, strong military, equal justice for all, and balanced budgets.

    They would need to address the youth and educate them to take a genuine interest in their own future. I would suggest they bring young people into the inner circle to help plan and coordinate the campaign; new ideas, thoughts and influences.

    I think we would all be pleasently suprised not only with the results, but the involvment of our country’s youth.

    • Common Man: “Minimal government, fair taxes, strong military, equal justice for all, and balanced budgets.”

      Within your statement lies a key to what Very Damn Little Govt might look like. We throw “equal justice” around without every giving hard thought as to what it means, or could mean. If we apply the concept to govt’s role you could say that all laws must be applied equally, thus affecting all equally.

      If only those laws meeting this criteria are allowed we would see a drastic reduction in govt regulations and revamp of the tax code.


      • JAC

        Not sure if your are arguing my point relative to “justice for all” or supporting it.

        My intention was to address only some of the platforms of a Constitutional Party and it’s representatives, however I am a firm believer that the only laws required to run a country are those in the Ten Comandments and in the Constitution.

        And yes we would see a drastic reduction in governement regulations and a revamped tax code. F

        From my point of view all good things.

  13. I’m against all political parties. IMHO, it takes away from individual thinking on the part of the elected. Example- Cap and trade would hurt the northeast states much more than the southwest states, yet, knowing this, the elected Dems from Ohio (who will take a huge hit) will likely vote on party lines, instead of whats best for those who elected them. Thats not individual thinking and hurts, rather than supports those who voted for them.

    Todays two parties remind me of gang warfare, with the Dems now controlling the “turf” we call D.C., and I’m positive that is not how government should be run.

    Thanks to Ray on his well written reply yesterday. It was very sensible and got me thinking even more (didn’t read it till this morning).

    I certainly don’t have a solid solution, just not sure a third gang would help, or make matters worse.


    • Bee in my Bonnet says:

      Be careful what you wish for! We have a multi-party system in Canada and sometimes it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. However, I do agree that the current system in the US is broken, but the problem is honesty. You are assuming that those in a third party would be more honest. Why? What is needed is a recall system, along the lines that LOI mentioned above. If the candidates don’t keep their promises, they are fired. That was proposed by a party up here but, surprise, it wasn’t very popular and died a quick death. Now many of you will say that is what an election is for, but people have very short memories, otherwise, why would Barney Frank keep getting elected?

      • Third party candidates would be more honest because they can be. When you’re the underdog you can afford to be a party of principle. The ones already in power just want to hang onto that power and so they will do anything. As soon as a third party became powerful and mainstream though the process of corruption would begin again.

        I like the idea of break a promise=fired, but in practice I’m pretty sure that would be chaos. It’s pretty easy to scew things and claim broken promises when there weren’t any or conversely claim that a promise was not broken when it was. Things aren’t usually so cut and dried.

      • Thank you Bee,

        In previous discussions I mentioned Germany & Israel seem to struggle with a 3 party system as well. Hope I am accurate on that.

        You have asked about our health care system before. I am curious about Canada’s from a real world perspective. Would you be willing to share, possibly as a guest writer? My first effort was not too painful.

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The masses in America are so used to political parties that you are unlikely to ween them off of the idea of political parties in our lifetimes (if ever).

    That being said, we do need a serious alternative to what we have now. Voting (especially on the national level) is almost always voting in the guy (or gal) who sucks less out of your two choices. It is kinda like if we only had McDonalds and Burger King for restaurant choices. Once in a great while they are both ok to eat at, but in general they suck, and if you could only eat at one or the other for the rest of your life it wouldn’t be very palatable.

  15. Educating our youth starts at the homefront. M’s and D’s should take a genuine interest in what and how our chldren are learning; especially in the Public School System. Hell, the government sure does; its called brainwashing.

    Although I would encourage all ages in a campaign effort I think the ideal age range should be 21 – 30. Those are the ones stepping out of college or the military and being awakened to a tough new world. They are starting to figure out that they can either make a go of it, or just take another position in the herd.

    A genuine interest in what they think coupled with some reality education might spark a new regime; and one that could very well aid us in our effort to regain our country.

  16. esomhillgazette says:

    I’m not opposed to a 3rd Party. I just don’t believe we have that much time. Raising a legitimate 3rd Party with enough power to make any difference would take years to accomplish even modest gains. I am beginning to wonder if we even have until 2010, much less 2012.

    After 2012, (assume we have that long) if Obama is tossed out on his ass, who is going to replace him? And is any REAL CHANGE going to take place? Will it be more of the same? If not, how much of this idiotic legislation now being passed will be repealed? Will the damage already done to our Nation be irreversable? Or will the People even want the Government to change anything?

    Let’s look ahead into the future. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that all this bulldookey Obama is striving for gets passed.

    We will have entitlements out the ass. (This alone will silence the majority of the people because a lazy person, with every thing handed to them without effort, is a happy person) People will be unwilling to complain, because they might get the Government titty pulled from their mouths.

    We will have some form of Cap and Trade (Huge energy bills, subsidized, with strings firmly attached)

    Our children will be mostly enrolled in State run Schools and Universities complete with Socialist teaching.

    We will have Nazi, er um, I mean Obama Brownshirt brigades patrolling to make sure all disent is silenced or quelled to acquiese to Obama and the Democratic will. (1 or 2 of YOUR children may be in these, complete with brainwashing in Socialist teachings.)

    We will be subordinate to the UN and their Laws and mandates. No more Sovereign United States for you!

    We will, in essence, be a one Party (Socialist) State. (There may be more than one Party, but only 1 with any power to affect change.)

    The People will have NO voice.

    All oppostition will be ground under The Social Democratic Jackboot. (for our own good of course)

    These are just a few of the fabulous things that may be coming to a community near you in the future of the Democratic Peoples United States of Obama. At the very least SOME of this crap is going to come to pass.

    Don’t think it’s possible? Really? I have thought a lot about this in the last 4 or 5 months. I have seen that, pretty much, what Obama wants, Obama gets. There is starting to be a little grumbling from his own Party, but it is stifled quickly by others in the Party who are, shall we say, a bit more rabid in their Socialistic Philosphy (Pelosi, Reid, Franks).

    This sounds like a Conspiracy Theory I know. But as time moves swiftly on, and I see more and more ridiculous horseshit being seriously proposed and contemplated, I am beginning to wonder. Am I just severly paranoid? Or have America’s people really become this apathetic to their Nation’s plight? And our Politicians lost their freakin’ minds!!!

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      Wow ESOM! That’s a very gloom and doom prophecy. I agree in principle but am not as pessimistic. I cling to the belief, perhaps foolishly, that at some point the sleeping bear sheeple will get poked awake. I just hope we don’t go too far down your path before that happens.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        CWO, I know it’s gloom and doom. But look how far we’ve come in only 4 months! Obama and his acolytes are already taking giant steps towards Socialism.

        They have ALREADY passed a Stimulus Bill that is not only monstrous, but it is coming to light that it also has strings, nay, CHAINS tied to it.

        They (and this includes Bush) already have the TARP, which not only lent money to banks, but actually threatened banks who had no problems to force them to take the funds. THEN we began to see that THIS ALSO had strings attached. Most of them are still not allowed to pay back what they didn’t want to start with!! Can you say, Nationalize?

        They give us the bullsh!! about bailing out Wall Street and all the horrible things that they have done to destroy our Economy, when the Government is the actual perpetrators of this crime that they now scream so vehemently about. Can you say Socialistic, Government regulated Economy?

        Obama is still bouncing around the Country like he is still campaigning instead of running the Government, then everyday having a new “Epiphany” in ways to f— up the Nation and those like Pelosi and Reid and Franks kiss his hairy behind in worship and rush to do his bidding.

        ALL departments in Government are running to his side to make excuses for supporting his Socialist Ideas and implement them despite the growing unrest of the people who don’t want any part of it.

        Despite the growing number of people who are pissed at the amount of Government spending and waste; Obama’s approval remains high. It’s like the masses of sheeple can’t see that he is the one that is pushing all this crap on us. They instead blame Congress, rightly, while he receives hardly any blame at all.

        Are you starting to see my point? I just don’t think we have 10 or 20 years to change things.

    • I’ve got to agree with Esom, I don’t think we have a couple of decades to wait for the youth of america to take control. By the time they do get in power socialism will be the norm here.

      • Barberian says:

        What difference do you think that the indoctrinated “American Youth” will make in the future? On what do you base any great expectations coming from this youth? The few out there that have any true understanding on the reasoning behind this great experiment in humanity will prove to be ineffective in getting it back on it’s true course. How quickly can you reverse the years of twisted history lessons our government schools have fed these young minds?

        I’m am in the same frame of mind as Esom and it is not paranoia. It is the realization of just how far we have come and there is only a steep grade with no turns to slow us that leads to something that is very different than what we thought was possible.

        “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history,
        whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”
        — Thomas Jefferson

    • Esom,
      I agree with you totally. You are not paranoid. You are seeing the truth now. We keep talking like we are capable of making a 3rd party or overthrowing the government (that would take years and years we don’t have), it want happen. The only way we can save the US is everyone, every man, woman, and child all over the world come together and fight. But it want happen so just Prepare for the worst, because we are not scratching the surface of the horror that is being placed upon us.

  17. I get the idea that a third party could just be a new face on an old problem, but I think it has the potential to be a lot more than that. The problems with third parties to date have been many. To name a few:
    1) Funding. There just aren’t enough people on board to get the money, and not enough money to reach out and get people on board. With this limitation, not enough air time is out there to be seen or to explain one’s agenda. The exeption was Perot, who managed to get a strong percentage of the vote. I think another Perot with the right ideas would wind this time around, the climate has changed, a lot more people on both sides dislike their own parties.
    2) Administration. What money has been raised has gone to the wrong stuff. Particularly legal battles instead of communication and advertising.
    3) Legal problems. There are some undeniably difficult hurdles for third parties to even make the ballot, and the two parties we have are in no hurry to change that.
    4) Idealism. The kind of people who are dedicated enough to start their own party are usually the kind of people who come off as hard core idealists. This makes them and the candidates they put up seem like extremists. Mostly because they are. Even the best ideal is a bad idea if it is implemented overnight, and for those of us who think government needs less power, not more, it is a violation of our own ideals to weild the power necessary to make the changes we want in a short time.
    5) Voter apathy. Too mane people, even people who care, don’t really search beyond what they know, so they don’t even research the third party with any real effort.
    6) Bad ideas or no ideas. Third parties often forget to factor in everything they really need to factor in, especially with running a nation. That is another reason local is the way to start.

    Local elections are the key. There was talk at one time about all of the libertarians who were willing and able moving to one area, so that their local government could be easily changed, and the overall effect of that government’s policy would be the best possible ad for the party. I am beginning to think that might have to happen to get a high enough concentration of people with a libertarian philosophy.

    I still hold that a third party can have an effect because they do screw up two party elections. Sure, maybe the worst guy gets in, but the next time around the guy who lost realizes that he needs to reach out to the people that went third party. The problem is, too many people cry about that stuff. People talk about it not mattering which party is in power becuase they are both bad, and say that the lesser of two evils is still evil, but then when a third party splits their vote they fuss. That means they really don’t believe that the lesser of two evils is still evil. We have to reach the point where we truly believe that the government is too far gone, and that both parties are crap before a third party will have a real chance.

    Basically, the third party will be the last ditch effort before a revolution. It will only happen when people say, alright, no more voting for those corrupt fools on either of the major parties. We get a new party in place that actually represents us, or we scrap the whole thing. Until we are at that point, third parties will be unelectable, unless we have the patience and perserverence to take the steps USW talked about: Start local, educate youth, get the third party in place over a couple decades.

    I personally am at the point where I think we might have to scrap the whole thing and do a new constitution, hence my die-hard third party voting record. 🙂

    Cheers all, I know I have been scarce lately, I have missed you all.

    • SFC Dick says:

      Jon Smith, sir

      You post

      “No more voting for those corrupt fools on either of the major parties”

      But there’s a big problem there. Those polls, usually congress has a very low approval rating but when asked if poll’ee likes HIS congressman, they get higher marks.

      I don’t think I’m gonna budge on this one. It all comes down to us.

      We are the problem, but why in the hell would we admit that?

      So we can fix the problem?

      Hell NO!

      see, I “LOVE” my little problem I created, and so does my neighbor and so on and so on, until it is a big problem.

      Let’s review.

      Boy are people mad or what now?

      Who is in favor of the auto bailouts? Hands please. Ok

      What have you done about it?

      …ok, I hear someone saying “I wrote/called/twittered 140 characters to my senator and boy was I mad’

      Ok, fabulous. So, did you do the same when Chrysler was bailed out ( way back when ), how about Harley Davidson?

      I see the Tea party folks are forming a grass roots party, great.

      The platform

      “We are the big tent, sticking to the core principles of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and Constitutional values,”

      Great, so you want to repeal drug laws and all the associated abusive powers.

      You guys are all for repealing mandatory vehicle insurance.

      You guys are for removing the broadcast regulations regarding indecent material

      You guys are for no law being passed that regulates the religious act of marriage, gay or otherwise.

      Man, the more I think about it, I’m in.

      No more sin taxes, no more 21 year old drinking age, I get machine guns, broadcast “TV” is gonna be waaay coool now.

      Send me a registration form.

      FINALLY a constitutional party.

      Forget all that other crap I said about we the people being the problem, I was just treading water until some real change, “Change I can Believe In” came along.

      I found it.

      A party that basis all its laws and actions on the constitution.

      Nice, and to think, I thought today was going to be useless.

      “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

      • Believing that people shouldn’t do those things (like teenage drinking) and asking govenrment to force people to not do those things are very different.

        • SFC Dick says:


          You are the genius of the day and get to sit at the head of the class.
          You post.

          “Believing that people shouldn’t do those things (like teenage drinking) and asking government to force people to not do those things are very differently”

          You know, there are people that are fighting this war effectively and when we see others really screwing things up we do not employ tact when dealing with them, regardless of rank.
          Ya wanna know what works least ( in regards training the host nationals and getting them to fight well and govern well ) yelling and using your “power”. A lot of military types just don’t get it because they don’t care or are just too plain old stupid.
          Intellect is a necessity in this operation.

          Ok, ok, I’ll get to it here.
          What works best…persuasion. Yep, persuasion. Some people just don’t get the concept, in ANYTHING least of all military ops.
          Persuasion is incredibly effective and either, incredibly easy if you poses the skill and personality type or just impossible. Some folks have no more business trying persuasion than they do trying to throw a 4th qrt touchdown pass in the NFL. Those people have to resort to force and coercion.
          Persuasion requires a lot….read that A LOT of lead by example.
          If you have the character to walk the talk, people notice, people begin to think you might have something there. People will listen.
          I have a theory why people love to jump on the fallen preachers we see so much of today.

          Yeh yeh, I get all the basic stuff, but why do I, me , MISTER PERFECT get a bit of a thrill or a little delight?
          Maybe, just maybe because this guy, well all preacher guys, are asking us to do things, live a way, act a way, that we have to take on faith.
          If you get a recruit in basic training and the SGT tells the recruit “shoot like this”, if the troop shoots like that, bingo he hits the target, proof is in the instant pudding. If the troop is a contrary type, doesn’t do it, misses, at least he sees that the “way” works for other troops and it does in fact work. Sometime to prove a point to, say, I don’t know, an Afghan 2nd LT, that his SVD does shoot straight, the SFC might actually lay down, shoulder the rifle and put 6 shots in a dime. PROOF.
          Walk the talk
          So we have no real proof from preachers, no proof that what they say is the “way” all we can do is watch them. The try to persuade us and all we have as proof is watching them.
          When they act like idiots it’s a special kind of let down.
          The political parties and their minions no longer have the time for or characters for persuasion on social issues, now it is all legislated.
          Moral social issues are best addressed in the arena of persuasion. I believe most people are good. If someone is doing something that truly is evil, persuasion will bring that person over to your views.
          On the other hand, spend you life enacting laws to regulate the life of your fellow man to meet your moral code, well, you are the one that will one day be judged by a higher, the Highest power.

          Of course until then. Leave me alone with all your control laws already, geesh….

          “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      Well said Jon.

      The power of the internet may be able to overcome some of the traditional barriers you list. Grassroots internet based fund drives had a considerable impact on Obama’s campaign. The Tea Parties were/are mostly organized and advertised via the web. New ideas like GOOOH are gaining traction via the web.

      None of these has risen to the level needed to compete with the two big parties…YET. One of these ideas or a new idea altogether, VDLG anyone?, may go viral and catch fire.

  18. Alan F. says:

    A true three or four party system is one of compromise and moderation. Two things neither of your parties engage in. Even Ray has to admit any pulling back on policy will almost always be to avoid alienating enough voters to lose an election somewhere. This has happened on both sides of your political fence and I believe they both like it that way. Both will always get “their chance” to take power when the pendulum swings back their way. Both will always have a polarizing agent running opposite them in an election. What’s not to like about that as a politico? Even as the perennial loser deep in enemy territory, when your party’s turn comes up on the federal level you get your relevancy back! Whooo hooo!

    Do any of you think for a minute Nancy Pelosi wants to face off against a real centrist in stead of merely a Republican in what is the safe haven of the Democratic party? Not on your life. Its too hard to demonize someone who shares an uncomfortable amount of your own leanings (minus the extreme ones) without damaging your own publicly perceived persona in the process. Of course this also holds true for any hard right winger.

    I believe every major city in North America is populated by the majority, the centrist. A true centrist party would be neigh invincible as the polarized left and right are just never going to be able to stand united on anything including a common foe who assures their being shelved permanently. This is exactly why it will NEVER be allowed to happen in your country by your two current ruling parties. Both deeply enjoy being at times relevant.

    • Alan F. says:

      Wow that’s likely the one thing they will always agree on!

    • Alan F.

      “YOUR COUNTRY” “NEVER” Our country was started around an idea that government should work for the people and by the people; it has now evolved to a somewhat reversed state. We, as a nation, allowed that to happen due to a state of being called Entitlement. Enough of us did not stand up and require those elected to toe the line. As such we are now awakened and aware of circumstances that could very well push us to a Fascist government.

      NEVER however is a word that my father and grandfather cautioned my brother and me to not use, as it would surely prove us to be wrong.

      The people of this great country have all the history, intelligence, moxy and fortitude to both learn from and combat with to garner a positive result. We don’t back down and we are not quiters.

      I agree with you in principal that it is a tough challenge, but I know of no other country with the inginuity and tenacity equal to the American public.

      As a great man said: “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history” Gandhi

      Don’t sell the American spirit short as so many others in history have.

      • Alan F. says:

        By stating things have “evolved” you are acknowledging progressivism which has been at play for nearly a century in your country. Its not a recent development at all. That your grandparents didn’t know/believe their government was under the surface “drifting away from your founders” is no fault of theirs. They knew not a thing outside of the traditional media of their day.

        There is in fact an argument to be made that with the advent of the Usenet, the tools were coming into place for massive exchanging of information outside the hands of “the media services”. An unfiltered source. The Usenet is 30 years old but main stream use is still in its teens. Those completely without excuse for not acting are those online right now.

      • Common Man: “government should work for the people and by the people;” You must have missed prior comments that explained this phrase was Mr. Lincoln’s and is not in our founding documents nor in our founding principles.


  19. Months ago, I pointed out how you change things based on a candidate/ party that pulled it off.

    In ’70 the NY Conservative party, founded as a counterweight to the Liberal party nomionated James Buckley for Senate (Bill’s brother). He was given zero to no chance to win. The Republicans had a liberal nominee Charlie Godell (hand picked by Rockefeller) and the democrats had a liberal Dick Ottenger(as they usually do). Those two, split the liberal/party hack vote, allowing Buckley to win with about 42% of the vote. Buckley by all accounts was an excellent Senator but more than that,he forced both NY parties to the right. No more automatic assumptions.

    When Buckley was up for re-election in ’76 we thought he would skate in. Bella Abzug (all you kids out there, look her up) was to be the nominee. Buckley had the Republican line.

    Two things conspired against him. The Ford pardon of Nixon and Watergate in general but also, the dems shifting right and nominating Daniel Patrick Moynihan an actual moderate. Just think how desperate Buckley made them. They had to pick a guy against welfare, a hawk and somebody who actually worked for Richard Nixon.

    That folks is how you change things. Get your third parties lined up on a state by state basis, wait for both parties to pick tweedle dum and tweedle dee and go for it. There are some excellent histories out there on the NY Conservative party. While no where near as strong as they used to be, they did manage to destroy and eliminate the NY Liberal Party. Their mistake was thinking that that was enough.

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I agree that the way to start doing this is on the local level, and perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY on the local level is to elect people to the school boards who are ardent defenders of freedom and liberty and have these school boards force the public schools into giving our children a REAL education instead of this dumbed-down indoctrination that kids have been getting for almost 50 years now.

    Also, force competition in schooling by requiring all school districts to have vouchers for private school attendance, and force all school districts to have charter schools.

    This country is not in a situation that is likely to be solved in one generation, so the key is to make sure that every child is afforded a real education where they are taught to think critically and taught the ideals that this nation was founded on.

    You want real change? Take back control of your local schools!

    • That, is exactly what I’m talking about. Of all the offices in the land, the school boards are perhaps most important and can be a springboard to the next level of government.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      On the Gun Ban issue. Just another liar doing what they do best. Lying to get elected.

      • Another law in the making HR 2159 Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009. Once this is passed, the Domestic Extremist Lexicon and the “Right-Wing” Extremists reference aid documentation comes into affect…I knew I was on to something with this.

      • SFC Dick says:


        Nah dude, I would like to think just another liar that is lying.

        I think it worse, more insipid, equivocation.

        That’s why some one can say “of course I believe in, or believe that, but come on, such and such, well I know that is just wrong or not needed”

        I have extended republican family that is all for the 2d amendment but sees no need for me to have a semi auto magazine fed rifle.

        Matter of fact, they draw the line there and think it should be banned, made illegal.

        But ask them, they’ll tell you “I fully support people’s right to keep and bear arms, but an ####### ( I don’t use profanity ) rile should be illegal.

        “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

        • esomhillgazette says:

          I don’t believe in ABSOLUTELY ANY restrictions on guns! I don’t care if you have a freakin’ Paladin Artillery system or an M1 Abrams tank!

          Come to think of it, I wish I HAD an Abrams myself! 🙂

    • SFC Dick says:


      My God, don’t you see. This..

      “Brain scanning may be used in security checks”

      Is incredibly flawed.

      How many people are walking around, right now that actually have a brain?

      useless in todays society.

      • Flawed as it may sound and it, it will be coming soon. Haven’t you noticed that everything that the European Union does the North American Union…ooops, I mean the good ol’USA mimics.

        • SFC Dick says:



          So where do you see that brain scan thing going, if it, as alluded to, works for more than recognition.

          They have sensors and program logarithms to detect ‘suspicious” people.

          Would the brain scan be compelled testimony against one’s self.

          Or, would it be looked at as just another detection device that would not rise past the point of what we accept now as someone observing a suspicious bulge under a coat and that being enough for further investigation?

          I find it fascinating that some will allow, encourage, a sort of compelled testimony using biometrics (so to speak, a wide genre) when dealing with law enforcement issues.

          When biometrics is used to identify possible health risk of an individual down the line, people scream bloody murder and recoil at the very hint, arguing that government might misuse or worse, abuse the information.

  21. Third parites, even if they are never elected to any office, can hugely affect the nation.

    In the 1920’s the Socialist Party ran for local and state and national elections. They had very limited success, only winning a very few seats, and none on the national level, but today nearly all of their party platform has been adopted.

    Third parties, even when not successful politically give people a chance to influence opinion. There’s no way for me to get my ideas out there effectively as an individual but if I support a party that aligns with my views then my ideas can be heard, even if not as loudly as someone elses.

    I know that many people think a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. I believe that a vote against your principles is a wasted vote. I intend to someday look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them that I did everything I could to preserve liberty and assure the rule of law–whatever the state of the government is at that time.

    A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    • Michelle:

      You had me when you said you lived in Hawaii and North Idaho. But now
      “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil.” I am nothing but putty in your hands. I’m guessing Black Flag will be swooning soon himself.

      That my dear is a principled position. Coming soon, we will see if you have the right foundation supporting it, so that it will not fall or founder.

      Good Luck and Stay Free

  22. USWeapon says:

    Moved from above:

    Ray said “So what is a platform them? Anytime I have asked for specificity here I seem to get a mish mash of I dunno’s or crickets. Tell me – what was the delta between election day and your first Obama sucks posting? Tell me – why exactly did you vote for him?”

    A platform for me is a set of tasks that you are dedicated to implementing. The Obama platform seemed to be “we are going to bring change to Washington”. There was very little talking about what that change was going to be. And Obama lost my support with the first economic stimulus bill, when he broke four key promises:

    1. Change in how things are done in Washington: This wasn’t change, it was the implementation of 40 years worth of liberal agenda items, with only 19% of the spending occurring in the first two years.

    2. Eliminate earmarks: By eliminate he apparently meant that we will find a way to not make them “technically” earmarks. I didn’t want semantics, I wanted change. If he was who campaigned as he would have vetoed that bill.

    3. He claimed we were going to get away from using the Bush tactics of fear to pass legislation: I think it was clear that the word “crisis” was used 753 trillion times by Democratic politicians and the President in order to invoke a level of fear of economic collapse that caused Americans to accept an out of control governmental bill that wasn’t even read by those passing it.

    4. We were promised 48 hours to read the bill: It was passed in 11 hours. The claim of crisis was used even though it wasn’t signed for a week after passage. These silly games are not change from the previous administration, they are simply more of the same.

    Did I say somewhere that I voted for Obama?

    • Well put USW. The only change the Obama has done is put our greatgranchildren in debt. And they’re not born yet!


  23. Vincent says:

    You may not be aware, but some veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan refounded the Whigs last year as the Modern Whig Party.

    Since then, they have attracted members from the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties. They currently have nearly 30,000 members. This grassroots movement tries to be practical about politics and are generally open on social issues and prudent on fiscal issues. In short, they value common sense and rational solutions ahead of ideology. The party also is very realistic as to what they are up against, which I believe is an asset.

    • SFC Dick says:


      Nice, I’m going to have to look into that.

      Much of the time conservatives come out with these “grass roots” thingys (Christian right) and talk about less government, getting back to Americas principals and values, when infact it’s just more control “but good control Dick, good ethical moral control that God would want.”

      Yeh so pardon me if I don’t jump right in with the Tea Party folks, I’ve seen this type of movement before and it , to me, was ugly.

      “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

  24. Black Flag says:

    (So completely off topic, I’m in outer space)

    Lost a huge pot with the villain begging for a … wait for it, 1 out of 47 chance … 2% …

    And then NASA just released their estimates for a orbital contact with space debris @ 0.5%

    I’d be very worried if any Black Flag’s went into space right now 😉

    • SFC Dick says:

      yeh, well, you know.

      I have absolutely no idea what you just wrote but I’m gonna put it on the “not good” side of the ledger.

      • SFC Dick says:

        Ok, I fed it to the batputer, I got it.

        So you equate losing to a dude waiting for an inside card on a, well, natural straight flush with the “reasoned” “professional” experts at NASA.

        No way man.

        Ok, NASA does send out optics with out focusing them first.

        Builds space craft out of some type of styr-O-space foam.

        Cruises around the cosmos in the equivelant of a 1970 Buick le sabre

        and puts public school teachers on missions to outer space.

        but all in all, they’re solid.

        wasn’t it the (drunken?) Russians that rammed into the docking station with their craft?

        Pretty much the equivelant of coming home so drunk that you run into your garage door.

        NASA hasn’t done that…yet.

    • Black Flag says:


      I appreciate your condolences. 🙂

      I’m so way ‘up’ on my stake, it’s merely a drowning in a case of beer.

      But, I’m sure glad I ain’t on that Shuttle.

      Keep safe, friend.

    • Eugentics trip…
      Japan Kudan Elementary is introduced to their Robot Teacher.

      This robot has feelings…it can express three emotions; WTF?
      This is some s-it out of a Sci-Fi movie…let me see: Articial Intelligence (AI), I-Robot. What is really going people?

    • Amazed1 says:

      Noticed you had been missing lately….sorry things did not go well.

      • Amazed1
        What do you mean things aren’t going well? I have been out of this world. I have to take a break from time to time. Things are great! I have been in and out of mostly all of forums. Sometimes I feel that I don’t have to respond, just gain knowledge from the discussions. I am on a bigger mission and don’t dedicate all my time to just discussing on forums but actually putting my words into action. Here in Columbus, GA I am working with a group of people to start “education classes” about the laws and policies that are being introduced to rid us of our rights, liberities, and sovereignty and I am also a volunteer for the Tea Parties getting ready for 7/4/09 plus I am a mother, full-time worker, and a full-time student working on my doctrine. Sorry that I can’t give all my time everyday to you all but I am glad I am missed me!

        • Amazed1 says:

          Hey Nubian,
          Well really the post was for BF….ut hey I miss reading your posts to. Good work Nubian can I recommend your classes? I know alot of people who need them. Excellent work!!! My hands clap real loud….we need more workers like you.

  25. Amazed1 says:

    Ok…I am all for starting a 3rd party and stealing our base from the Republican and Democrate base…..therey taking there funding with us. Very quickly one of the parties will die out. I honostly believe that at least half the people in this nation are dissatisfied with the way out country is run and has been for a very long time. They look at voting as picking the least of two evils. I think a Constitutional Party on a platform as stated in Common Man’s post “Minimal government, fair taxes, strong military, equal justice for all, and balanced budgets”, and giving state rights back.
    The thing is getting enough media attention to get the voting public to reconginze “the Party”. And a contender that is willing to take the political heat. A squeeke clean, principled person….willing to stand up against the masses.

    • Amazed, I’ll take someone who has made mistakes, over squeaky clean anyday. I don’t trust the squeaky clean types, I want experience, bad and good. How else can someone lead without those lessons?


      • Amazed1 says:

        I was talking about criminals!!! Not people who have actually tried and failed or made mistakes. I too want a person with life experience….not some goon who has lived in a box….LOL….ROFL

    • SFC Dick says:


      I’ve got an idea.

      I must share it now, I get 1 idea a day and whether it’s a good one or a bad one is a tossup.

      Hows ‘bout a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

      EASY EASY now.

      I was trying to simplify things last night and I came up with this very general statement, which has its exceptions of course.

      I find…..Republican right wing wants to deny you things through legislation.

      Democrat left wants to force you to do/embrace things through legislation.

      What if the crazies were weeded out, I won’t name names because it’s early here and I haven’t fleshed this thing out.

      This group forms and after the initial awkwardness, everyone would either have to be disarmed at the door or everyone would be required to carry (firearms would be provided to former lefty types).

      I’m thinking if I sit down with, I’ll use Ray Hawkins as my represented Liberal ( hope you don’t mind Ray ) and I’ll fill in as a former self and a conservative.

      I’m gonna need a minute to work this out.

      Here it’s early and my insomnia has been kicking my butt lately.

      I will remind “you people” (my nod to Rush) the founding fathers were thought very socially liberal and financial conservative (of course till they started doing things like taxing whiskey to finance war) so this is by no means radical for this country.

      What has changed is now nobody wants to persuade on the social issues, everybody wants to legislate things that should be persuaded.

      I’ll be back with……

      Dick Knickle productions present a theater of the stupid presentation of

      Ray and Dick’s excellent political adventure.

      • SFC Dick says:

        Oh, and since I’m poking most people with this idea, I’ll poke some more.

        I like Al Fraken. I think he misses his mark sometimes in his political humor but I gotta tell ya ( yes, he went vapid in the political arena, but hey, politics is nasty, we civilized it a bit, but it’s back to the old days, early 1800s type) I think the guy is sincere. I will most definately give Sen Franken the benifit of the doubt….

        and while I’m at it

        I like Ann Coulter…it’s political satire folks.
        she has some funny stuff. Yes it is at the expense of liberals alot, but she is not the great Satan’ess.

        man I’m feeling generous today.

        • SFC Dick says:

          Ya know, lets do this thing

          Ray Hawkins, send USweapon a message, get my e-mail. Lets talk about some stuff offline

          This needs to be done.

          I’ll try to make my little instalment humorous and entertaining, but I want to cover some serious stuff, that’s why i need to chat with you offline Ray.

          who…WHO in these time we face, is talking about sitting down with the otherside?

          I’m in no way implying that either Ray or I will compromise our beliefs, but I think each side share so much, so very much at the core principle of things that this will be much easier then people think.

          This little thing, this is what my very, VERY liberal brother and I used to do.

          We started late in life, actually “listening” to each others points, but we found we were very close on things.

          Once we both realized that we didn’t have to kill the other or destroy, we found much common ground.

          Thos things that we cotinued to dissagree, we found those might better be handled in an arena that did not involve legislation.

        • Amazed1 says:

          Oh my can I be a fly on wall during this discussion? I’d love to figure out how a person can be conserative fiscally and liberal socially……hum not real sure how that will all fit together?

          • SFC Dick says:


            simple, it works like this.

            Don’t do that program.


            war on drugs. save money=fiscal conserv.

            war on drugs. leave me alone as per the constitution = socially liberal.

            BTW, anybody else get that sticking to the constitutional limits of intrusion on the people by government= socially liberal…WOW

            didn’t some one recently write:

            “If you want to be considerd truely dangerous in today’s society one merely has to go about spouting off phrase that were used as the basis of forming this country”

      • Been done SFC, they were called Neocons and they jumped from the Dem party to work for Reagan. They called the traditional Rep’s Paleocons.

        • SFC Dick says:

          yeh, I get that, but one group going over to another group with out fundemental changes in the understanding of what governments rolls are, that don’t help.

          Getting Jane Fonda to become a republican and start championing “siezure laws”, what the hell good is that gonna do?

          Or me joining the democrats and starting state drives to “legalize” gay marrige, what good is that going to do.

          I’m talking change brother, I’m spit balling here, but….

          I’m for change, real change, the kind of make things different change.


          Change, the difference we can belive in….

          maybe but….

          change, it just aint for coffee anymore.

          “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

          • Amazed1 says:

            Actually since the Party will be the Constitutional party the common grounds for everyone will be the Constitution and how it fits with what needs to be done verse what some want done. Thereby smaller Federal government…larger more controllable state governments.

    • Amazed: “And a contender that is willing to take the political heat. A squeeke clean, principled person….willing to stand up against the masses.”

      So would that be another King with great oratory skills?

      How about WE do the work needed. There is no need for A leader. What we do need is A message that will actually help.

      • Amazed1 says:

        Yes, we do need a leader…one that can be a real President that adheres to his job duties. what good is a new party i we are not going to have leaders in Congress, the Senate, Presidents, governors ect. Trust me that will be work! Our message is upholding the Constitution, following the COnstitution and having smaller Federal government and more powerful State govenments.

  26. OK, I’ve been a little chippy with some folks tonight when I should have just made a general post. So here it is.

    What have the American people accomplished these past two months. We have discovered today that there are at least a half dozen (I think) new political parties started to kick some donkey effalump patooty. So, we have divided ourselves into small competeing tribes so we can fight two very big tribes, who we know will unite when threatened. Enough sarcasm.

    The third party issue is much like the term limits issue. It is nothing more than a gimmick at this point, with a few exceptions. Why? Primarily because as many have said it will take a long time. The exceptions? There are some states where it will work quickly with just a little effort from the tea party crowds. But that means they need to recruit candidates to run and then fund them. Oh yeah, they will also have to take over the target party.

    The coalition idea is plausible and feasible, such as the one Mad Mom has going. That way you can take what ever candidate that will sign on the line.

    If we, assuming there ever comes to be a we, can control the voting outcome for 75% of the state legislatures then we can fix the problems without ever electing a single congressman, senator or president. The constitution allowed congress to make its own rules. We can remove that authority and create rules that will permanently dilute their power where it counts. Then, as I have said before, it doesn’t matter how many parties there are or how much money they raise.

    And by what right or authority do you take away my right to work with my friends to get one of our other friends elected to public office? Is that not what a political party is? If you take that right from me, you have given me the authority to take it and much more from you, when it is my turn at the wheel.

  27. Now for a more general comment.

    We are perhaps living in the middle of a turning point in political history in this country. When your in the middle of such an event it would logically appear out of control and everyone would feel frightened and frustrated. Such changes have happened before and will happend again. This includes political parties. The Whigs split primarily over one issue and the R’s were born. Who’s to say that the moderate right can’t take over the R’s and force the hard core right to form their own third party? The same can go for the far left and the Dems, in fact they already have the Green Party.

    The real question will be whether that large group who call themselves moderates will remain adequately upset to stay the course in helping fix the problem. You know one or both parties will moderate in an attempt to bring them back into the fold. That is the dynamics of politics. Look at the moderates as the bubble in a level. It is oval in shape, with a larger center than the ends. There is only one point that is exactly in the center, at any time. As one party pulls harder down on the end of the level, due to over confidence in their power, they tip the level and the bubble moves towards the other end. Pull hard enough and it goes all the way to the end of the scale, leaving only a small fraction of the little end of the bubble in the middle. If both parties moderate their zeal the bubble remains essentially centered with equal parts on both sides of the midline.

    I do think we are at a turning point. We do need alot of ideas to make sure we consider many options. But we must also move in a deliberate and calculated way. What I see now is alot of knee jerk reactions. That is OK as it will feed into the final movement if one happens. But don’t be crushed when what you thought was a movement dies or morphs into something else.

    Enought for now as I am starting to doze off.
    See you all tomorrow or is that today?

    • Amazed1 says:

      You are correct to a point….if both parties morp or change to adapt and keep their party members then in effect have we not won? I thought the idea was to change the parties to something more acceptable, we can bring in a new party or change the parties we have…..after all, over the years the Republican and Democrates have swapped their spectrum over the years.

      • If the morph. as I suspect and the people react as in the past then WE WILL HAVE LOST. We will get the same thing we have had. Moving back and forth, but never really resetting to anywhere near the beginning.

        My level analogy was slightly off from reality. You see as the bubble moves back and forth and the ends go up and down, the center line is also moved, to the left. Thus the new center is left of the old center.

        My goal is not to just make the parties more acceptable. My goal is to plug the holes in the constitution so it will take another 100 years or more for the SOB’s to figure out how to wiggle around it. Then my great grandkids can do it again.

        I am not opposed to taking over an existing party to do this. The Repubs are the most logical candidate as they are struggling and many share most of my values. I think the third political party is a wasted effort right now, except as a deliberate diversion to the other side. I do think efforts to build an independent coalition is a good thing, right now. You don’t need party structure and personnel to carry that off successfully. Mad Mom has the blue print, I just don’t like their slogans/platform.

        One more thing on these new parties, or old small parties. Part of the current problem is the state to state variation in the situation. In Montana for example, the Constitution party is the party who wears tinfoil hats. The libertarians are the guys who help them put the hats on. Neither will ever gain traction as you would have to displace the existing groups. In Idaho they have no serious constitution party and the Libertarians are more respected. However the Lib’s can not gain traction because the Repubs are so small gov’t. Same in Utah and Wyoming.
        So you see, the differences in existing conditions between the states is actually working against a viable third party. At least right now!

        Real change is going to take time. More time than it looks like we have. A concerted holding action is needed to buy time. The Revolution didn’t just pop up in 6 months like we see today. In fact I am concerned that we as a people have the guts and perseverance to see this through. That was my biggest concern when we went into Iraq. I think you would have to admit that my concerns are still justified.

        While I was being only slightly sarcastic about the King I was totally serious about the main point. We do not need nor should we desire one or just a few sqeekie clean articulate types to run or lead. We need hundreds, all speaking from the same set of principles and for the same agenda. They can not effectively gang up on a crowd. But they can destroy even the most righteous among us, if they are seen as a leader.

        Remember, I do not disagree with your goals. I believe I share them. It is the tactics I am challenging as I do not believe they will work or they will divert needed resources. Namely, the energy and enthusiasm of those who want to make “something” happen.

        Be Free My Friend

        • Amazed1 says:

          Ahh Jac you are probably right….and the kind of change we need will take a long time unless something very bad happens like a very sever depression, or war on our soil or something. I guess I was acting like a spoiled child….I WANT IT NOW!! LOL

  28. SFC Dick says:

    My WHY?

    Measure would allow random testing of student athletes for steroids

    A proposal on its way to Gov. Pat Quinn would randomly test Illinois high school athletes for steroids and other prohibited performance-enhancing substances.

    Students who test positive or who refuse to submit to random testing would be banned from athletic competition for an unspecified length of time, according to the legislation, which the Illinois Senate approved 56-0 Wednesday.

    House Bill 272 earlier passed in the Illinois House of Representatives, 116-0.

    While the Illinois High School Association already randomly tests student-athletes in state championship competitions, the legislation calls for testing at least 1,000 athletes during their sports seasons.

    It also would require high school sports coaches to complete an IHSA-developed educational program about preventing the abuse of performance-enhancing substances and would boost fines for certain drug-related crimes by $50. That money would be used to pay for the athletes’ drug testing.

    Ok “you people” This is my “WHY?” for the day.

    I doubt it will be daily, I don’t have the ability to commit to much more than going down the rat hole, but if you need someone to go down the rat hole on a regular basis I’ll be your Riki Tiki Tavi ( ok, it was a snake hole, I’m low on clever also).

    I’m doing this because I think I need to show why and where our system is broken.

    Just like anything else that is broken, it will be broken across the board and be broken in many different ways; it is my life’s duty to point out the broken that many people think is the fix.

    So let me get this straight, we randomly test kids but pros, pros who get MY TAX DOLLARS get a pass?

    Ok, sorry, straw man there, testing pros wouldn’t make testing kids right.

    Let’s see, what else, the state will run the education program on enhancement drugs education.

    Oh, ok. We classified synthetic testosterone (ok, if I must, I call it steroids) classX, not a whole lot of research going on in that area now. Well, there is, but not by anyone or group that the government recognizes.

    The anti aging crowd is finding some good stuff, outlaw academia is pretty heavily involved and I have researched enough to probably obtain a Masters level, if not doctorate.

    The government…?.yeh right.

    I’ll nail it down for you.

    High school kids are the LAST folks that need to be on any regimen; regulated and monitored or not because it tends to permanently retard the testicular axis which includes the entire growth spectrum, of this we solid analogical evidence; that being said the extent tends to be more personal from affect than does related. The growth axis outside of testicular is speculative and based on something more than anecdotal but can’t go further that testimonial because of the very restrictive nature of the product and no research protocols ongoing.

    Outside of the teen and young adult pool, the benefits of hormonal replacement and supplemental therapy shows much promise in everything from “quality of life” improvements ranging from increased cognitive functions (across the age spectrum when study in individuals who have begun the natural process of individual reduced production) basic immunity and recuperative functions and certain physiological impairments; the last of course completely contradicts the held belief and argument of “ROID RAGE”

    ROID RAGE was an area that I and several others more qualified (medical graduate students and several practicing MDs from across academia and the medical community) folks looked at. This seems to be tied directly to a time when the introduction of testosterone is halted or reduced allowing a change in ratio between free testosterone and any aromatized estrogens, the symptoms only appear( and vary significantly in a per case basis, level of intensity and amount vary so greatly and apparently regardless of dose that it is speculated that the phenomenon begins to reach the level of possible “side effect” that would be considered low factored against the acceptable per case incidence and symptoms with any approved product) when the ratio of test V estrogen is inversed and seems completely unrelated and unaffected by the increase of testosterone well past the 1gram per week (high in any ones book).

    The hysterical arguments made in the political debate were lies and it was a manufactured crisis.

    So the point is a continued acceptance of intrusions and forced elimination of freedom from intrusion will continue to foster the idea that the government has a role to intrude and personal liberties are “case by case” rather than universal.

    These are the things that lead to and continue to give government the impetus to reign on you in all things.

    “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

%d bloggers like this: