so they can not be precinct committemen in that party, too.

I am informed by Richard Winger America’s most reliable source of third party information, that no person has been elected to the U.S. House on a third party line since 1949, when Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., the President’s son, won as Liberal in New York. The last Senator elected on a third party line was Jim Buckley, as a Conservative in New York in 1970.

It has awaken the republican party and the need to select conservatives candidates …

As long as it’s the Liberal Party….otherwise conservatives loose.

However, if the Republican party doesn’t get its act together, this is what happens. Some have been saying it for a long time. The last few elections, conservatives, both Republican and independent have been essentially staying home. Because of the tea parties, etc they are energized – but the GOP as it has been for the last 10 years or so is not, in general, a friendly or welcoming place for the tea party type.

Many social conservatives already left, when the powers that be told them social issues didn’t matter, we had to be fiscally conservative instead. Ironically, those same people preaching to drop social conservatism for fiscal conservatism haven’t exactly been fiscal conservatives.

A third party is not the answer, but all the wailing in the world won’t keep people from trying. The answer is for the GOP to be distinct enough from the D’s that people have a reason to choose it. I see signs that that is happening.

Coldwarrior’s precinct committee project is part of that. I was a delegate to the state GOP convention in 2008 and 2009, that is a part of it.

However, the precinct committee slots in NY-23 are fairly full – 88 of 98 in one county and similar in others, and those PCC’s told the county chairs to not pick Dede. As a state delegate, I voted with other conservative delegates and the MN GOP platform is really very conservative. In both cases, the moderates still had their way.

The revolt in NY-23 is also an important piece of this puzzle – not something to be emulated, but something to show the entrenched establishment that we aren’t buying what they are selling.

My question is: what if conservative county chairs had been making that decision?

Your arguement in one of the most simplistic and asinine arguments made by big government/antiSoCon appeasers in this party who insist on nominating unacceptable candidates and then stamp their feet like spoiled brats and demand that the gown ups do what they’re told.

I’ve got more to say on this in a separate post in this thread because I agree with you that a third party isn’t a smart option for conservatives…but it’s time we put these vapid and silly arguments used against Conservatives like a club to bed!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

An excellent dairy. I agree with everything you wrote, however, there is one thing I want to discuss about.

It’s about the special interests, which you say, “exert too much control over the major parties.” It’s quite true. But on the other hand, maybe it’s time for us to accept that the special interests are an important part of American politics, and no matter what happens, there will always be special interests contesting for influence. After all, special interests are also made up of people, and they certainly have the right to voice their opinions or preferences.

So, even if conservatives somehow took over Republican Party, the role of special interests may be reduced, but they’re still there. Conservatives will be influenced by them, for good or bad reasons. The fight for the heart of Republican Party should not be about fighting special interests, but rather that it presents a conservative platform that to a certain degree every American can agree somehow on it. It should push for free market, limited governance, and for liberty as well.

In the end, what you are suggesting amounts to pushing for greater polarization of American politics. In a certain way, it’s a good thing, because our two-party system ensures there are TWO sets of values that every voter must decide for himself or herself which to accept. Whatever it is, our political culture is undergoing something that’s caused us to no longer consider moderation as the best way to manage the governance of our nation. Thus, in order for that rapid change to occur, somebody must take over one of two sets of values, and advocate that set of values as the best one for America. That is precisely what Obama is attempting to do, therefore, I don’t see why conservatives cannot do the same thing here. Greater polarization of American politics may be just what the doctor ordered, if only to save the greater essence of American spirit of liberty and limited governance.

I think I’ve written a far too long comment, so I’m going to stop here right now. But in essence, I agree with everything you wrote, so kudos to you!

…the role of third parties in this country is minimal at best. Our system of government pretty well prohibits them.

As it stands, the only real role for a third party is to send a message to a party from people disenchanted by its direction. Even then, it’s a very blunt instrument, as it may very well, at best, result in the status quo being preserved for a couple of years, and at worst move things in the other direction. But if two to six years in the wrong direction seems preferable to a lifetime of the party closest to you abandoning the principles that you consider most beneficial to you and those you care about… then the third party thing starts sounding very appealing.

The real problem, for those right of center, with third parties is that those on the left are so craven for power that they will do whatever is necessary to attain, usurp, or steal it, including silencing the voices of dissent on their flanks. We don’t do that. Unfortunately, decency has problems standing up to ruthlessness, unless decent men and women decide to become ruthless right back.

–so long as those with attitudes that there cannot be one prevail. I am neither for nor against a third party, It is just that years of observation have shown me that the naysayers (on either side) rise to the occasion to always say that a third party will never succeed. And as elections get closer, these same naysayers always say it is “too late” for a third party and let’s wait until after the election”. After the election the naysayers always try to find reasons why the third party candidate (if there was one), stole votes from their candidate.
I read the platforms of a couple of third party candidates and felt that they were solid, conservative platforms.

I sincerely believe that now id=s the tim e to form a third party. If you are a conservative, the name of “Republican” paints a bad image in the minds of independent voters (me, for one). I left the GOP this year after 40 plus years. So long as the Mc Cains and the Romneys and all the “compromisers” are in the GOP I do not wisjh to be part of it.

I resigned because after voting for president since 1952, I have seen so many “hands across the aisle ” candidates in recent years that I cannot distinguish what party they are in. I also hate voting for the “lesser of two evils”.

I will remain independent until the natural evolutionary cycle has Republicans growing intestinal fortitude again,

nt

It is cynicism that states a third party will never work, and it’s the same cynicism that says that a conservative takeback of the GOP will never work. It’s just the same attitude just applied to different scenarios used to back up whatever a particular individual believes.

I’m not impressed by the marshaling of Cynicism the soldier. All it takes is a small group of people to make an impressive change. History is an excellent teacher of that.

A lot of people on this board do not like the Ron Paul people (Campaign for Liberty), but they are the ones out there taking over the party from the inside. There are numerous precincts where they have done this and they are much more effective than any other conservative group out there.

I no longer care about the RNC.

I have ZERO loyalty left to give.

I will never give anything more to the RNC until they get a clue, stop openly making fun of people like Ron Paul because they are conservative, and stop supporting liberals on the R ticket.

Personally, I think the RNC is the FUTURE THIRD PARTY and is doomed.

Most of the people in the RNC leadership are nothing more than pro-war democrat socialists and just need to go take their pro-war stuff over to the dems…they will fit in better.

Show me a libertarian/conservative/goldwater candidate and I will vote for them.

Show me any more pro-massive government republican and you can stick it where the sun does not shine.

I am NEVER NEVER EVER going to vote for someone anymore because they are a “R”.

If you people are happy with your pro-massive-federal-government pro-spending, pro-totalitarian GOP then your welcome to it, because I don’t want any part of it.

A good article that echoes my thoughts on third parties as well. The only thing it does not talk about that I would add is the role of “third parties” could be as “extra voting slots” for candidates of one of the two parties, so the local Libertarian (or Green, or Socialist, or Conservative, etc.) party could also list… the local Republican or Democrat candidate in their ballot slot. I, as a Libertarian, could vote for the candidate and let them know where their support was coming from (they could see what percentage of their votes came from which third party) and govern accordingly.