Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, June 01, 2008
David R. Stokes :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Third-Party Candidate Who Might Have Won
by David R. Stokes
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The recent presidential nomination of former Georgia congressman Bob Barr by the Libertarian Party puts the political periphery on center stage – at least for a few moments - during this already unusual campaign year.  While it’s way too early to even speculate about Barr’s prospects for success, we are reminded that our two-party system hasn’t always functioned without would-be spoilers. 

Have third-party candidacies ever made much of a difference? 

Actually they have – and, what’s more – there’s at least one case where such a candidacy could have made all the difference.  I’ll get to that in a minute.

Probably the most famous attempted political end-run in history was made by a former president – that fact itself lending it credibility.  When Theodore Roosevelt failed in his attempt to wrest the Republican nomination away from his successor and former friend William Howard Taft in 1912, he bullied his way onto ballots across the nation on the Progressive Party ticket. He lost the election, but finished in second place and ahead of Taft.  Of course, he also ensured that the Democrat Woodrow Wilson would receive a plurality and move into the White House.  

In 1924, Robert La Follette ran as a progressive, as well.  He lost too, and it didn’t make much of a difference to Calvin Coolidge or the country.

The 1948 campaign played out with the kind of drama we are seeing these days as incumbent Harry S. Truman held onto the Democratic nomination in spite of defections from the left and right. Former Vice President Henry Wallace left (far left) the fold to run as a progressive and Strom Thurmond led the segregation-loving Dixiecrats into the fall campaign. 

That Truman held on to win a second term is amazing considering the state of his party that year.  This should serve as a reminder that party disunity doesn’t necessarily lead to ultimate defeat.   

George C. Wallace (no relation to Henry – in fact, no resemblance whatsoever) ran a reasonably effective third-party campaign in 1968, winning five southern states and Ross Perot got a lot of popular votes in 1992 (19% of total) and 1996 (8%).  Then there’s Ralph Nader, who captured more than 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000.  Few doubt that if he had not run, Al Gore would have received enough of those votes to win the state and therefore the election.

But as I said, there is one third-party candidacy that never actually happened – but could have been very successful if circumstances had allowed it to play out.

Huey Pierce Long was, by 1935, a former Governor of Louisiana (but still very much in control of the statehouse there) and a sitting U.S. Senator.  He had campaigned hard for Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, but found himself increasingly disillusioned by the president’s politics and policies.  He wanted a much more radical approach to confronting the Great Depression. 

The poster-child for populist politics, Long was a master of demagoguery and knew how to manipulate the media of his day – not to mention the masses.  He had charisma, savvy, a vast following, and the makings of a national political organization (“Share Our Wealth”) that was becoming a cultural movement. 

He was on the cover of Time Magazine in April of 1935 and was described in its pages as “a cross between an unscrupulous Bryan and a political Barnum.”  He was quoted as saying:  “There positively will be a Share-the-Wealth ticket in the field in the 1936 campaign. No doubt about that.  That ticket will be headed by a man who won’t go back on his word.” 

Of course, he was talking about himself.  He was even writing a book called: “My First Days in the White House.”

The Share Our Wealth Society was based on a sinisterly simplistic and woefully flawed scheme to confiscate the wealth of the richest Americans and distribute it to the rest of the people.  The plan included promises of a guaranteed annual income for all Americans.  This, of course, resonated with a lot of people – though few took time to do the math. By the summer of 1935 the movement had more than 7.5 million members and 27,000 local chapters from coast to coast. 

At 41, Long was the political rock star of his day, one poll finding him to be America’s most attractive man.  Tarzan came in second.

Huey Long was also a fierce opponent of Big Oil. His chronic battles in The Pelican State against Standard Oil caused many to see him as a modern day David fighting the Goliaths who taunted them and their hungry stomachs.  The Kingfish, as he enjoyed being called, had given them new roads, free text books, and had done so by helping the little guy at the expense of those he painted as big bullies.

The flamboyant Senator was making many people in power very nervous – including Mr. Roosevelt.  Some called Long a communist; others thought him to be a fascist.  What he really was resembled an unprincipled populist.  Many feared, with good reason, that he might become the catalyst for something in this country similar to the völkisch movement that Hitler had used to gain power in Germany. 

President Roosevelt actually commissioned a secret poll, one of the first such studies ever done, to get a sense of the political strength of Long and his ideas.  He also moved to outflank his potential foe by moving even further to the left, recommending legislation that pandered to the Share-Our-Wealth mindset. 

FDR considered Huey Long to be “one of the two most dangerous men in America.”  The other, by the way, was Douglas MacArthur.

As the summer of 1935 waned, Huey Long was the undisputed political leader of a growing and vocal group of discontented people, but he wasn’t the only star in the constellation of forces arrayed against the president.  Father Charles Coughlin, a vociferous priest who was a master of the air waves speaking to a radio audience of 40 million weekly (this in a day when our country’s population had not yet reached 130 million), was also considering a break with FDR by this time. 

The very idea that Long and Coughlin might get together to challenge him from the left clearly concerned Mr. Roosevelt.  In early September of 1935, FDR invited the radio priest to his home in Hyde Park, New York in an attempt to keep the popular broadcaster in his camp and avoid a political nightmare in 1936.  

By the time Father Coughlin was met by Joseph P. Kennedy (who was being used by FDR as a liaison to Coughlin) at the local train station at 3:00 a.m. on September 10th, the news had long made its way around the country that Huey Long had been shot in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and was fighting for his life.  Coughlin was with the president later that day when word came that Long had died. 

That was that.

Father Coughlin did break away from Roosevelt two months later.  And in 1936 there was a third party attempt to win the White House.  Coughlin teamed with Long’s self-anointed protégé, an anti-Semitic preacher named Gerald L.K. Smith, as well as Francis Townsend, who promoted a scheme to provide old-age pensions to the elderly.  They in turn orchestrated the nomination of William Lemke, a congressman from North Dakota, to run for president on the ticket of something called the Union Party.  But this was a hoarse whisper compared to the undeniably loud cry that would have been made had Long lived to challenge Roosevelt.

Had Huey Long run in 1936 as a third-party candidate, he just might have won.  Or, at the least, he could have taken enough votes away from FDR to give us President Alf Landon.

Oh – and the Kingfish’s book, “MY FIRST DAYS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,” was published posthumously.
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David R. Stokes is a minister, writer, and broadcaster. His weekly talks at Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia and host of Loud on Purpose, heard Monday to Friday in Washington, D.C. on WAVA 105.1 fm.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Perot could have won...
If he didn't go looney, fire his political advisors, pick that aging Admiral for a VP and begin talking about people trying to kill him and his family. With all that, he got twenty percent. Clinto got what? 40%

People wanted change, and Perot would have been the best thing that ever happened to this government.

Sam
You may be right about 2012. Amen, brother.

fascinating
I'd never heard of Huey Long - interesting history.

I'm planning to vote for Bob Barr, or possibly Chuck Baldwin, but I know they aren't going to win - this year or in 2012. The best I can hope for is that Obama wins Alabama (shocker!) and - this part is really important - that the LP and CP get more votes than Obama's margin of victory.

That would send a clear message to the GOP that they need to return to their limited government roots if they want to retain their base.

Parties losing sway
It may yet be a decade or so, but I foresee the demise of both the major parties, going the way of the dinosaurs. And well they should, since both have long since departed from any desire to serve the people. Most politicians are in the game solely for money, power, prestige. A wooden stake driven through the black heart of the blood-sucking democrat and republican parties would be appropriate.

Bob Barr offers a real change. He's an intellectual with wide experience in most levels of government. I like his Conservative-libertarian views on most issues. He has an abiding devotion to the Constitution, state's rights and a rational, realistic world view.

He has my vote and I've contributed to his campaign. Prior to his nomination, I had already decided I would under no circumstances vote for McCain, and I dam* sure wouldn't vote for Obama or Clinton. Now I have someone I can vote for, thank God.

Libertarians
If that candidate is a Libertarian, then we are in just as much hot water. Most of them are actually some species of collectivist. Their candidates are demagogues who pander to their base's blanket hostility toward government, a transferrance of their libertine hostility toward regulation of personal morality. The Libertarian movement is the ugly, deformed fraternal twin of the social conservative movement: They advocate eliminating regulation of personal morality but have no problem with, and are often euphoric over, the possibility of imposing regulation in other spheres. They claim otherwise in their Party platform, and their base will deny it, but that is the reality.

One of the candidates at their Presidential Convention (Gravel) said that the American people should get to decide how much freedom we have. Another stated that candidates from all parties, even the Greens, should be represented and seated by the party because that is what the Liberterian idea calls for. The rest of them predominantly obsessed over legalizing drugs and gay marriage while having little to say about the other myriad ways in which government has taken over the economy. I think I even heard one of them advocate carbon cap-and-trade. Those people are not dedicated to individual rights.

Nay, nay, Wendy
Forget the party, examine the candidate. You should take a look at Bob Barr, who is the very antithesis of what you describe. He is a strict Constitutionalist, for starters.

Wendy
May I quote Thomas Sowell: "I believe in libertarian principles but not in libertarian fetishes. In any context, the difference between principle and fetish can be the difference between night and day."

The sine qua non of libertarianism is a rejection of any and all prior restraints. Starting with prior restraints on people who do not like doing things of which you disapprove.

Few people make the grade. That is why the Libertarian Party has become the Party of Fetishes.

A pity. Bob Barr could be a good man to make the case that victory in this war will require less government at home. Instead, he is on the track of saying that less domestic government comes as a reswult of foreign defeat.
Something most folks will summarily reject.

The good news is that his message will resonate more with Democrats than with Republicans and
PROBABLY result in assistance to McCain.

If not Barr....
Then it would have been someone else. My vote for Barr will be based not on my support for the Libertarian Party, which has one of the more contradictory platforms, but based on my disgust for the leftward lurch of the republican party.

Obama has made enough mistakes to have cost any candidate this election and yet McCain never seems to be the beneficiary. Almost any other republican candidate would be running away with this election under these circumstances.

The problem is there aren't any republican candidates, just democrats and a RINO.

Barr and homosexuality
Barr was against a consitutional amendment to preserve marriage. The California decision and Massachusetts situation shows why such an amendment is necessary.Barr is a "noise level" candidate -- and serious citizens of all political persuasion should vote for McCain.

Tea Party 2008 Urgent !
Subject: Tea Party 2008 Urgent !
Subject: Tea Party 2008 - Urgent!
America is taxing and regulating it's way into oblivion and poverty at an astonishing rate. Our "leaders" are nothing but cheap, corrupt con men (and women) vying for votes at all cost, no matter what it takes. Decent individuals won't apply and our country suffers because of this.
On a State level, many have priced themselves out of the market by excessive taxes and regulations and now they expect to be "entitled" to Federal bailouts (which all Presidential candidates are promising). California, Michigan and Ohio are pretty good examples, they are, simply put; bankrupt.
Productive investments are increasingly finding more favorable environments in Brazil, Russia, India and China.
If we, the people, don't start uprising now, it will be too late (might already be too late) so, it's either a 2008 version of The Tea Party or "death".

lots of talk but no action
A lot of talk here about 3rd parties and very little about Bob Barr. One would think that Huey Long was running for president in 2008 instead of back in commie FDR’s day. Mr. Stokes left out one third party run for the WH that was successful. In 1854 a new 3rd party was created and in 1860 they ran a successful bid for the WH. That was the Republican Party then and now they are in danger of going the way of the Whigs.

And BTW, Huey Long would be considered a conservative by today’s Democrap standards.

Barr Is a Joke
Ever since Tom Dewey ran for president American voters have distrusted candidates with a mustache. Bob Barr looks like an effete fop or a 21st Century Charlie Chaplin.

I would trust Wyatt Earp as a candidate but a would-be president who worked for the ACLU...

Give me a break!

Sam writes:
"There will be so much inflation, illegal immigrants, carbon taxes, dividend-capital gains taxes, massive wars, etc. that the American people will throw the "WHITE" towel at the phony 2 party system and pick an independent as their president."

Seems to me that there is a candidate running that is and has warned America of everything you just mentioned. Yet, he is shoved to the sidelines.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Me, I'll be writing his name in on the ballot. If enough do so, the power hungry lunatics just might get the surprise of a lifetime, to the benefit of the people.

Care to join me?

spoiler
There is no such thing as a "spoiler." People's votes don't belong to anyone. Alternative party candidates provide a choice. And this year in particular many people don't like the Democratic or Republican candidates and want other choices.

Interesting that your emphasis was on the long ago past rather than on the 90s and the impact of Ross Perot's reform movement which included two runs for office, a political party, and an issues organization. Perot had a major impact on the political system and his impact continues today.

I'm with my fellow vet
from Jersey and would add the only females that will vote for barr have larger mustaches than he does.

Demogogues,like Long and the others mentioned always attract a certain group of loonytunes, look at the idiots swarming around obama. He hasn't said one word with any substance, they never do, yet they swoon. Once the summer is over and people get serious, they will see this pander bear for what he is..the albatross around the dem parties neck and JSM will beat him like a drum in Nov.

Do your own research.
Neither Wendy, nor Oilpatch Mercnary display any accurate knowledge of the LP. Their view is akin to seeing Lyndon Larouche as representative of the Democrat Party, or David Duke as standard bearer for the Republicans.

It is inappropriate to view any party through the lens of the fringe elements. For those willing to consider voting for Bob Barr, as I am, I recommend doing your own research.

Barr is a known conservative, he obviously thinks he has found a home in the LP. The LP has endorsed him because the fringe is not in control of the party.

Think it through, a little common sense goes a long way. There are very few posters here who find McCain representative of either Republicans or a conservatives.

I Just Watched on TV
Howard Dean, and I was waiting for him to yell, YAAAAAAAAA; Obama is our man, then I was looking for Dean's side kick, Tom Harkin's of Iowa join the YAAAAAA team. What a joke.

If Hillary loses to Obama, she would be very foolish to campaign for him. If she is truely a leader she will continue to show what a simple minded person Obama really is, how much he is against our Nation's Freedom and she then would be in a better position for 2012 campaign.

Joy


Third party
The Libertarian Party appears to be the most organized third party and Bob Barr appears to be a conservative candidate.

Since we are disgusted with the one true party in power (the DR party), and since a Libertarian Party candidate stands no chance in any election without a real party behind him, we have to get to work and build the LP at the grassroots, local, level.

It's fine and dandy to rant and rave and talk about how the Republicans have abandoned us, but talk is cheap and doesn't get the job done. We can talk all we want to about how we're going to write in Santa Claus or Ron Paul, but without at least some semblence of an effective oganizaton, we'll never make any difference.

The answer is to force the LP to act mainstream and to start working at the local level to elect identified Libertarians to local office. If we start now, we may be able to have an oganization in place in 2012 or 2016 that will be able to mount a credible candidate with an orgnization behind him.

I agree..
With you, Jerseyvet. I have a problem with Bob Barr having worked for the ACLU. That is a most troubling thing; I'd surely like an explanation. He looked really good to me before I saw that. However, how close to perfection is enough to earn our votes?
Wayward1, why did Paul run as a Republican?
Wendy and Otis; if a candidate is running on a Contitution platform, then shouldn't your concerns be addressed by the individual States?

Who is the spoiler?
If Barr can truly stand close scrutiny, he can cause the socialist/fascist voters to split their votes between Hillery Obama and McCain Feingold. He would be the winner, but can he stand the scurtiny? http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

Share Our Wealth Society
Huey Long's concepts of confiscating and redistributing wealth are not only "sinisterly simplistic and woefully flawed" but they are also unconstitutional. But, what the hell. Now that our not-a-living document has come to life, our republic (Article 4, Section 4) has been replaced with a "wonderful" de-mob-ocracy, and all it takes is for the left or right wing of Control Freaks Unanimous to buy and steal 50.01% of the votes, and then they can do anything to us they choose. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

If RINOs had examined McCain...
like they are now examining Barr, the GOP candidate would never have been McCain and Barr wouldn't be in the race. But no, the RINOs were fixated on "electibility" which enabled the Dems to nominate the GOP candidate for them (McCain only got about 35% of the Republican votes before everyone else dropped out) and now we have two liberal dems on the so-called "major" tickets and a Republican running on the Libertarian ticket. Barr is no more a Libertarian than McCain is a Republican. If you are a conservative or right-of-center Republican, you should be voting Barr. There will always be a party fighting for big government, we don't need two. To elect McCain would destroy the GOP as a party since McCain would be rubber stamping the Democratic Party platform as president just as he did in his 25 years in Congress. Don't be the frog that gets caught because it watches the wrong hand.

MarkinVA
Forget about Barr and the ACLU. McCain worked for the Democratic Party, the ACLU's mothership. What is worse?

McCain IS the spoiler
to pile on, Bob Barr isn't the spoiler here - he's very much in line with the limit-government wing (as opposed to blue-blood) of the GOP. McCain is the spoiler.

Besides, Barr isn't taking my vote from McCain - McCain lost it all by himself, and I'm just looking for the best 3rd party alternative.


Looks like we're screwed in the short term. Hopefully the GOP will either wise up or self-destruct quickly. At this point I really don't care which.

One thing lost in these..
posts is the fact that Bob Barr couldn't hold a congressional seat in his native state, Georgia. At the time, I was living in Georgia and most of state considered him an embarassment. He came from the same area that produced another nut job, Larry McDonald. For those that don't remember, he was the congressman that died when the Soviets shot down the KAL Airliner. The Republicans had a candidate that was cast in the traditional Republican mold this year and he scared the living daylights out of the power structure within the Republican party. His name, Ron Paul. The man was shut out at every turn. As for myself, I am holding my nose and voting for McCain come November. It scares the pi$$ out of me to think what kind of judicial appointments BHO would make.

party system is unraveling.
Interesting history on Huey Long.

I knew he was a populist and demagogue, but did not realize he was in favor of confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

Given the mid 1930s, I am sure that message had considerable appeal.

I agree with some posters who believe we are seeing the slow demise of both the GOP and Democrat party.

GOP brandname is in the toilet.

Major reasons for that include G.W. Bush disastrous legacy on Iraq, loss of purchasing power of Americans resulting from skyrocketing gas prices and radical devaluation of U.S. dollar, general sense that the nation is on the wrong course.

Oddly enough, McCain's poll numbers are much higher than are the numbers for the Republican party itself.

That is due to the fact he is not viewed as a "strong" Republican, but rather as a maverick with an independent streak.

If McCain were smart, he would run AGAINST most of the policies of the preceeding administration, instead of endorsing them.

But McCain unerringly is embracing the same neocon twisted worldview that got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place.

In fact, McCain calls for more "Iraqs".

Obama's incomprehensibly stupid association with Wright, and his equally stupid remarks about guns and religion(both of which alienated millions of small town and rural white Americans)are the only reasons McCain is even competitive with Obama now.

I read where both Obama and McCain are courting Major Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is a big nanny-stater who would be a better fit in the Democrat party.

At any rate, I would not vote for him, regardless of which ticket he was on.

On Barr, he makes more sense than either Obama or McCain.






1992
The effect of Perot in 1992 cannot be overstated. Clinton should thank him every night before he goes to bed.

Bob Barr
joined the ACLU as part of his opposition to the Patriot Act.

As for losing the elction in GA it wasn't a case of him losing the election so much as a gerrymandering him out of his seat by a Commiecrat GA legislator. They redistricted the 7th districk by a moving the 11th district into it. That district had another incumbent republican in it who won the election.

holding your nose
in #27 Trapper Frank writes "... One thing lost in these posts is the fact that Bob Barr couldn't hold a congressional seat..."

No doubt Barr is flawed - he's on his third marriage, had a major falling out with libertarians recently, etc.

I view voting for him as the best way to kick the GOP in the pants so they'll understand the need to return to their limited government roots in order to hold onto their base. It's not like Barr's actually going to get elected. And if he does, GREAT - he'd do a much better job than McCain. But actually getting him into office is not my goal in voting for him.


"...It scares the pi$$ out of me to think what kind of judicial appointments BHO would make."

That's no reason to vote for McCain. What evidence do we have that he'd get an Alito or Roberts on the bench? Much more likely is another Suiter, O'Conner, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter - all leftist judges appoint by the GOP.

Even if - and that's a big if - McCain really wants an Alito or Roberts, he couldn't get them through the heavily Dem senate we're about to have.

Those who don't know history...
Thanks for an excellent article covering the history of third party candidates. I've always been fascinated by Huey Long. I have never agreed with his policies, but he was an amazing politician.

3rd party
The problem is if a third party candidate doesn't win - look where we end up! Obama - who doesn't have a clue, who is Marxist and would, if elected along with the present traitorous congress, take this country where it never wants to go. Since the Dems took over congress our gas prices have gone from a little over $2 per gallon to over $4 - in two years! But there are serious things behing all this: Gore's global warning. Since that has become the mantra, we are supposed to now cut back on everything, no more SUV's, only florescent light blubs, eminent domain is increasing, freedoms are being lost: first the seat belts, helments, child seats

No the "problem" is NOT a 3rd party
The "problem" is a Republicrat party that wants to be liberal Democraps. This is NOT a new thing either. If you look back over the years in my lifetime there have only been two conservative Republicans running for office. Goldwater and Reagan. All the rest have been liberal. The recent thing is that they have totally bowed down to the liberal side and adopted all of the Democrap issues.

If conservatives want a conservative candidate they have to look elsewhere than the Republicrat Party.

A possible solution
To the corrupt two-party system would be to blend all THIRD parties into ONE large, independent organization. The reform, libertarian, constitutional, natural, green, taxpayers parties... etc...EVERY one of these third parties has an element of philosphy that is in the best interest of the USA. We just have to bring forth the BEST of EACH and glue it all together. As for the bad elements, kind of like panning for gold, sift out the BS!

Yes I know, MANY say it could NOT be done...but what's the choice otherwise?..McCain and Obama?...lmao...this is NO choice. Third parties are currently too SMALL to have a credible chance at winning back this country. We need to bring these parties TOGETHER.

The heads of EACH third party would need to meet and GRIND out a new platform based on the best of their respective parties. A potential NEW name for this NOW serious contender could be something like:

The Tea Party (no worse than what we have now...lol)

Vic
Vic has it right. If you want to vote for a Conservative, then you need to look somewhere else. The GOP certainly isn't your choice. Granted, the GOP is desperately determined to portray anyone who doesn't vote for them because they are "not" conservative - as some form of traitor. But, as Vic points out, they, not the conservatives, are the betrayers.

Childish Tantrums
The forming of fringe political parties is a sign of infantile frustration. It is like a little child unwilling to settle for a piece of fruit when he wants a candy bar before supper.
The child will hold his breath, fall to the ground kicking and screaming, and in the end run gets absolutely nothing, no candy bar nor a piece of fruit. He loses. This is the same type of behavior. Those that vote for the fringe not only get none of hwat they wanted, but lose those things that a main stream candidate would have provided. What they get is the absolute opposite of their desires. It is a lose, lose situation where the real opposition is the winner.

lion it is here
Newt G. has the American Solution Part you sould check them out.
Any member of Gov't that puts the people first is quickly chased out off Washington. I believe that it is long time that we chase these Traitors out.
And remember it's not cap and trade
it's HOLD and SMOTHER!!!

From my fellow
American Boutte, in California quotes:

"Our Founders dreaded the very emergence of permanent party establishments as a pestilence on government, and they were right.

Now that the Republic is in danger from the "bipartisan" conspiracy of globalists, fiat-money men, promoters of eternal warfare for profit and dual loyalism, we should all be determined to spoil their little games, by any means necessary."

This is just one of many reasons a THIRD party MERGER would be a wise idea!

Tower of Babble
To those that think working with a two party system is too difficult, take a look at countries that have multiple parties. They have to make deals with each other that the public has no control over. You vote of your party and then they are forced into a coalition with a party whose stand you are diametrically opposed to. These coalitions are marred by disagreements that delay and some times stop the work of the government. In extreme cases the government is forced to collapse and new elections are called. Italy, France, and other countries have had to form new governments in the same year. This just weakens the government, denies voters choice, and dilutes the effectiveness of the country.

I resent
the statement that anyone is a spoiled child if he or she is disgusted with Hillary Obama and McCain Feingold. I am not only disgusted with all of them, I am fearful for the future of our not-a-democracy, because one of them is the favorite to win. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

Third Parties have a vital function
in #29 Darren writes: "The effect of Perot in 1992 cannot be overstated.."

Agreed. The GOP got the message that GHW Bush's betrayal would not be tolerated, and after living through 2 years of Clinton and both houses of congress being Democrat, we got the Republican revolution and 6 years of limited growth of government.


in #38 Vladimir Val writes "The forming of fringe political parties is a sign of infantile frustration..." Ok, Dr Spock - (or is it Dr Freud) - In my opinion, it's the GOP politicians that are acting like children, wanting what they want (power) without accountability. I'm the parent, and I'm going to spank them by voting for a 3rd party so they understand they have to return to the core principles of limited government if they want to get elected.

The above example shows that voting 3rd party DOES get results, contrary to your assertion.

Also, this country is great enough to withstand being ruined by a few years being governed by an incompetent marxist.

"a little revolution once in a while is a good thing, don't you think?"

Yes the big R Republicrats are
cryn' because conservatives will no longer vote for liberals with an R after their name.

There has to be more to a candidate than "I'm less of a communist than my opponent".

FINALLY I WILL HAVE A VOICE
I HAVE NOT KNOWN WHO TO VOTE FOR UNTIL I READ ABOUT BARR. A FRIEND IN TENNESSEE ASKED ME TO CONSIDER BARR. NOW I HAVE ARTICLES TO READ ABOUT HIM INSTEAD OF AUTOMATICALLY VOTING REPUBLICAN. THANK YOU BARR

Multiple party systems
in #41 Vladimir Val writes "...take a look at countries that have multiple parties. They have to make deals with each other that the public has no control over."

As opposed to all the control we have over the GOP?


"...they are forced into a coalition with a party whose stand you are diametrically opposed to."

Those coalitions look to me like accountability - they are always on the verge of breaking apart, and if they don't stay in line, one party in the coalition loses seats, or gets replaced by a different party or whatever.

"...These coalitions are marred by disagreements that delay and some times stop the work of the government..."

Gridlock and lack of "progress" in the work of government is usually a GOOD thing. (see the late 1990's)

Our electoral college is what prevents us from becoming England or France - and I like it that way. We just need to be vigilant to boot these statists out of office when they reveal their stripes. Sometimes that happens by voting 3rd party.

Communist(s)
Congratulations to Vic in S.C. on actually using the term: COMMUNIST! I thought I was the only one who referred to Democrats especially as SUCH. The rest of the cowards hide behind the innocuous-sounding socialist, progressive, etc.

Jim
I have been calling them communists(D) for a long time.

a third party
In 1856 there were two parties, the Democrats and the Whigs. The slave states controlled the Democrats. The Whigs did not have the courage to be anti-slave. Those oposing slavery broke away and started a third party, the Republicans. They did not win the Presidency that year but four years later in 1860 with Lincoln they did win. The Whigs no longer continued.

RAISE THE BARR!! HOORAY FOR BOB!!!
Quite honestly I voted on all 6 ballots (and it did take 6 ballots for Bob Barr to win the nomination) for first Steve Kubby and then Mary Ruwart.

I am a radical libertarian. See my blog essays to find out exactly how this particular libertarian thinks.

But, since Barr was nominated, I compare him with what I call the "evil triplets:" Mc Cain, Clinton and Obama. And he is head, shoulders and insoles above all of them combined.

I urge all conservative Republicans to study what has happened to their party starting with Nixon, and it is not pretty. They have drifted ever farther to the left. Their rhetoric is not that different from the liberal Democrats when you get right down to it.

Did you see Pres. Bush this morning? He was urging new graduates to go into public service (read government employment). Now, real conservatives know that this country's strength has always been (or should I say *was*) small business, entrepreneurship and speculation. Not bureaucracy. This is an example of how low the Republicans have gone.

Bail out!!! Do what Congressman Barr has had the guts to do! Come up into the sunlight! Support the Barr/Root ticket!

Get back to the Root(s), raise the Barr!!!

Essay at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

barr,aclu,england,etc!
Mr. Barr has been a part of ACLU do you need to know more? Sheeez! wasn't PEROT fairly liberal
on many counts!? He ran against Bush because Bush voted against him as VP in a deadlocked issue concerning computers and a big pork barrel program!
Forget, Barr! Just a thought....those who are aginst Mitt will get their wishes come true...
when Juan chooses BLOOMBERG! WHO MAKES ROMNEY
LOOK LIKE GOLDWATER! You turkeys are going to get what you wanted no --Mitt! you know the old saying..be careful what you wish for.....smile!
elvis

elvis
read my earlier post on Barr and the ACLU.

ENGLAND...BETTER?
IAM NOT FAMILIAR WITH ENGLANDS SYSTEM....A GUY FROM ENGLAND SAID IT WAS MORE EFFICIENT AND WAS OVER ALL BETTER!?Is it?
elvis

Boute #35
I SO AGREE with you! Thanks for your post.

Bob Barr
You are all wet. Only Tom Millican has the right stuff to accomplish what needs to be accomplished to turn America around. Vote Tom Millican for president. http://www.tommillican.com

Go Barr go!!!
It's time we small government conservatives reassert ourselves. It's time we say no to "big government conservatism". Let's see if those CINOs can win on their own.

Please check out my article at http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential-c andidates-and-internet-poker-rights

http://www.bobbarr2008.com

Wasted votes
A vote for either McCain or Obama/Clinton is a wasted vote in my opinion. With few exceptions, there is little to distinguish between them. They're all for bigger government, higher taxes, more infringements on human and civil rights. A pox on them all.

Bob Barr is a Conservative and has my vote and financial support. Whether or not he wins depends on the discernment and intelligence of the voters, which is not exactly a comforting thought, since so many voters seem to view government as Santa Claus...

barr...soft
On illegal immigration?
elvis

Libertarian Party Hijacked
The Libertarian Party has been hijacked by disillusioned Republicans. Bob Barr is no Libertarian. He favors continuation of the insane, immoral, unconstitutional War on Drugs, with minor window-dressing changes regarding marijuana: an issue he dodges by saying he would let states decide on marijuana, while he continues the overall War on Drugs for everything else. He favors keeping our troops stationed around the globe, ready to intervene in any petty squabble at any time.

Those who truly favor limited government have no one to vote for.

Intelligent voters?
Of course, voters are not intelligent. Most never overcame their government monopoly school Indoctrinations. Far more than 50% are thoroughly convinced that an even bigger and more intrusive government is the best and only solution to any problem. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

vic--sorta uneasy about barr!?
Iam a real hard liner on Illegal Immigration
and a recent tv interview with Barr left me uneasy about him! I know he has some qualities
but Iam very frustrated about the whole mess!
A 3rd party might put obama in charge...ohhh my gawd! He'll chop CIA,FBI,TROOPS,ETC. JUST LIKE CLINTON! There are no PERFECT CANDIDATES.
Thanks for the info on Georgia !!
elvis

???
Not long ago on one of these columns I was berated for "voting for the lesser of two evils" because I was going to vote for McCain after Hunter and Tancredo dropped out. Now here on Barr I hear such comments as " how perfect do they have to be? and He's better than McCain and the winner by Chris" no doubt he's flawed ACLU, third Marriage ECT. ECT. What PURE B.S.!!! Now Who's Voting For The Lesser Of Three Evils???

Paolo
Pure Libertarian candidates such as the one you wished you had typically get about 0.4% in presidential elections. Unfortunately, to date they've had little practical effect on national policy.

This year is different. Ron Paul has put libertarianism out there. Bob Barr will get at minimum twenty times what Badnarik (the 2004 nominee) got. He may get into some debates, where libertarian principles need to be expressed. Once the election is over, the nation's political parties will have to adjust their policies if they wish to earn our vote.

Holding your nose
Chris,in a post by that name, claimed Bob Barr could not hold his congressional seat.

Fact is, reapportionment came to Georgia and Mr. Barr was put in a district with John Linder, which the Republican Party and White House wamted to re-ele instead of Bob Barr. They succeeded. Bob Barr was the better candidate, but the Republican establishment defeated him.

My first inclination is to vote for Barr to show my disgust with the Republican and Democratic Parties for giving us the worst candidates in History.

But if Barr is soft on illegal immigration, I will sit 2008 out, as I sat out 2004. I will no longer vote merely for "the lesser evil".


Be Careful What You Wish For
We need to keep reminding ourselves that we must think through the change we seek. David Stokes offers a clear view of how easily this train could go off the tracks. Good cliff notes for the public school folks.

don't sit it out
Randy, I was quoting someone else about Barr holding onto his seat. My point was that we need a place to park our vote where the GOP can see it and know it was for limited government.

If you don't like Barr, have a look at Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. They oppose illegal immigration and want to further restrict legal immigration as well.

The CP is also overtly Christian, and protectionist.

Other than that they're really quite similar to the Libertarian Party (although I'll probably have people from both parties stoning me for saying so).

Maybe the best way to say it is that the CP and LP see the role of the Federal government very similarly (severely limited) but have more differences on how state laws should be written.

Barr
would be my choice over any of the top three running today. He is not as pro constitution as Paul, but light years better, than McCain, Obama or Clinton.

Randy
If you sit it out, you don't have a right to gripe. You wasted your most powerful voice--your vote. I will vote in every election as that is the one right they can't revoke or usurp. All of you who vote for a candidate who hasn't a chance in hades of winning are in essence voting for HRC or BHO. Like it or not it's the truth. For one moment, think of the damage either can do in either four or even worse, eight years. Harm can be done that can't be undone.

Harm that can't be undone
Randy, harm that can't be undone like a prescription drug benefit for Medicare?

The GOP NEEDS a loud and clear call to return to limited government. McCain losing a couple of red states due to people voting for a limited-government third party would send that message.

Voting 3rd party differs from voting Democrat because the resulting pressure on the GOP will be to move right, not left. Think about what the pundits would say if McCain lost Alabama to Obama 44-46, and the Libertartian and Constitution parties together got 10% of the vote...

The country survived Carter and Clinton, and got Reagan and the 1994 congress as a result.

I see McCain as no lover of freedom or the constitution, and I'm not going to vote for him.

Third Party Choices
For over a year now I have been explaining how the two parties have sold us out and duped us into believing that we have no other choice, nowhere else to go.

The Dems have moved way over to the left into the Euro-Socialist mode, and the GOP has also moved left to fill the old "1980's liberal Democrat" spot.

Our other choice however are good. Besides the Libertarian Party (Bob Barr) and the Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin), there is the New America Independent Party (Frank McEnulty), and at least 15 - 20 other independents. You can find that list on my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG.

Also, if you want a more thorough and vibrant discussion about choices and opportunities, visit the FireSociety.com site. There you will find thousands of folks working to get a strong third party vote this election, and hopefully, a third party candidate elected in 2012.

In addition to that, you can start your own discussion thread and even write you own article. It well worth the visit and allows for discussions other than what the elite GOP supporters offer up as discussions here on TH.
Check it out. Thanks, Joe

p.s. FireSociety.com is grassroots and totally independent.

Chris
"the Country survived Carter and Clinton". Did we? Ask the military that was stripped to bare bones and can't get a funding bill passed without pork like Dairy farming subsidies. If you call that surviving then we differ widely.

Survived Carter?
I disagree that we survived Carter. That story's not done yet. If Carter had been supportive of the Shah of Iran, the Mullahs would not have taken over Iran. Prior to 1979, Iran was ruled by a monarchy, the people were free. Now, Iran is an Islamic republic, a theocracy. And, they either have or are close to having nuclear weapons. Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says the Holocaust is a myth --a lie the West made up. Our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought and died because of a lie? The Islamic republic of Iran is a clear and present danger to all of us who live in the West. When you vote, keep the reality of the Islamic republic of Iran, and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in mind.

3rd Party...?
It would probably cause the democrats to enter the Whitehouse......yuck!
I like some of the ideas of the libertarian party....but not enough to vote for their candidate..at this time!
If real smart principled people got together
now and planned for 2012...with plent of money
backing them up..hmmm?Who knows?
I personally think after the next four years
Americans will be so upset that they will be more open minded to somthing different than the control of the two parties !?
But the candidate would have to have name recognition..and be saleable(sp)and being attractive never hurts when your trying to sell!
Oh well, time tells many stories!
elvis

cherylb
Right you are on Iran. It's going to be a thorn in our side for a long time to come. As much as I disliked him, for personal reasons. The world was a lot better off with him than without. Amadimwit is about four cards short of a full deck and will someday soon have his finger on a button. My father and father-in-law fought in the second world war and I don't want their memory tarnished by the likes of Amadimwit.

RIP, America
to cherylb and eastlake joe, I agree that the country was damaged by Carter and Clinton. But you'd also have to say the same about Reagan's pullout from Lebanon (and believe me, I'm a huge Reagan fan), and a lot of things Bush has done. Everyone makes mistakes, and to say those are fatal to the country shows a lack of perspective. Carter botched Iran, but the middle east was going to be a problem anyway. Future leaders can mitigate the damage with good policies.

I believe taking out Saddam to preempt an attack against us was right, by the way - I'm with Bush on that.

I'm equally concerned about our freedom, which has continued to erode under Bush.


Using your logic, you really need to go back to presidents such as Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Wilson and Johnson to pinpoint when this experiment in freedom died - they all did much more damage to our constitutionality than Carter or Clinton.

Chris in AL - America the Free
I'm not ready to give up the ghost just yet. In the words of a very patriotic American, Charlie Daniels, in his song, "In America":

"Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks"

I believe in America, in spite of all her problems, and I know I'm not alone. The "experiment in freedom" may be flawed, but the ideas will never die.

What you failed to mention
Is that Perot's 19% handed the presidency to Clinton. But I don't think we could have gotten the 94 Revolt against dims if Clinton hadn't been in the White House.

Chris & Nick in Austin
The thing you fail to note is we have never had as socialist a president as either HRC or BHO. They could do some very strident harm to the country. For instance, what do you think happens if industry taxes get too high? We're going to see the biggest migration of big buisiness to foreign countries that we've ever seen. This country could bankrupt almost overnight.
Nick, if you are still there what if Perot had been elected then went nuts? What then? Count your blessings.

Third Party
Perhaps this is an opportune time for a Third Party candidate! Usually this candidate pulls votes from the GOP and NEVER get close to winning.

Ross Perot got 19% of the vote but dropped out before the General election. This resulted in a win for Bill Clinton.

The Third Party, regardless of the name, should continue campaigning 24/7 until and aftr the selection for the 2012 presidential is chosen.

Americans want "CHANGE" but NOT the kind OBAMA has in mind which is socialism.

When the Third party continues to build a base and grows a campaign chest the chances of getting elected will grow.

In the interium you Third Party folks should take a long hard look at Newt Gingrich and his American Solutions.

Newt's questions for the American people of all political pesuasions in the surveys reveal that 60% to 82% approve of his solutions for the American citizens.

The most important desire of the American people is to remain a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people.

SOCIALIST OBAMA IS NOT THE DIRECTION OF CHANGE WE DESIRE.

Third Party
The Third Party candidate should be "None Of The Above," where if NOTA got the majority of votes, all of the candidates in the race would be forbidden to run for elected office for 5 years, and there would be a new election with new candidates. Of course, not one politician today would support NOTA being in elections. I held my nose and voted for Gerald Ford; I held it again and voted for GHWBush twice; I held it again and voted for GWBush twice, and i'm tired of holding my nose. Bob Barr all the way.

Semper FI,

WMR

never had a socialist?
I agree that Truman, JFK, Carter, and WJBC were more pragmatic than socialist.

LBJ, with his "solution" to poverty, was quite the socialist.

But I'd put FDR right up there with BHO. The difference is he started with a very limited government compared to what we have now. Look how far left he was able to push the country...


I'm much more concerned about new programs than rates. Tax rates go up, then back down. Most new programs are forever even if they demonstrably suck.

That's why I think it's important to kick the GOP in the pants - they've been responsible for new programs and massive spending increases that are already bankrupting the country. And McCain will be worse. We need earmark reform, but we REALLY need to cut spending. We sure don't need a carbon cap & trade system.

Also consider that under a BHO presidency, what GOP is left in congress will fight him on moves left (see congress under Clinton), while if McCain is prez, the GOP will fall in line behind whatever he wants (like they did under Bush), and the Dems will support him on moves left as well.

BHO is more liberal than McCain, but ironically we might end up with more socialism under McCain than BHO.


Oh - and indyconantidim, we did mention Perot & 1994 in earlier posts.

Republican party can be reformed within
There is NO good argument for conservatives to abandon the Republican party.

It is easier to correct the problems of the Republican party than to build a NEW National Party that can WIN National Elections.

I am planning on voting for the US Constitution Party for President; however, I am voting for and helping solid Republican conservatives at the State level.

That is how adult conservatives act. Don't throw the baby (Republican party) out with the dirty bath water (McCain).

McCain is like a leech that needs to be cut off your body. Don't shoot yourself in the head trying to get rid of the leech McCain.

Don't hate McCain because he is just a slimy politician. Just don't vote or help him.

From the top1
I see you didn't mention Hellary. If you think any president we EVER had is more socialist than her then God bless you!!! Situation for you. BHO wins the spot as nominee for Pres. takes on HRC as veep. Something happens to BHO(This IS hellary we're talking about!) and guess what happens? Hello Madame Prez!!! We become the socialist government we fear the most. All handouts and no income and financed to the hilt with China so far that what Bush has done will seem like chump change!

Brett is exactly on target
Brett - exactly. My plan to vote 3rd party this fall is an effort to reform the GOP, not destroy it. Although if it split into Center and Right parties, while marginalizing the Dems to the left, I'd be just as happy.

Unfortunately I find myself considering voting Libertarian in almost all races. Both my senators and my house rep voted for this bloated farm bill, and I am not happy.

Jeff Sessions, my senator running for re-election, has been right on target against illegal immigration. My house rep, Spencer Bachus, is a co-sponsor of the FairTax. So my reps have their good points.

But Sessions is safe, and the Dems don't usually even bother running anyone against Bachus...


No way I'm voting for McCain unless he picks a really amazing VP. Nobody I can think of fits that mold. Jindal would if he'd been a successful governor for more than 5 months.

Paolo
writes, " The Libertarian Party has been hijacked by disillusioned Republicans. Bob Barr is no Libertarian."

That's right. Better get used to it. We are going to take the libertarian party mainstream. We might run out of room under the tent for the gay rights agenda but, hey, we brought some pizza and beer. With a solid liberty oriented base coupled with support for traditional values and a kick a@@ foreign policy, heck, we could turn the whole globe into a pretty decent place to live.

The LP
"The Libertarian Party has been hijacked by disillusioned Republicans"

That's correct and it's why the Libertarian Party is no answer. It will simply degenerate into what the Republican party is now. Read this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block102.html

newsflash for LP purists
Unless you want to be a small minority party forever, you're going to need a lot of disillusioned Republicans or Democrats to vote for you.

I know Bob Barr has had multiple disagreements with the LP in the past (and still has some now), but at some point you have to compromise and team up with people close but not identical to you. Either that or continue to get less than 1/2% of the popular vote.


If it becomes a majority party and loses its limited government roots in the future, leave for whatever 3rd parties there are at that point.

Hitchhiker
"with a kicka$$ foreign policy heck, we could turn the whole globe into a pretty nice place to live. True or turn it into a flaming ball.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.