With the Republicans and Democrats both in turmoil, finally there's a possible candidate who might unite the country:
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Monday he will decide soon on whether to make a another bid for the White House in 2008, eight years after playing a key role as a third party presidential candidate.
Of course, the real third-party candidate to watch out for is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who some people say is prepared to spend $1 billion of his own money. He ran as a Republican for mayor, but all his policy ideas are Democratic, so that's who he would take votes from. Since Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected, and Nader got Bush elected, make it Republicans winning the rubber match for the third-party effect.
Oh, well. Just dreaming.
Comments
I understand party loyalty, but dreaming of a Republican victory? You really think the country ought to continue on the course it's been on for the past 8 years?
We're hemorrhaging tax dollars and lives in the Middle East. The markets are in the tank. Government deficits are through the roof. Civil liberties are routinely ignored. The Imperial Presidency is in full flower.
The stable needs a little cleaning. I'm not saying Obama or Clinton are modern day Hercules ready to divert a couple of rivers to accomplish the task. But, at the least, they ought to be able to observe the First Rule of Holes which is to Stop Digging.
Well, I'm not a Republican, so "loyalty" has nothing to do with it. I'm not thrilled with the Republican field, but if you serriously think Clinton or Obama would do anything about the deficit, you haven't been listening to them. There is a difference between "Republican policy" and "Bush policy."
To answer this question, you must consider the candidate, the platform, and the state of the country at each time in history when another major choice has been presented.
The most recent third party attempts to win the presidency, such as those pursued by Buchanan, Nader, Thurmond, and Wallace, and Perot where ultimately spoilers. But, each of these candidates ran either a single-issue platform or a fringe platform with the intent to disrupt and divide the country.
Our country responds to the call when we are in time of need. Never before have we been simultaneously confronted with so many issues crucial to future of our country that are not being resolved by our government, such as the economy, education, health care, immigration, Iraq, and senior entitlements, to name a few.
It is when we are in a time of trouble that best reflects the need for a third choice and new leadership. The Civil War, Great Depression, and Pearl Harbor were moments of truth in this country when bipartisan leadership led to cooperative governance. In 1854, a third party called the Republican Party was formed primarily over the split in the Whig Party over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Over the next two years, Whig Party members disbanded and the Democrats fractured, many of them joining the Republicans. This Republican third party elected their first president in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
A third choice will appeal to the 35-40% of voters who call themselves independent, the Republicans and Democrats who are open to new ideas and leadership, and the millions who have stopped voting out of disgust.
Please join me at http://draftbloomberg.com by signing the petition that will help convince Mayor Bloomberg to run for President of the United States.
Obviously, the only thing that matters to Leo are the financial aspects of a candidate's positions. Never mind the minor issues as mentioned by Doug such as civil liberties, war casualities, government accountability, etc., etc., etc.
Paul/Kucinich 08
There is a difference between
I happen to know that Leo is "Libertarian".
When translating from the original Hoosier tongue to standard English this term actually means -"Republican who uses public platform to constantly attack Democrats and apologize for Bush."
Indeed Craig, In Hoosier libertarian also means socialism for the wealthy, regressive taxation and upward redistribution of wealth is ok, social safety nets, progressive taxation, and shared prosperity is not.
Well boys, I'll grant you (Doug) the Republican party absolutely lost their way fiscally during that time period. Oddly enough, your observation pretty much nullifies AJ's claim of
"regressive taxation and upward redistribution of wealth is ok, social safety nets, progressive taxation, and shared prosperity is not."
You po' dems have more safety "nets" than an east coast fishing trawler.
How about we just give ya'll $100k a year, would that stop your incessant whining? No no, that's probably not equitable enough for you either.
Tim:
Regarding SAFETY NETS...I was thinking more along the lines of the "Flying Wallendas", myself...
But the fishing trawler works for me JUST as well.
;)
B.G.
You know Bob, I was gonna use the Wallenda analogy, but I remembered one of them died when not using a net on a wire between buildings a while back, so I opted for the trawler analogy. Great minds think alike, eh?
Scaaary, Tim...verrry scary (but nice).
;)
B.G.