# Possible 3rd Party Forming on the Right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942 "2009-10-24T05:57:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/201 "2009-11-02T18:48:50Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > **RTFirefly** : I’m not really getting the point of your last posts. Republicans are trying to make Democratic programs look bad? You asked for examples of GOP leadership simply making shit up, rather than making honest arguments about small government. I’ve given you some. So you move the goalposts. > [@](#): > > Oh the horror. Good thing Democrats would NEVER do that to Republicans. It’s politics. Get used to it. But moving goalposts or not, I’ll play along. Go ahead, give me the last time the Democratic Congressional leadership made up similar bullshit about a Republican President in order to attack his positions. If it’s “politics as usual” to invent stuff to attack the opposition over, rather than putting a negative but basically factual spin on real stuff, then it won’t be hard for you to do. > [@](#): > > In any event, each one of the items is disputable. Certainly Bush had a lot of Czars. So what? What matters is what they do, how transparent their actions are, and how much power the President delegates to them. Apparently the ‘pay Czar’ was given complete carte-blanche to decide what the CEOs of the TARP companies would get paid. He’s even said that he basically decided what it should be all on his own. The process is completely opaque to everyone. He doesn’t have to talk to Congress about it. That’s a hell of a lot of power to put in the hands of one man. You don’t need to be a fear-mongering conspiratorialist to wonder if this is a good thing. That wasn’t the argument. It may be yours, but it wasn’t theirs. Sorry. > [@](#): > > As for setting terrorists loose in America, I hope you know the difference between the people in Guantanamo and the terrorists actually arrested by police. The problem with the Guantanamo prisoners is that they were NOT arrested by police. They were captured by the military on the battlefield or in raids in hostile territory Therefore, there were no Miranda rights offered, no chains of evidence, etc. This makes trying them in a court of law problematic, and my understanding is that Guantanamo was used because of a loophole in the law - if those prisoners are brought onto U.S. soil, they have a right to be tried in court, and because of the nature of how they were captured, they will probably be set free. In America. Do you have any basis for these claims about the law? > [@](#): > > Why do you think Obama isn’t closing Gitmo? Don’t you think he wants to? He isn’t closing it because he doesn’t have a good alternative. And here I thought it was because [Congress blocked him](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649/). Silly me. > [@](#): > > As for the ‘snitch list’, are you denying that the White House didn’t set up a web site to have people report on anti-administration activities? Yes, I sure do. They set up a website where people could email them and tell them, “hey, I’ve heard thus-and-so about health care reform,” and get some facts in return. If certain bogus stories popped up frequently, the Administration could address those more publicly. The rest was paranoia. > [@](#): > > The reason this has traction, btw, is because this administration is going out of its way to attack American citizens who oppose it more than any administration has since Nixon. Whether it’s Fox, Rush Limbaugh, or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the White House is ‘punching back twice as hard’ to quote Rahm Emmanual. How so? Please be specific. Their main charge against Fox was that Fox is a political operation. Omigoshgolli - what an attack, to call a spade a spade! You’d think telling the truth in Washington was a threat to the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > This may be okay for a campaign to do, but it’s not appropriate behavior from the White House. And I know you complained when the Bushies kicked the NY Times off the press plane, and went after MSNBC publicly. But besides that, when did being President meant that you couldn’t respond to influential critics, no matter what shit they spouted? When did “President” = “punching bag”? IOW, gimme a break. Or to quote **Sam Stone** , “It’s politics. Get used to it.” > [@](#): > > He has no business doing things like attempting to organize media boycotts and launching attack dogs at people who criticize him. Obama tried to organize a media boycott? I missed that. As far as launching attack dogs goes, were you too young for Spiro Agnew? How about Dan Quayle going after Murphy Brown? Sheez. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/202 "2009-11-02T19:12:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Surely you KNOW this. C’mon, **Dio** , how can you expect **Sam** to know that? It’s not like he was going to learn that at: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > [Instapundit](http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/) > [PajamasTV](http://wbx.me/l/?p=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pjtv.com) > [Bill Whittle](http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/) > [Roger L. Simon](http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/) > [Big Government](http://biggovernment.com/) > [Big Hollywood](http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/203 "2009-11-02T19:28:59Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In any event, each one of the items is disputable. Certainly Bush had a lot of Czars. So what? What matters is what they do, how transparent their actions are, and how much power the President delegates to them. [Good to see that from you.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11526256&postcount=17) > [@Sam Stone](#): > > So, if Bush had hired a hard core religious fundamentalist who believed women should stay at home as ‘Green Jobs’ czar, you’d have had no problem with that? So long as he’s doing the job? What rubbish. And [this:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=416810) > [@Sam Stone](#): > > It’s important to know how to delegate responsibility, but it’s also important not to simply create a new bureaucracy every time there’s a new problem. from the Dept of Homeland Security to this ridiculous idea of a ‘war czar’, Bush responds to challenges by creating new levels of management. The result is bloated, inefficient government. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/204 "2009-11-02T19:48:24Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … this administration is going out of its way to attack American citizens who oppose it more than any administration has since Nixon. Whether it’s Fox, Rush Limbaugh, or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce … Really want to make that comparison? > [@](#): > > [Nixon’s Enemies List](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List) is the informal name of what started as a list of President of the United States Richard Nixon’s major political opponents compiled by Charles Colson, written by George T. Bell[1] (assistant to Colson, special counsel to the White House), and sent in memorandum form to John Dean on September 9, 1971. The list was part of a campaign officially known as “Opponents List” and “Political Enemies Project.” The official purpose, as described by the White House Counsel’s Office, was to “screw” Nixon’s political enemies, by means of tax audits from the Internal Revenue Service, and by manipulating “grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc.” … I missed it, when did Obama sic the IRS on FOX and Limbaugh? But wait, dere’s more, > [@](#): > > **Second “Enemies” List** > On December 20, 1973, the Congressional Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation concluded that people on the “Enemies” list had not been subjected to an unusual number of tax audits. The report revealed a second list of about 576 (with some duplicates) supporters and staffers of George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign given to Internal Revenue Commissioner Johnnie Walters by John Dean on September 11, 1972. … nope not done yet, > [@](#): > > … a master list of Nixon political opponents and another list, with a combined total of over 30,000 names, were developed later. … and then there’s this, > [@](#): > > [Dean Memo on ‘Enemies’](http://web.archive.org/web/20030621235432/www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/calvert/PolSci3103/watergate/enemy.htm) > > Memorandum from Dean to Lawrence Higby, former assistant to Haldeman, dated Aug. 16, 1971 and entitled “Dealing with our political enemies.” > > This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly–how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies. > > After reviewing this matter with a number of persons possessed of experience in the field, I have concluded that we do not need an elaborate mechanism or game plan, rather we need a good project coordinator and full support for the project. In brief, the system would work as follows: > > –Key members of the staff (e.g., Colson, Dent, Flanigan, Buchanan) could be requested to inform us as to who they feel we should be giving a hard time. > > –The project coordinator should then determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts, litigation prosecution, etc.) > > –The project coordinator then should have access to and the full support of the top officials of the agency or departments in proceeding to deal with the individual. > > I have learned that there have been many efforts in the past to take such actions, but they have ultimately failed–in most cases because of lack of support at the top. Of all those I have discussed this matter with, Lyn Nofizger [President’s California manager] appears the most knowledgeable and most interested. If Lyn had support he would enjoy undertaking this activity as the project coordinator. You are aware of some of Lyn’s successes in the field, but he feels that he can employ limited efforts because there is a lack of support. > > As a next step. I would recommend that we develop a small list of names–not more than ten–as our targets for concentration. Request that Lyn “do a job” on them and if he finds he is getting cut off by a department agency, that he inform us and we evaluate what is necessary to proceed. I feel it is important that we keep our targets limited for several reasons: (1) a low visibility of the project is imperative; (2) it will be easier to accomplish something real if we don’t over expand our efforts; and (3) we can learn more about how to operate such an activity if we start small and build. When someone can even vaguely show that the Obama administration has something other than a publicly announced (not secret like Nixon’s), single digit (not five digit like Nixon’s), list of folks that they are doing anything to that compares to Dean’s plans for Nixon’s enemies list, get back to us. CMC fnord! I just can’t resist posting the “Master List”; Senators–Birch Bayh, J. W. Fulbright, Fred R. Harris, Harold Hughes, Edward M. Kennedy, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Edmund Muskie, Gaylord Nelson, William Proxmire. Members of the House–Bella Abzug, William R. Anderson, John Brademas, Father Robert F. Drinan, Robert Kastenmeier, Wright Patman. Black congressmen–Shirley Chisholm, William Clay, George Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Charles Diggs, Augustus Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Robert N.C. Nix, Parren Mitchell, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes. Miscellaneous politicos–John V. Lindsay, mayor, New York City; Eugene McCarthy, former U.S senator; George Wallace, governor, Alabama. Organizations Black Panthers, Hughie (Huey) Newton Brookings Institution, Lesley Gelb and others Business Executives Move for VN Peace. Herb Niles, national chairman, Vincent McGee. executive director Committee for an Effective Congress. Russell Hemingwav Common Cause, John Gardner, Morton Halper, Charles Goodell, Walter Hickel COPE, Alexander E Barkan Council for a Livable World, Bernard T. Feld, pr idem: professor of physics. MIT Farmers Union, NFO Institute of (for) Policy study Richard Barn, Marcus Raskin National Economic Council, Inc National Education Association, Sam M. Lambe president National Student Association, Charles Palm president National Welfare Rights Organization, George Wiley Potomac Associates, William Watts SANE, Sanford Gottleib Southern Christian Leadership, Ralph Abernathy; Third National Convocation on the Challenge of Building Peace, Robert V Roosa, chairman Businessmen’s Educational Fund. Labor Karl Feller president, International Union United Brewery. Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, Cincinnati Harold J. Gibbons, international vice preside Teamsters A F Grospiron, president, Oil, Chemical Atomic Workers International Union, Denver Matthew Guinan, president, Transport Work. Union of America, New York City Paul Jennings, president, International Union Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Washington D.C. Herman D. Kenin, vice president, AFL-CIO. D Lane Kirkland, secretary-treasurer. AFL-CIO (we must deal with him) Frederick O’Neal. president. Actors and Artists America, New York City William Pollock, president, Textile Workers Union of America, New York City Jacob Potofsky general president, Amalgam. Clothing Workers of America, New York City Leonard Woodcock, president, United Auto Workers, Detroit Jerry Wurf, international president, American Federal, State, County and Municipal Employ Washington D.C. Nathaniel Goldfinger, AFL-CIO I. W. Abel, Steelworkers Media Jack Anderson, columnist, “Washington Merry-Go-Round” Jim Bishop, author, columnist, King Features Syndicate Thomas Braden, columnist, Los Angeles Times Syndicate D.J.R. Bruckner, Los Angeles Times Syndicate Marquis Childs, chief Washington correspondent, St. Louis Post Dispatch James Deakin, White House correspondent, St. Louis Post Dispatch James Doyle, Washington Star Richard Dudman, St. Louis Post Dispatch William Eaton, Chicago Daily News Rowland Evans Jr., syndicated columnist, Publishers Hall Saul Friedmann, Knight Newspapers, syndicated columnist Clayton Fritchey, syndicated columnist Washington correspondent. Harpers George Frazier, Boston Globe Pete Hamill, New York Post Michael Harrington, author and journal member, executive committee Socialist party Sydney Harris, columnist, drama critic and writer of ‘Strictly Personal,’ syndicated Publishers Hall Robert Healy, Boston Globe William Hines, Jr., journalist. science education, Chicago Sun-Times Stanley Karnow, foreign correspondent, Washington Post Ted Knap, syndicated columnist, New York Daily News Edwin Knoll, Progressive Morton Kondracke, Chicago Sun Times Joseph Kraft, syndicated columnist, Publishers Hall James Laird, Philadelphia Inquirer Max Lerner, syndicated columnist, New York Post: author, lecturer, professor (Brandeis University) Stanley Levey, Scripps Howard Flora Lewis syndicated columnist on economics Stuart Loory, Los Angeles Times Mary McGrory, syndicated columnist on New Left Frank Mankiewicz, syndicated columnist Los Angeles Times James Millstone, St. Louis Post Disptach Martin Nolan, Boston Globe Ed Guthman, Los Angeles Ttmes Thomas O’Neill, Baltimore Sun [died in April 1971] John Pierson, Wall Street Journal William Prochnau, Seattle Times James Reston, New York Times Carl Rowan, syndicated columnist, Publishers Hall Warren Unna, Washington Post, NET Harriet Van Home, columnist, New York Post Milton Viorst, reporter, author, writer James Wechsler, New York Post Tom Wicker, New York Times Gary Wills. syndicated columnist, author of “Nixon-Agonistes” The New York Times Washington Post St Louis Post Dispatch Jules Duscha, Washingtonian Robert Manning, editor, Atlantic John Osborne, New Republic Richard Rovere, New Yorker Robert Sherrill, Nation Paul Samuelson, Newsweek Julian Goodman, chief executive officer, NBC John Macy, Jr, president, Public Broadcasting Corp, former Civil Service Commission Marvin Kalb, CBS Daniel Schorr, CBS Lem Tucker, NBC Sander Vanocur, NBC Celebrities Carol Channing, actress Bill Cosby, actor Jane Fonda, actress Steve McQueen, actor Joe Namath, New York Giants [Jets]; business; actor Paul Newman, actor Gregory Peck actor Tony Randall actor Barbra Streisand, actress Dick Gregory [comedian] Businessmen Charles B Beneson, president, Beneson Realty Co. Nelson Bengston, president, Bengston & Co. Holmes Brown, vice president, public relations, Continental Can Co. Benjamin Buttenweiser, limited partner, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Lawrence G. Chait, chairman Lawrence G. Chait & Co., Inc. Ernest R. Chanes, president, Consolidated Water Conditioning Co. Maxwell Dane, chairman, executive committee, Doyle, Dane & Bernbach, Inc. Charles H. Dyson, chairman, the Dyson-Kissner Corp. Norman Eisner, president, Lincoln Graphic Arts. Charles B. Finch, vice president, Alleghany Power System, Inc. Frank Heineman, president, Men’s Wear International. George Hillman, president, Ellery Products Manufacturing Co. Bertram Lichtenstein, president, Delton Ltd. William Manealoff, president, Concord Steel Corp. Gerald McKee, president, McKee, Berger, Mansueto. Paul Milstein, president, Circle Industries Corp. Stewart R. Mott, Stewart R. Mott, Associates. Lawrence S. Phillips, president, Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. David Rose chairman, Rose Associates. Julian Roth senior partner, Emery Roth & Sons. William Ruder, president, Ruder & Finn, Inc. Si Scharer, president, Scharer Associates, Inc. Alfred P. Slaner, president, Kayser-Roth Corp. Roger Sonnabend, chairman, Sonesta International Hotels. Business Additions Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace and New National Priorities Morton Sweig, prsident. National Cleaning Contractors Alan V. Tishman, executive vice president, Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc. Ira D. Wallach, president, Gottesman & Co., Inc. George Weissman, president, Philip Morris Corp. Ralph Weller, president, Otis Elevator Company Business Clifford Alexander, Jr., member, Equal Opportunity Commission; LBJ’s special assistant Hugh Calkins, Cleveland lawyer, member, Harvard Corp Ramsey Clark, partner, Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; former attorney general Lloyd Cutler, lawyer, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Washington, D.C. Henry L. Kimelman, chief fund raiser for McGovern. president, Overview Group Raymond Lapin, former president, FNMA; corporation executive Hans F. Loeser, chairman, Boston Lawyers’ Vietnam Committee Robert McNamara, president, World Bank; former Secretary of Defense Hans Morgenthau, former US. attorney in New York City (Robert Morgenthau). Victor Palmieri, lawyer, business consultant, real estate executive, Los Angeles. Arnold Picker, Muskie’s chief fund raiser; chairman executive committee, United Artists Robert S. Pirie, Harold Hughes’ chief fund raiser: Boston lawyer. Joseph Rosenfield, Harold Hughes’ money man; retired Des Moines lawyer. Henry Rowen, president, Rand Corp., former assistant director of budget (LBJ) R Sargent Shriver, Jr., former US. ambassador to France; lawyer, Strasser, Spiefelberg, Fried, Frank & Kempelman, Washington, D.C. [1972 Democratic vice presidential candidate] Theodore Sorensen, lawyer, Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York. Ray Stark, Broadway producer. Howard Stein, president and director, Dreyfus Corporation. Milton Semer, chairman, Muskie Election Committee; lawyer, Semer and Jacobsen George H. Talbot, president, Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. ; headed anti-Vietnam ad Arthur Taylor, vice president, International Paper Company [presently CBS president] Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association. Paul Warnke, Muskie financial supporter, former assistant secretary of defense Thomas I. Watson, Jr., Muskie financial supporter; chairman, IBM Academics Michael Ellis De Bakey, chairman, department of surgery, Baylor University; surgeon-in-chief, Ben Taub General Hospital. Texas Derek Curtis Bok, dean, Harvard Law School [presently Harvard president] Kingman Brewster, Jr., president, Yale University. McGeorge Bundy, president, Ford Foundation. Avram Noam Chomsky, professor of modern languages, MIT Daniel Ellsberg, professor, MIT. George Drennen Fischer, member, executive committee. National Education Association J. Kenneth Galbraith, professor of economics, Harvard Patricia Harris, educator, lawyer, former US. ambassador; chairman welfare committee Urban League Walter Heller, regents professor of economics, University of Minnesota Edwin Land, professor of physics, MIT. Herbert Ley, Jr., former FDA commissioner; professor of epidemiology, Harvard. Matthew Stanley Meselson, professor of biology, Harvard Lloyd N. Morrisett, professor and associate director, education program, University of Calif Joseph Rhodes, Jr., fellow, Harvard; member, Scranton commission on Campus Unrest Bayard Rustin, civil rights activist; director, A. Philip Randolph Institute, New York. David Selden, president, American Federation of Teachers. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., professor of humanities, City University of New York Jeremy Stone, director, Federation of American Scienlists Jerome Wiesner, president, MIT. Samuel M. Lambert, president, National Education Association A memo dated Sept. 14, 1971 from Dean to Haldeman aide Lawrence Higby, submitted to the Committee, included three persons not shown on either list of 20 or the larger master list. Those selected by Dean for inclusion were: Eugen Carson Blake (per request) [General Secretary World Council of Churches Leonard Bernstein (per request) [Conductor/ Composer] Tom Wicker (New York Times) Clark Clifford (Clifford) [former Secretary of Defense] Vs Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/205 "2009-11-02T20:02:18Z")
He actually did say “since Nixon”. Not with any supporting evidence, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/206 "2009-11-02T20:07:49Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > For what it’s worth, after doing more reading of what the movers and shakers behind this are doing, I don’t think they want to create a 3rd party. What they want to do is send a message to the Republican party that they won’t accept a Republican candidate just because he or she is Republican - they’ll simply put their enegy behind the candidate closest to their values. Their hope is not to fracture the Republican party, but to pull it in their direction. Well said. And for all the talk about how the GOP is being torn apart by its refusal to accept moderates (which I believe is Democratic Party talking points and spin), there’s nothing particularly radical in people seeking to have the party they support better reflect their values. As I said before, the Democratic Party is experiencing the same kind of tug-of-war. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/207 "2009-11-02T20:22:38Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > As I said before, the Democratic Party is experiencing the same kind of tug-of-war. So who’s the Democratic version of Charlie Crist? [Popular Former Governor About to Get Shafted by Hardliners of his Own Party in Senatorial Race](http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/02/more-bad-news-for-charlie-crist.aspx) Joe Lieberman is hardly a _current_ example anymore, the party moved leftward from him _years_ ago. There’s some pressure on a few of the more repugnant Blue-dogs, but that’s for the electoral future. I’m not seeing much in the way of life or death tooth and claw among the Dems right _now_. Besides the Dems are naturally more fractous than the Pubs. We have only to look back to the Bush years to see how unified the Pubs like to be, while Clinton was widely disliked by us actual Liberal types. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/208 "2009-11-02T20:33:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He actually did say “since Nixon”. Not with any supporting evidence, of course. Hell, Obama’s the worst mass murder since Pol Pot, the supporting evidence is pretty much the same. Just look at it all; the death panels, the 1,000 FEMA concentration camps, the 30,000 guillotines, the half-million caskets. 😉 CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/209 "2009-11-02T20:40:52Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > And for all the talk about how the GOP is being torn apart by its refusal to accept moderates _What_ talk? What I hear is exactly the opposite: that the GOP is more cohesive than ever, but further right than ever, more of a regional party than ever, and further from the American mainstream than can be fudged over by slogans like “compassionate conservatism” or Dem-bashing. > [@](#): > > there’s nothing particularly radical in people seeking to have the party they support better reflect their values. True dat. In particular, primary challenges to candidates that don’t reflect part of a party’s values should be regarded simply as part of the game. > [@](#): > > As I said before, the Democratic Party is experiencing the same kind of tug-of-war. Not exactly. Some Dems would like to see some consequences applied when members of the Democratic caucus won’t even let major legislation get an up-or-down vote, but that’s pretty much as far as it goes, right now. Centrists can be centrists if they damned well feel like it, as long as they don’t join in GOP filibusters. Seems like pretty weak tea compared to what’s going on in the GOP, and it’s not clear that even this weak tea will find its way onto the Democratic menu. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/210 "2009-11-02T20:51:45Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > there’s nothing particularly radical in people seeking to have the party they support better reflect their values. Not radical, no, but self-defeating anyway. Like it or not, and for many that’s “not”, success in achieving one’s goals requires forming coalitions that add up to the majority needed. A party engaged in purging its heretics dooms itself to minority helplessness. Those of its members who support such a purge thereby actually work against their own interests. Self-described Republicans are already down in the low 20’s percentwise. Do you really think getting even smaller helps them, even if they become “purer”? There certainly is some serious impatience among the majority Dems with the minority Blue Dogs, but do you see any of them getting hounded out the way Scozzafava has been? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/211 "2009-11-02T21:37:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not radical, no, but self-defeating anyway. Like it or not, and for many that’s “not”, success in achieving one’s goals requires forming coalitions that add up to the majority needed. A party engaged in purging its heretics dooms itself to minority helplessness. Those of its members who support such a purge thereby actually work against their own interests. > > Self-described Republicans are already down in the low 20’s percentwise. Do you really think getting even smaller helps them, even if they become “purer”? > > There certainly is some serious impatience among the majority Dems with the minority Blue Dogs, but do you see any of them getting hounded out the way Scozzafava has been? If you’ve seen the political news in the past week, the attack machine seems to be cranked up on Joseph Lieberman pretty good. Getting “smaller” doesn’t help Republicans; standing for the right things does – such as limited government, generally lower taxes and controlled spending. Those ideas would resonate in this climate. Republicans are in the boat they are in now because they strayed from their principles in the Bush/Frist/Hastert era. They became indistinguishable in their spending from Democrats. That and Bush- and war-fatigue. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/212 "2009-11-02T22:32:47Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > Getting “smaller” doesn’t help Republicans; standing for the right things does – such as limited government, generally lower taxes and controlled spending. Those ideas would resonate in this climate. Why would they resonate? It is obvious a majority of Americans do not want those things; and those who say they do change their tune the moment their own porkbarrel ox is even threatened with goring. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/213 "2009-11-02T23:54:27Z")
[Obama says Showers in Watertown, NY tomorrow](http://obama-weather.com/Obama/m/13601) so low turnout. That’s probably good for fired up Hoffman fans. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/214 "2009-11-02T23:58:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why would they resonate? It is obvious a majority of Americans do not want those things; and those who say they do change their tune the moment their own porkbarrel ox is even threatened with goring. How is it obvious “the majority of Americans don’t want those things?” [Here’s](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/october_2009/54_favor_middle_class_tax_cuts_over_new_spending_on_health_care) evidence that those fiscal issues do resonate. [And here.](http://www.gallup.com/poll/121829/americans-concerned-govt-spending-expansion.aspx) Pay special attention to the numbers on Independents in that second link. Obama and Pelosi have fundamentally misread their success in the past two election cycles, how much of it was a protest vote against Bush and the wars, not an endorsement of their policies. I agree with you that people generally want less spending and lower taxes, but cry foul when some favored program faces cuts. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/215 "2009-11-03T00:05:52Z")
Well, if people want “limited government, generally lower taxes and controlled spending”, who’s going to give it to them? Republicans? Have you been paying attention for the last 8 years? I’m not saying that Democrats will provide those things either. I’m saying it’s long past time any Republican can pretend to be for those things. We don’t have one big government, high tax, big spending party and an alternative small-government party. We have two. So you better get used to the idea of bigger government and higher taxes and more spending, because that’s what you’re going to get. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/216 "2009-11-03T00:28:58Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, if people want “limited government, generally lower taxes and controlled spending”, who’s going to give it to them? Republicans? Have you been paying attention for the last 8 years? > > I’m not saying that Democrats will provide those things either. I’m saying it’s long past time any Republican can pretend to be for those things. We don’t have one big government, high tax, big spending party and an alternative small-government party. We have two. So you better get used to the idea of bigger government and higher taxes and more spending, because that’s what you’re going to get. Uh-huh. And we also are similarly stuck with two parties that are both against gay marriage, ending the drug war, and reducing the military, and in favor of close ties with big corporations and Wall Street. So you better get used to the idea of all that, because that’s what you’re going to get, right? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/217 "2009-11-03T00:45:22Z")
Well, if your plan is “vote Republican!”, then you should get used to the idea. If you’ve got some other plan, go ahead, but in the meantime get used to the idea, because there is not now and really never has been a limited government party. Which party is in favor of gay rights? Did Obama come out in favor of gay marriage? No he didn’t. You and I might suspect that he is secretly in favor of gay marriage and repealing DADT, but he sure isn’t doing much publicly. Which party is in favor of cutting the military budget? Which party is in favor of repealing the war on drugs? Which party is in favor of ending corporate welfare? If you’re in favor of these things, that’s great, but voting “Democrat” isn’t going to do jack for any of them. If you want something other than more big government and more collusion between Wall Street and Washington, which party do you vote for? None of the above. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/218 "2009-11-03T00:52:55Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Celebrities > Carol Channing, actress > Bill Cosby, actor > Jane Fonda, actress > Steve McQueen, actor > Joe Namath, New York Giants [Jets]; business; actor > Paul Newman, actor > Gregory Peck actor > Tony Randall actor > Barbra Streisand, actress > Dick Gregory [comedian] [Carol Channing voice]I’m Carol Channing, and I’m Tricky Dick’s worst nightmare![/CCV] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/219 "2009-11-03T03:04:54Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, if your plan is “vote Republican!”, then you should get used to the idea. If you’ve got some other plan, go ahead, but in the meantime get used to the idea, because there is not now and really never has been a limited government party. > > Which party is in favor of gay rights? Did Obama come out in favor of gay marriage? No he didn’t. You and I might suspect that he is secretly in favor of gay marriage and repealing DADT, but he sure isn’t doing much publicly. Which party is in favor of cutting the military budget? Which party is in favor of repealing the war on drugs? Which party is in favor of ending corporate welfare? > > If you’re in favor of these things, that’s great, but voting “Democrat” isn’t going to do jack for any of them. > > If you want something other than more big government and more collusion between Wall Street and Washington, which party do you vote for? None of the above. So? Join [FairVote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairvote) and fight for electoral-system reforms that will allow the emergence of a multiparty system. Then America can have a viable party that really **does** try to cut the military budget, legalize gay marriage, etc. Also a viable party that does try to cut down the size and scope of government, etc. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/220 "2009-11-03T03:22:31Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, if your plan is “vote Republican!”, then you should get used to the idea. If you’ve got some other plan, go ahead, but in the meantime get used to the idea, because there is not now and really never has been a limited government party. > > Which party is in favor of gay rights? Did Obama come out in favor of gay marriage? No he didn’t. You and I might suspect that he is secretly in favor of gay marriage and repealing DADT, but he sure isn’t doing much publicly. Which party is in favor of cutting the military budget? Which party is in favor of repealing the war on drugs? Which party is in favor of ending corporate welfare? > > If you’re in favor of these things, that’s great, but voting “Democrat” isn’t going to do jack for any of them. > > If you want something other than more big government and more collusion between Wall Street and Washington, which party do you vote for? None of the above. Which is pretty much how I’ve voted in the last few elections. But I’m not going to piss all over any authentic fiscal conservatives who are trying to reclaim the Republican Party. I’m skeptical, especially since they have not been out of power long enough, but surely we can do better than mere unproductive “nothing will never work” whining. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942.md?page=12)