E
estesbob
Guest
Democrats can pander to the purveyors of death becuase Catholics let them. As we saw with Robert Casey even when the occasional pro-life democrat comes along the Party will bend them to their pro-death agenda.
- Status
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Zogby poll results on newsmax.com today 10/21/07 reveal the leading Democrat candidate has a solid 50% of likely voters attesting they will NOT vote for that candidate. That is a negative that insures that candidate will not win a clear majority.
However, if you factor in a Third Party (Zogby didn’t go that far) it will take many votes from the Republicans and allowing a plurality for a candidate that is a huge negative.
There are issues that a Third Party will espouse that will definitely cut into the Republican base. The only hope is for the Republicans is to meet with a Third Party (already formed) and make consessions and therby dissuade a Third Party entry.
However, if you factor in a Third Party (Zogby didn’t go that far) it will take many votes from the Republicans and allowing a plurality for a candidate that is a huge negative.
There are issues that a Third Party will espouse that will definitely cut into the Republican base. The only hope is for the Republicans is to meet with a Third Party (already formed) and make consessions and therby dissuade a Third Party entry.
E
estesbob
Guest
The only hope is for the Republican Party not to nominate someone who is pro-abortion. I keep seeing pundits say the if pro-life voters abandon the Republican Party it will result in any Democrat winning. I thinkt hey got it backwards, if the Republican Party abandons pro-life voters it will result in the election of a DemocratZogby poll results on newsmax.com today 10/21/07 reveal the leading Democrat candidate has a solid 50% of likely voters attesting they will NOT vote for that candidate. That is a negative that insures that candidate will not win a clear majority.
However, if you factor in a Third Party (Zogby didn’t go that far) it will take many votes from the Republicans and allowing a plurality for a candidate that is a huge negative.
There are issues that a Third Party will espouse that will definitely cut into the Republican base. The only hope is for the Republicans is to meet with a Third Party (already formed) and make consessions and therby dissuade a Third Party entry.
R
rlg94086
Guest
The big question is “what Third Party?” All of the talk about going Third Party is missing that one feature - no party and no candidate has appeared yet.There are issues that a Third Party will espouse that will definitely cut into the Republican base. The only hope is for the Republicans is to meet with a Third Party (already formed) and make consessions and therby dissuade a Third Party entry.
It’s sort of like the “anyone but xxxx” vote.What could get really interesting is if we end up with a third and fourth party - one on the “Democrat” or liberal side (most likely the Greens) and one on the “Republican” or conservative side. Those Democrats who are very anti-war are not necessarily going to be happy with the Democratic frontrunner who voted for the actions in Iraq and was very hawkish until the political winds changed.
E
estesbob
Guest
I don’t see a third-party candidate emerging. too hard to get on the ballot and not much time left to do it. The risk the Republican Party runs is not so much a third-party as it is people staying home. I know I willThe big question is “what Third Party?” All of the talk about going Third Party is missing that one feature - no party and no candidate has appeared yet.
What could get really interesting is if we end up with a third and fourth party - one on the “Democrat” or liberal side (most likely the Greens) and one on the “Republican” or conservative side. Those Democrats who are very anti-war are not necessarily going to be happy with the Democratic frontrunner who voted for the actions in Iraq and was very hawkish until the political winds changed.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
The “Third party” I am referring to is the very same Party that one of our own, Pat Buchanan ran for President…it was then called, “The U.S. Taxpayers Party.” It has since revised its name to “Constitution Party.” The same people still guide this Party.
The Constitution Party has a website and it displays its credo.
Pro-life is chief among its objectives. It is worth looking at.
constitutionparty.com
The Constitution Party has a website and it displays its credo.
Pro-life is chief among its objectives. It is worth looking at.
constitutionparty.com
R
rlg94086
Guest
I am not saying third parties don’t exist. I am saying, other than this one post, I haven’t heard people in the news mentioning a particular third party. Perhaps one might arise…it could be the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, etc. I just don’t see any strong interest at this point. Perhaps after the primaries.
R
rlg94086
Guest
You don’t know “you will.” The primaries haven’t happened yet. However, I agre this is a big risk for the Republicans.
I don’t see a third-party candidate emerging. too hard to get on the ballot and not much time left to do it. The risk the Republican Party runs is not so much a third-party as it is people staying home. I know I will
And, there is plenty of time to get on the ballot. I suspect we will see a few make a go at it, after the primaries are over. At least one of the current Republican candidates I can think of (he’s done it before
). I could also see a strong Green Party candidate being put forward to challenge the Democrats.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
A Republican PRESIDENT can’t unilaterally end legalized abortion on demand.
HOWEVER, a Republican President CAN appoint Supreme Court Justices who can reverse Roe v. Wade.
And the mechanism to do such a thing would be to appoint Justices who would hue to the “original intent” of the Constitution.
And the original intent is expressed in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. One sentence which can change everything.
HOWEVER, a Republican President CAN appoint Supreme Court Justices who can reverse Roe v. Wade.
And the mechanism to do such a thing would be to appoint Justices who would hue to the “original intent” of the Constitution.
And the original intent is expressed in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. One sentence which can change everything.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Unfortunately, Al, a Republican president CANNOT appoint a pro=life Supreme Court justice; he can only NOMINATE one.
A pro-life justice nominee will never get through the nomination process since the pro-aborts run both Houses…especially the Senate.
OK, you can say, "Well, there is ONE Independent senator…right…and he has a 100% NARAL voting career against the unborn. His entire career is against life in all its natural forms and yet is pro-cloning and pro-stem cell. He is really a Democrat.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
So we need large Republican / Conservative majorities in both houses, as well as a Republican President.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Trouble with that is millions of Republican voters will either vote Third Party or just stay home. I do not want to get into a shouting match just state the obvious: the War has cooled a big section of the Repub. Party as well as the “amnesty bill” that Repubs pushed for.
The candidates out there right now, with the exception of just one, have NO pro-life background. And it looks like that ONE pro-lifer may leave the Party and go on a Third Party ticket. This will take millions of votes away and catapult the Democrat into the White House.
It’s going to be a very bumpy ride in America and her soul is at stake.
Many of the core Repubs feel like they’ve been taken over by elitists. Neither Party listens to the people…it is almost tyranny.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Depending on who the Repub nominee is it could mean a 27% loss of votes from the conservative base. Several polls are saying so (Rasmussen for one).
In rough numbers it could mean as high as 15 million votes not going to the Repub.
You can Google: " Third Party Republican loss 2008"
In rough numbers it could mean as high as 15 million votes not going to the Repub.
You can Google: " Third Party Republican loss 2008"
M
mozart-250
Guest
That would be Bernie Sanders from up here in Vermont.
Actually he is really a Socialist.
E
estesbob
Guest
The only socialist in the Senate who admits it.That would be Bernie Sanders from up here in Vermont.
Actually he is really a Socialist.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Didn’t have Bernie Sanders in mind. Sorry, but there is ANOTHER that has “I” after his name.That would be Bernie Sanders from up here in Vermont.
Actually he is really a Socialist.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Last night, Sunday, Oct. 21, the Republican debate centered on who presents himself as “most conservative.” Polls were taken afterwards and something struck me as very peculiar regarding the poll samplings.
The LEAST conservative candidate is leading in the national Republican polls. How does one make “heads” or “tails” out of a phenomena such as this? At first glance, to me at least, it spells D-O-O-M for the Repub. chances. This is because if the “least conservative” is leading in national polls and add to that 27% of conservative christians will either vote Third Party or not at all (a number that could be as high as 15 million).
It almost seems futile given the divergent choices. The only chance a Republican influence can be felt will NOT be from the White House; it would be from the Congress.
But, that too, is problematic. Many sitting Republicans voted FOR the amnesty bill for illegal aliens. These Reps. should be challenged in Republican primaries with alternatives to those that voted to crush the American middle class with “amnesty.”
The LEAST conservative candidate is leading in the national Republican polls. How does one make “heads” or “tails” out of a phenomena such as this? At first glance, to me at least, it spells D-O-O-M for the Repub. chances. This is because if the “least conservative” is leading in national polls and add to that 27% of conservative christians will either vote Third Party or not at all (a number that could be as high as 15 million).
It almost seems futile given the divergent choices. The only chance a Republican influence can be felt will NOT be from the White House; it would be from the Congress.
But, that too, is problematic. Many sitting Republicans voted FOR the amnesty bill for illegal aliens. These Reps. should be challenged in Republican primaries with alternatives to those that voted to crush the American middle class with “amnesty.”
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
And interestingly, it’s not the same group. People who are against the war are most certainly not the anti “amnesty” bill group.
The Republican party is fracturing at the seams because it’s becoming more and more apparent that Republicanism is not about pro-life or “secure borders,” but about money and corporate power. Period.
E
estesbob
Guest
Simply not true. As has been pointed out ad nauseam.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
What is being overlooked by Republican strategists is the Middle Class Americans. Somehow, either they have been taken for granted OR they think there is no such thing as Middle America.
To me, it has all the markings of “Elitism.” Almost ALL of the candidates from what we see and hear have a aura of “elitism.” This frame of mind will bring the Party to a chilling defeat.
The core of the Party has been Middle America. So what has happened to somehow lose sight of the “core?”
IMO, it is the BIG MONEY LOBBY. The candidates lend their ears to the “money people” and totally forget that it is the CORE that will elect them. Cannot win WITHOUT the Middle Americans. This is a prescription for ignominious DEFEAT.
The current Administration has what is probably the LOWEST Approval in history…something like 24% last week. This is something that must not be ignored if one wishes to win.
Yet, virtually ALL (one exception) of the candidates back the current foreign policy of the Administration.
It is so plain that even a teenager running for president of the Student Body would be able to reason. There is an obvious myopia among the Party candidates.
If a prediction would be made for November 2008 it would likely show great dissatisfaction among the Middle Class in this Country. The time has never been so ripe for a Third Party…ever.
- Status