If a new party formed...

[silverhawks]

Would you vote for one, or stick with the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party etc?

What would it take for a brand new party to succeed in today's political climate?

What kind of resistance from the major two parties would you expect to see?

And what would it take for an individual candidate, not affiliated to any existing party, to succeed in today's political climate?

And would they succeed if they weren't a career politician?

Been talking this over with a friend of mine, and just curious to hear other people's opinions.

[dr. hfn]

one major thing is abolishing those bull$#@! election laws that favor the two main parties!

also, why can't the LP or CP get federal funding like the Dems/Repubs can?

[Brian4Liberty]

Like the Reform party?

[LibertyEagle]

I vote for individuals; not political parties.

[silverhawks]

I vote for individuals; not political parties.

Alright, good point.

Let's add that question then.

[FrankRep]

Another new party?

ugh.

[slacker921]

It doesn't matter whether I or even every person on RPF would vote for the new party. What matters is the majority of the people in the US do not vote. What would it take to get them motivated to feel like a new party had a chance if THEY would get out and vote? That's the key. Massive numbers are disenfranchised now and getting them connected with a party would crush the two parties.

It would take the backing of at least one major news network... that's all. If the folks on FOX, CNN, etc started pushing the new party by having representatives on daily, started mentioning the candidates multiple times each day and not mentioning the major candidates... then the game would be on.

or... You win the lottery, buy a major network, hire a bunch of libertarians.. you'll see a change in government. You probably would lose that money though because the people who would stand to lose $$$ would push hard against your advertisers, push government on you forcing you to spend excessive amounts fighting them, etc.. they'd put you out of business.

[silverhawks]

It doesn't matter whether I or even every person on RPF would vote for the new party. What matters is the majority of the people in the US do not vote. What would it take to get them motivated to feel like a new party had a chance if THEY would get out and vote? That's the key. Massive numbers are disenfranchised now and getting them connected with a party would crush the two parties.

Somehow, I think the next four years might be enough to convince people, if there isn't an open revolution before 2012.

It would take the backing of at least one major news network... that's all. If the folks on FOX, CNN, etc started pushing the new party by having representatives on daily, started mentioning the candidates multiple times each day and not mentioning the major candidates... then the game would be on.

Even with the major networks being as politicised as they are? Given that the candidate would have to carry a message that would transcend party and speak to all Americans, would the "average Democrat" listen to anyone who is seemingly favoured by Fox? Although apparently, Rupert Murdoch identifies himself as a libertarian...

[micahnelson]

one major thing is abolishing those bull$#@! election laws that favor the two main parties!

also, why can't the LP or CP get federal funding like the Dems/Repubs can?

Let me just phone my rep on that one, lawlz.

[dgr]

The Libertiaran Party is about to get a whole new image. Last year was the first time I had ever seen a LP convention, and I bet it was so for a lot of people. The only person I had ever heard of was Bob Barr. But I saw on another post that this year, they are having Virgle Goode former (R) Virginia US House of Representatives. He is the author of HCR 40 opposition to Nafta Superhighway, HCR 18, opposition to Social Security totalization agrement with Mexico, HCR22 Withdrawal from NAFTA(1/10/2007) To my knowledge he is the first republican to use the words "oppose President Bush". He got a lot of mention in the book "The Late Great USA"
This is bound to get the attention of Glenn Beck. So I see a hope of major network attention.

[torchbearer]

history shows that the only way a third party is successful is if it is a single issue party.
Then it would have to evolve.
The GOP started off as the abolitionist party. Became a successful third party.

[silverhawks]

The Libertiaran Party is about to get a whole new image. Last year was the first time I had ever seen a LP convention, and I bet it was so for a lot of people. The only person I had ever heard of was Bob Barr. But I saw on another post that this year, they are having Virgle Goode former (R) Virginia US House of Representatives. He is the author of HCR 40 opposition to Nafta Superhighway, HCR 18, opposition to Social Security totalization agrement with Mexico, HCR22 Withdrawal from NAFTA(1/10/2007) To my knowledge he is the first republican to use the words "oppose President Bush". He got a lot of mention in the book "The Late Great USA"
This is bound to get the attention of Glenn Beck. So I see a hope of major network attention.

You are kidding me, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode

http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Virgil_Goode.htm

# Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
# Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
# Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
# Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
# Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
# Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
# Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
# Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
# Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
# Federal duty to provide missile defense. (Dec 2000)
# Allow assassination of terrorist leaders. (Jan 2001)
# Voted NO on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
# Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
# Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
# Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
# Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)

Please tell me that you're kidding.

Right at the first line, he lost the Presidency.

[Pauls' Revere]

history shows that the only way a third party is successful is if it is a single issue party.
Then it would have to evolve.
The GOP started off as the abolitionist party. Became a successful third party.

I was thinking the Libertarian Party might be more sucessful if it were called The Liberty Party. Clean to the point gets the message across and people should know what Liberty stands for. Why they went with Libertarian I don't know it sounds to much like liberal or librarian or something. Just an observation.

[silverhawks]

I was thinking the Libertarian Party might be more sucessful if it were called The Liberty Party. Clean to the point gets the message across and people should know what Liberty stands for. Why they went with Libertarian I don't know it sounds to much like liberal or librarian or something. Just an observation.

And do you think that a party running under that name now would be too easily confused with the Libertarian Party?

[dgr]

He is against amnesty, and the bills I cited had Ron Paul as a co sponsor and were impotant to me That is all I knew about him, that and the fact that he opposed Bush on anything gets points with me. I was at one time a one issue activist - amnesty.
After reading the list you posted why is he the guest speaker?
I'm trying to expanding my field of political party choice and knowledge.
So I will make many mis ques and ask you patience and input

[silverhawks]

He is against amnesty, and the bills I cited had Ron Paul as a co sponsor and were impotant to me That is all I knew about him, that and the fact that he opposed Bush on anything gets points with me. I was at one time a one issue activist - amnesty.
After reading the list you posted why is he the guest speaker?
I'm trying to expanding my field of political party choice and knowledge.
So I will make many mis ques and ask you patience and input

No problem, dgr. I can't understand why the Libertarian Party would want this man anywhere near them, apart from to talk about the NAU/NAFTA.

And looking at that list...he opposed Bush about as much as McCain did. I have to wonder if he "opposed" Bush for being "too liberal".

[Objectivist]

YOU really think that someone new will change anything? The deck is stacked against it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program with John Stossel explaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDoSI...eature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hLHneE-yRs

[silverhawks]

So really the message I'm getting is that this system is so monumentally corrupt and biased towards the morally bankrupt politicians already inside it, that it is better to stand by, do nothing and watch the whole thing collapse, than try to reform it?

My main concern is this: who or what comes after Obama? Look at the progression we've had in the last 8 years...hell, the last 20. I'm fairly sure that Obama is in office to further widen the political divide between Democrats and Republicans, while undermining the US economy to the point of collapse. And history shows that out of these collapses comes a dictatorship.

It seems that we are on the fast track to domestic totalitarianism if we stand by and do nothing. I would rather stand up and fight for principles now, than in 10 or 20 years have my daughters be faced with that choice. It's a moral debt burden - either we can pay it now, or push it forward onto the next generation.

[KCIndy]

So really the message I'm getting is that this system is so monumentally corrupt and biased towards the morally bankrupt politicians already inside it, that it is better to stand by, do nothing and watch the whole thing collapse, than try to reform it?

Silverhawks, I would dearly love to see "either/or" since the system and the political parties we have right now are completely corrupt.

I would love to see EITHER a complete reform of at least one of the major parties, OR the establishment of a *viable* third party focused on "Ron Paul oriented" liberty and freedom issues.

*sigh*

The sad, sad, tragic truth to the matter is, I just don't think there are enough people ready to climb on board yet to form a viable third party. The Libertarians have been trying for years with no real success...

IMHO, at the moment, there just aren't enough people on our side... yet.

I know it feels like there are.... If you're like me, you're immersed in liberty-oriented web sites, you're politically active, you lobby your legislators to support important issues, and you urge friends and family to get educated politically and vote. To me, it feels like *everyone* is just waiting for the moment when we shake off the status quo and reform and take back our government.

Then I look around.

I've realized that it is easy - very easy - to overestimate the size and power of one's cause. While there are a lot of people angry with the government right now, the numbers aren't that large. Most appalling, I've discovered that a lot of the people I've talked to who are demanding reform of the government are expecting change to come in the form of MORE government, not less.... God help us.

Mind you, I'm not giving up - far from it. In fact, in (belated) answer to your question I quoted above, I think there's a chance we *can* reform things before it's too late.

We need to educate the general public, and in a massive and immediate way. We need to bring more people over to our side, and we need to do it quickly.

I think Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is one of the best chances we have right now, and I encourage everyone to sign up and support it. (I've heard you get a free "I'm a Missouri Terrorist" T-shirt with membershipt, LOL)

[dgr]

I see a need and a desire among many for a new party, the problem is social conservatives are drawn to libertarian party, but they may seem too far to the right for most libertarians, to be accepted.
American Sovernity and the constitution are the issues that will bind any new party Americans united together to save the Nation,
You need more people to understand what you stand for and those are only going to come from the GOP at this time.
I think you might not understand the signifance of opposing Bush on anything in the gop
He destroyed the party and the meaning of conservative
and most gop people still think he was the butter on Ronald Regans bread.
The fight is to save all freedom, stop the expansion of goverment control and preserve an indepentent soverign US
Any attention that can be gained is a positive, if it wakes people up to the fact both sides are
decieving them

[silverhawks]

Guys, this is Beck shilling for neo-con libertarianism, coming to a ballot box near you, Gingrich/Sanford 2012, when an upcoming internal clash in the Republican party causes many people to leave, and form a new third party. Wait and see.

Earmarks removed from all spending bills? That's a much dumbed down populist view of what an earmark is.

I can't believe people are falling for this. C4L and the LP should be out working HARD against this, taking back the message.

[KCIndy]

Guys, this is Beck shilling for neo-con libertarianism, coming to a ballot box near you, Gingrich/Sanford 2012, when an upcoming internal clash in the Republican party causes many people to leave, and form a new third party. Wait and see.

Earmarks removed from all spending bills? That's a much dumbed down populist view of what an earmark is.

I can't believe people are falling for this. C4L and the LP should be out working HARD against this, taking back the message.

I've been horrified with the Libertarian Party ever since they ran the Barr/Root ticket last year. Until last year, I had voted for the Libertarian candidate in every Presidential election since '92.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that the LP is beginning to pick candidates based on "name recognition" rather than what the candidate truly believes and has fought for over the course of a career.

It reminds me of some professional sports teams when they're in a multi-season slump. They go out and pay an extraordinary price for some almost over-the-hill player who has big name recognition. Somehow, the team's management equates a famous name with superior performance.

In the case of the sports team, more often than not the Very Famous Player doesn't care about establishing relations with his fellow players. He won't go "above and beyond" to push for a winning season. He won't redouble his efforts in training camps and practices. Instead, he'll take his last year or two in the game to bask in the limelight of his fame and add a little padding to the ol' retirement fund.

The LP can NOT expect to gather up a few retreads from Congress who have very recently claimed to "see the light," run these people on the ticket, and still expect to get support from persons who were introduced to Libertarian (or libertarian) ideas by the likes of Harry Browne or Ron Paul.

In order to get support from the libertarian base, the candidate really needs to understand the concept of libertarianism.

[Kludge]

Another new party?

ugh.

This. I still lol when thinking about the Boston Tea Party.

[torchbearer]

I've been horrified with the Libertarian Party ever since they ran the Barr/Root ticket last year. Until last year, I had voted for the Libertarian candidate in every Presidential election since '92.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that the LP is beginning to pick candidates based on "name recognition" rather than what the candidate truly believes and has fought for over the course of a career.

It reminds me of some professional sports teams when they're in a multi-season slump. They go out and pay an extraordinary price for some almost over-the-hill player who has big name recognition. Somehow, the team's management equates a famous name with superior performance.

In the case of the sports team, more often than not the Very Famous Player doesn't care about establishing relations with his fellow players. He won't go "above and beyond" to push for a winning season. He won't redouble his efforts in training camps and practices. Instead, he'll take his last year or two in the game to bask in the limelight of his fame and add a little padding to the ol' retirement fund.

The LP can NOT expect to gather up a few retreads from Congress who have very recently claimed to "see the light," run these people on the ticket, and still expect to get support from persons who were introduced to Libertarian (or libertarian) ideas by the likes of Harry Browne or Ron Paul.

In order to get support from the libertarian base, the candidate really needs to understand the concept of libertarianism.

If Mary seeks the nomination, she will get it next year.
Barr won because Badnarik in '04 was a huge failure.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

political parties create division. the grassroots tends to unify on certain problems but not on solutions. a new one will not change this fact. until then the solution is education.