Sunday, November 18, 2012

The Lion's Den... 11/18/2012

Hello  everyone, today I'd like to look at the history and possibility of a third party in the US. As some of you know, I was talking about this during the summer. With the stunning defeat of the GOP & Mitt Romney, now is the time to re-examine the issue. So, here we go; first, let's look at some history.
To the chart provided by Martin Armstrong (click to enlarge):
Armstrong opines in his blogpost, Obama Wins:
"Our [cyclic] model has long shown the rise of the Democrats as we go into this economic turmoil as the Republicans have been captured by the Religious Right injecting religion into law and politics. This is very wrong for what if the majority became Shiite Muslim? Would it justified to them order all women to be clothed based upon what the majority believes at any one point in time? There should be a FULL separation of church and state. Socrates was put to death for questioning the gods.
The real issue is the rising class warfare. This is the nastiest election perhaps in American history. It is the Democrats blaming the “super rich” (income greater than $125,000 per person) for all their failures of Marxist economic promises. They will never blame their unfunded promises. They will never blame themselves for throwing Social Security funds in the same pocket as everything else causing the lack of segregation to undermine the entire future of the World Economy. These are not sinister things that the rich have done – this is failed promises from politicians.

The Democrats won because they are the ones that have empowered the majority to vote to themselves the assets of the minority. This has been the Marxist Agenda that started to blow up with Communism in 1989 and should conclude with the collapse of Socialism in the West come 2016. It is 2016 that should be the first opportunity for a third party rising in the United States.

The THIRD PARTY should emerge from the middle ground of economics. The Republicans will become the party of the religious right and they will decline further missing the entire point that this is about surviving as a nation rather than abortion and gay rights. Therefore, we should see the rise in THIRD PARTY activity going into the 2016 election. The economy will peak again 2015.75 and turn down really hard. This should seriously damage the Democrats as their false promises collapse. The Republicans have to return to the economic agenda of Reagan and abandon the Religious Right agenda that has no place in politics."

I think he's correct on his thesis and I opined in the previous Lion's Den that the GOP needs to become the "fiscal conservative" party.  I believe the GOP must move beyond the religious right focus, the failed promises of its RINO "bi-partisan" politicians, not properly addressing the rising class warfare, and shift the "fiscal conservative" agenda to the economy, growth, and sound money.  If the GOP fails again in 2014, the stage is set for a "can do" new conservative party in 2016.

It's past time to clean sweep the DIMWITS out and bring in a whole new team with a dedicated fiscal conservative message. Remember this slogan: "it's the economy, stupid!" Let's get going!


Right Wingnut said...

We already have a third party like the one described in your post. It's called the Libertarian party. Wake me up when they break 1% of the vote.

How about we just fix the conservative party that we have?

Your suggestion would likely result in Democrat victories forever, with all due respect.

cimbri said...

That Republican Party Platform was a disgrace. Who writes this garbage? If we can't get some people in there early on, and slant the platform in a more libertarian direction, we will keep losing. The platform needs to be done in a more democratic fashion. Somehow these tea party people take over stuff, and drive it to a place where the majority of Americans will not go.

I would prefer State secession to a 3rd party movement. Just let each state or region decide their destiny. The main advantage of this is we could jettison the federal debt and start all over with Texas or other multiple currencies.

Right Wingnut said...

We have a hard enough time beating Dems now, and now you want to split conservatives into two parties? Really? You know as well as I do, that the "religious right" would stay in the GOP, and those seeking "gifts," as Romney calls it, would stay where they are.

You may argue that Conservative Dems would go the third party route. How did that work out in 1992?

Again...I say this with all due respect. :)

Right Wingnut said...


"Who writes this garbage."

Romney's minions.

Anonymous said...

You're so clever and you love trashing Romney. You couldn't get a majority in 2012 and in coming years you still will not be winners.

Socrates pushed for justice, instead of might makes right. He wanted and sought for a more ethical citizenry.

Religion seeks to teach more ethical behavior. It seems to be failing, but we won't be free without ethical citizens.

Legislation is a separate process where people seek consensus regarding what is right, in other words consensus on what is moral. One can NEVER get away from moral judgments.

Conservatives haven't made gay marriage an agenda, the Left did. And baby killing doesn't take much religion to see the folly of it, and the stupidity. It was NOT the Conservatives who pushed the issue, it was the MEDIA PROPAGANDA machine that demonized the Republican Party and made religion a scare tactic. Sorry you fell for it.

Tolerance is an idea from the religious. If you don't like racism then work to teach better ways and the truth.

RW is correct, the Libertarian Party has flaws and won't win with the purposes they've combined. I don't find it sane to legalize highly addictive volatile mind altering drugs. Just isn't reasonable.

This campaign focused on the economy and it didn't win the day. It should have, but THE LEFT made social issues the propaganda of choice, and the msm ridiculed religion and scared people. The LEFT demonized religion and conservatives. You fellows are a motley crew.

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” ~George Washington

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” ~George Washington

You keep running, but you can't hide. There is no escape from the fact that our Rights come from God. If you wish to offend him, you cannot expect his blessings no matter what financial data you foot and tick.

Democrats tried your technique, and they voted God out of their platform. Even their leaders knew better than you monkeylords, and they overruled the folly. All of the nonsense of forcing the government to steal from their neighbors and entitlements driving us over the suicidal fiscal cliffs can be traced to their Godless immorality.

Try honor, fellows. It would better suit you. And if you can't desire this, why are you at "Right Speak?"

Anonymous said...

It isn't very witty to trash the majority of your party in appealing for becoming a larger coalition. Some people just want to mock religion and the religious. What makes you think you're Republicans. You would fit in the Democrat Party who also wants to get rid of God.

Anonymous said...

Looks like I've sparked off some interesting commentary here. Let me say we need to consider changing the GOP first & foremost. Give the leadership a chance to change the party, so in 2014 we can have a test of the changes with the electorate. The GOP had it's libertarian champion in Ron Paul; the leadership did everything it could to squelch him. This cost them votes. Santorum went off into the weeds with some of his ideas. This cost votes. Romney was the plain vanilla, "safe choice" candidate, but failed to get the "couch voters" and/or the Ron Paul folks to come over. Face facts folks.

This is not a winning course of action. Look at the chart and see the trend the democrats are in; UP. If the GOP wants to stop that, then they need to reverse their downtrend to an uptrend. Simple as that. The GOP has enjoyed an advantage for most of the history of the USA. I'm not in favor of jetisoning off the religious right or trashing God. But they to are fiscal conservatives. This is where the party needs to go when Socialism does finally collapse and Santa's bag of goodies is empty.

Right Wingnut said...

Your term "couch voters" is a good one. These are the "low information" voters I've been talking about.

I think we need to rethink whether we should reinvent the wheel just because a flawed candidate lost the election.

newark hawk said...

Lionhead - I hate to break the news to you, but a large portion of the GOP base supports the party for one reason and one reason only: the social issues, especially the abortion issue.

Your assumption that all or virtually all social conservatives are fiscal conservatives too, is just dead wrong.

If the GOP platform ever became pro-choice, millions of Evangelicals & Christian Conservatives would flee the party quicker than you can say "RINO", and the party would never win a presidential election again.

Where would they go, you ask?

Some would vote for 3rd party candidates, some would not vote at all, and some would even vote for Dems because they like the free stuff - "the gifts" - as Romney would say.

newark hawk said...

Romney's only weakness, albeit a major one, was his campaign, which was far too one-dimensional(focusing just on the economy) and timid(not attacking Obama often enough, sharply enough, and loudly enough).

Had Romney won the election, he would have been a superb president, just like he was a superb governor, Olympics CEO, and businessman.

Romney will surely recover from his loss on November 6th, but I'm not so sure that our nation will.

cimbri said...

RW, I was referring to the part of the Republican Party platform that said, in effect, a woman would be forced to have a rapist's baby. This was all over the news. I was aghast when I read it. Romney's minions didn't do this. I'm guessing the usual suspects added this in when we weren't looking.

Guess what, the new Ras poll shows 54% are pro-choice, 38% pro-life. These stay at home and drop out people who didn't vote for Romney are becoming more irrelevant by the day.

Right Wingnut said...

Ras used D+6 in that poll, so it didn't take into account those who stayed home.

I'm not sure I'd trust. Any poll from that clown at this point.

Anonymous said...

RW, yes, he was flawed, but the most experienced for the job as President. It's a shame we lost that experience; another mal-investment in Obama by the "free stuff" voters. What puzzles me is Romney flamed all the other primary candidates, torched the conservatives at the convention, including Ron Paul, then ran a rather timid campaign against Obama and left the conservatives he torched "left" for dead. Some historian(s) will be writing a book about why this happened someday. Most are still confused, including me. If I play, I play to WIN.

In any event, the "couch voters" just wouldn't get up for him. The DIMWITS need to send out some scouts to see why. Maybe a posse of Bill Crystal and Karl Rove can find the answers ;)

Right Wingnut said...

Romney's biggest flaw is his lack of political talent. I could have told you this 4+ years ago. I don't care how qualified you are. If you can't get enough people to vote for you, it doesn't mean squat.

cimbri said...

Lion, Romney was trying to thread a needle. You know the deal - try to get your social con base without turning off everyone else. He was out there, as you know, every day, at rallies, etc. Won the first debate. He didn't leave Gingrich for dead, Newt was deployed by the campaign.

Anonymous said...

Romney is a lousy politician but a true leader. Romney needed someone like an Axelrod to market his brand. Obama was marketed very well and Romney was not. Axel rod defined his target marketing groups and went after them via twitter and Facebook.

Romney's team was week especially communications. Andrea Saul and Eric Zfehrtrom were lousy. I sensed that Mitt wanted to surround himself with those people he trusted verses bringing in someone new.......relying on his inexperienced team lost him the race.