# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/221 "2009-11-03T03:37:01Z")
> [@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. So let me get it straight: - If you vote Republican, you’re going to get bigger government. Might as well vote Democrat. - If you try to pull the Republican party back to its core principles, you’ll marginalize it with extremists. Might as well vote Democrat. - If you try and start a third party, you’ll split the right and lose. Might as well vote Democrat. Is that about it? ---
**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, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/222 "2009-11-03T03:43:33Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > - If you try to pull the Republican party back to its core principles . . . :dubious: Wait a moment, now. Libertarianism is **not** the GOP’s “core principles.” Neither major American party has any “core principles,” really, in the sense you’re using the term; both are very old institutions – the oldest political parties in the world, in fact, with the possible exception of the British Tories – and they have changed their ideological makeup many times since they were formed; and they have always been multi-ideological big-tent coalitions in any case. In short, libertarians have no better claim than Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney have to speak for the “real” GOP. ---
**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, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/223 "2009-11-03T03:49:05Z")
> [@furt](#): > > But I’m not going to piss all over any authentic fiscal conservatives who are trying to reclaim the Republican Party. You know any authentic fiscal conservatives? Where? All I see are a bunch of guys who hate Obama and gays and abortion and love Jesus and guns and torture. The conservative movement nowadays has no room for people who want to cut spending, and hasn’t for the last 8 years. You’re like Charlie Brown, sure that this time the Republicans really mean it about cutting spending. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/224 "2009-11-03T10:25:02Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > If you’ve seen the political news in the past week, the attack machine seems to be cranked up on Joseph Lieberman pretty good. And what’s it been saying? Got any specific quotes from anyone notable? I mean, sure, lefties (including me) are looking forward to helping Nutmeggers get a Senator who’s coming from the same place politically that most of them are. (That’s what representative democracy is all about.) But that’s not until 2012. In the meantime, pretty much everyone on the left that I read would be happy to let Joe mouth off however he wanted, as long as he doesn’t join any GOP filibusters. And we’re talking about a guy here who campaigned for McCain and other Republicans in 2008, and plans on campaigning for more Republicans in 2010. (I don’t see Olympia Snowe campaigning for Democrats.) But hell, we’d put up with that active disloyalty, if he’d just not join in GOP-led filibusters. Some attack machine, huh? Feel free to tell me what I’m missing. But generalities about how people are attacking Joe don’t count. Show me the actual attacks. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/225 "2009-11-03T16:30:46Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > If you’ve seen the political news in the past week, the attack machine seems to be cranked up on Joseph Lieberman pretty good. I have. What are the sorts of things you’re calling “attacks”? And what constitutes this “machine” you speak of, other than perhaps “No U”? > [@](#): > > 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. The evidence for that being, well, what? The GOP has been pushing this idea that they stand for small government for quite some time, and they’ve been increasingly repudiated for quite some time as well - as you’ve noticed, right? > [@](#): > > Republicans are in the boat they are in now because they strayed from their principles in the Bush/Frist/Hastert era. Think about that just a little more. What \*are \*principles if they are not what guides your actions? “You are what you repeatedly do.” - Aristotle, as quoted by Shaquille O’Neal ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/226 "2009-11-03T16:57:14Z")
This morning KOS had some nice figures on the historic voter leanings of NY-23: > [@](#): > > To make the case that a Hoffman victory would be remarkable, teabaggers point to the Obama-McCain vote in the district, which tilted narrowly to Obama. (President Obama carried NY-23 by 5 points, compared to a 27-point margin in the state as a whole.) But the thing that teabaggers don’t like to mention is that for at least the past three decades, Democrats have been unable to break the 38% mark in any election. Check out the Democratic congressional performance in the district since 1982: > > 2008 - 35% > 2006 - 37% > 2004 - 29% > 2002 - 0% > 2000 - 23% > 1998 - 21% > 1996 - 25% > 1994 - 18% > 1992 - 21% > 1990 - 38% > 1988 - 25% > 1986 - 0% > 1984 - 29% > 1982 - 28% > > (NY-23 was known as NY-26 from 1982-1990 and NY-24 from 1992-2000. Data: Office of the Clerk.) > > That span includes two open seat races – 1982 and 1992 – but Democrats couldn’t crack the 30% barrier in either of those years. > **[NY-23: Teabagging Republicans pick a strange ground zero](https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/2/799836/-NY-23:-Teabagging-Republicans-pick-a-strange-ground-zero)** > > The strangest thing about today's election is that Republicans have come to see NY-23 as ground zero in their bid for renewed relevance. Leave aside the fact that the GOP candidate has withdrawn ... Hoffman ought to win handily, and that should firm up opposition to moderates such as Crist. Looks like we may be seeing a balanced budget ammendment come up in congress before too many more years. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/227 "2009-11-03T17:24:48Z")
[This](http://airamerica.com/theronreaganshow/blog/11-02-2009/limbaugh-and-lieberman-tree/) would be representative of the recent drumbeat on Lieberman. [This](http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/?story=/opinion/conason/2009/10/29/joe_lieberman) suddenly became an issue for Salon after Lieberman vowed to filibuster against a public option. Your mileage may vary on whether the sudden less-than-positive interest in Lieberman consitutes an attack. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The GOP has been pushing this idea that they stand for small government for quite some time, and they’ve been increasingly repudiated for quite some time as well - as you’ve noticed, right? > > Think about that just a little more. What \*\*are \*\*principles if they are not what guides your actions? > > “You are what you repeatedly do.” - Aristotle, as quoted by Shaquille O’Neal Please show me where a true, walking-the-talk conservative has been repudiated, or voted out because of his/her conservatism. Perhaps I should just reserve my answer for Tuesday night, when three conservative Republicans (it appears) will win major races in states or districts that Obama won handily a year ago. (Va., N.J., NY-23) Perhaps you are right, that Republicans have for so long not lived up to the ideal of what many Republicans want to believe the party is, that they are something else. But in the current climate of huge spending and government expansion (that I freely admit pre-dates Obama, but that he’s taken and run with), a conservative message it’s going to resonate. And to the extent that Republicans don’t walk the walk on fiscal conservatism, I’d expect people who historically align themselves with Republicans to increasingly seek more conservative alternatives. Hence you get a Hoffman. What baffles me is how many of you see those people as “the loons,” “the whack-jobs,” “the crazy people.” It’s a natural, logical reaction to the way government is heading, whether you agree with it or not. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/228 "2009-11-03T17:46:53Z")
Except they didn’t line up behind Hoffman because of freaking fiscal issues! They lined up because Hoffman was pro-life. Yeah, you’re going to see some primary challenges against moderate Republicans. But they won’t be over fiscal issues, but abortion and gays and the UN and coddling terrorists. So yeah, you’re going to see more conservative alternatives, as long as you ignore fiscal issues. If you think there’s going to be net movement towards fiscal conservatism in the Republican caucus, you’re dreaming. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/229 "2009-11-03T17:53:10Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > Your mileage may vary on whether the sudden less-than-positive interest in Lieberman consitutes an attack. It certainly does. You might also consider that much of the impatience with him that you see more directly reflects impatience with Reid for coddling someone who is so interested in undermining the efforts of the party he wants to caucus with, and so much more interested in his own ego than in the nation or the CT electorate that now regrets sending him back to DC. > [@](#): > > Please show me where a true, walking-the-talk conservative has been repudiated, or voted out because of his/her conservatism. As soon as you give us some examples of “true conservatives”, or even some explanation of what to most Americans is “true conservatism”. Perhaps we can get the Scotsman stuff out of the way right up front, too, can we? > [@](#): > > But in the current climate of huge spending and government expansion (that I freely admit pre-dates Obama, but that he’s taken and run with), a conservative message it’s going to resonate. I do recall asking for some evidence of that, not just a repeat of your profession of faith. > [@](#): > > What baffles me is how many of you see those people as “the loons,” “the whack-jobs,” “the crazy people.” It’s a natural, logical reaction to the way government is heading, whether you agree with it or not. What “logic”? What “nature”, for that matter? Yes, it’s reactionary, but reactionism is defined by being simply opposed to (and frightened by) the real world that the majority has chosen to progress with, _not_ by its reflecting any sort of logic or principle. A position that is derived only from emotion, baser emotion at that, and denial is fairly called by those names. The only thing keeping them from being ignored entirely, as they should, is their numbers and their loudness. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/230 "2009-11-03T18:03:20Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > What baffles me is how many of you see those people as “the loons,” “the whack-jobs,” “the crazy people.” It’s a natural, logical reaction to the way government is heading, whether you agree with it or not. 😕 The U.S. government is heading, in a very hesitant, foot-dragging way, with lots of kicking and screaming and obstruction and pullback at every step, in the general direction of a level of public services and welfare that is **normal** for a modern industrial democracy. Why is the teabaggers’ reaction to that a “natural, logical” one? Is everybody out of step but Sammy?! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/231 "2009-11-03T19:24:04Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except they didn’t line up behind Hoffman because of freaking fiscal issues! They lined up because Hoffman was pro-life. You could be right: [Police Called To NY-23 Polling Sites](http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/11/police-called-to-ny-23-polling.html) > [@](#): > > “We’ve gotten reports that people are standing there, covered with Hoffman stickers and yelling anti-choice stuff at voters,” said O’Neill, a St. Lawrence native who has been running the party’s GOTV effort for Bill Owens in NY-23. > “Apparently, there’s some woman claiming to be a commissioner,” O’Neill continued. "Commissioner of what, I don’t know. She’s from Texas, I think, and she won’t leave I’m not seeing anything about fiscal responsibility activists turning out today. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/232 "2009-11-03T19:34:23Z")
[Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29057.html) > [@](#): > > In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010. > > Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others. > … > Florida turns out to be one of many states where Senate candidates favored — in one way or another — by the National Republican Senatorial Committee are facing serious pushback from the grass roots. > > In almost every situation, the lay of the land is the same. Whether it’s California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire or Kentucky, the NRSC has found a candidate who appears to be an exceptionally strong general election prospect — either well-known, well-financed or ideologically well-suited to the state’s politics — who is nevertheless meeting with tough resistance at the grass-roots level from activists who believe the conservative cause would be better served over the long term, even if it means the party nominee loses in the short term. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/233 "2009-11-03T19:55:21Z")
Go, splitters, go! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/234 "2009-11-03T21:02:04Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > [This](http://airamerica.com/theronreaganshow/blog/11-02-2009/limbaugh-and-lieberman-tree/) would be representative of the recent drumbeat on Lieberman. This is nice too: [10 jokes about Joe Lieberman & his threat to filibuster any health care bill which includes a public option](http://trueslant.com/davidrees/2009/11/02/10-jokes-about-joe-lieberman-his-threat-to-filibuster-any-health-care-bill-which-includes-a-public-option/) > [@](#): > > 1. What do you get when you cross Joe Lieberman with a frog? A fascinating, frog-voiced lump of wrinkles whose blood runs cold with reptilian contempt for those in need. And a frog. But let’s not forget that Holy Joe has not actually been a **Democrat** for several years now. He still caucuses with the fools, but he isn’t a Democrat. That makes attacks on him an extra-party matter, rather than a sign of internal fighting. ---
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/235 "2009-11-03T21:05:57Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29057.html) And the circular firing squad pauses to reload . . . ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/236 "2009-11-03T21:53:56Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > [This](http://airamerica.com/theronreaganshow/blog/11-02-2009/limbaugh-and-lieberman-tree/) would be representative of the recent drumbeat on Lieberman. > > [This](http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/?story=/opinion/conason/2009/10/29/joe_lieberman) suddenly became an issue for Salon after Lieberman vowed to filibuster against a public option. > > Your mileage may vary on whether the sudden less-than-positive interest in Lieberman consitutes an attack. I’ve clicked on both links, and it isn’t even clear to me what you’re referring to. Would it trouble you to quote a key passage or two? And JFTR, Ron Reagan is just some bozo who’s famous because his father was. If he’s ‘representative’ of anything on the left, then Limbaugh and Beck _are_ the right. Both of them have created their own followings, and millions of people pay attention to them. Hardly anyone notices what Ron Reagan says. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/237 "2009-11-03T22:17:28Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > What baffles me is how many of you see those people as “the loons,” “the whack-jobs,” “the crazy people.” It’s a natural, logical reaction to the way government is heading, whether you agree with it or not. Making up a bunch of black-helicopter fairy tales the moment a Dem is in the White House, and passing them off as truth, is a “natural, logical reaction” to anything? These must be new definitions of nature and logic that I’ve up to now been unfamiliar with. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/238 "2009-11-03T22:34:52Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except they didn’t line up behind Hoffman because of freaking fiscal issues! They lined up because Hoffman was pro-life. > > Yeah, you’re going to see some primary challenges against moderate Republicans. But they won’t be over fiscal issues, but abortion and gays and the UN and coddling terrorists. > > So yeah, you’re going to see more conservative alternatives, as long as you ignore fiscal issues. If you think there’s going to be net movement towards fiscal conservatism in the Republican caucus, you’re dreaming. That’s inaccurate. Hoffman’s resonant message has been, and I quote: “I want to tell Washington: No more bailouts. No more taxes. No more trillion dollar deficits.” The pro-life/pro-choice dynamic is always going to be there, and those blocs are going to support who they support. But an assertion that Hoffman isn’t rising in NY-23 on fiscal issues and through his saying he’ll “take on the Pelosi agenda in Washington” every other sentence out of his mouth is missing the self-evident. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As soon as you give us some examples of “true conservatives”, or even some explanation of what to most Americans is “true conservatism”. Perhaps we can get the Scotsman stuff out of the way right up front, too, can we? You don’t know what a fiscal conservative is? Lower taxes, controlled spending, less government regulation, generally touting free market principles? I can recall people being voted out of office for NOT being fiscally conservative. I can’t recall any being voted out because they weren’t spending enough taxpayer money or expanding government enough. > [@](#): > > I do recall asking for some evidence of that, not just a repeat of your profession of faith. And I provided poll numbers earlier. Also, think of what many here might call “astroturf, violent teabagger mobs with guns strapped to their backs” as evidence of some people’s dissatisfaction with the direction Obama and Pelosi on fiscal issues and the role of the federal government. > [@](#): > > What “logic”? What “nature”, for that matter? Yes, it’s reactionary, but reactionism is defined by being simply opposed to (and frightened by) the real world that the majority has chosen to progress with, _not_ by its reflecting any sort of logic or principle. You are free to diminish the motivations of the **majorities** opposed to our current levels of government spending and what’s planned for health care reform as you see fit. The poll numbers are what they are – and they have been since at least July. They’ve been provided earlier in this thread. Obama won on a charisma vote and a protest vote. Now that he’s trying to implement his vision, he can’t get anything passed. Even among Democrats. I guess that’s my “profession of faith,” but we’ll see how today’s votes and 2010 turn out. Not to mention whether health care reform passes in the forms in which it exists now, cap-and-trade, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/239 "2009-11-03T22:42:13Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Making up a bunch of black-helicopter fairy tales the moment a Dem is in the White House, and passing them off as truth, is a “natural, logical reaction” to anything? > > These must be new definitions of nature and logic that I’ve up to now been unfamiliar with. That’s what you choose to see and focus on. As if it’s because a Democrat is in the chair that this is happening. Click on the Gallup link provided by me above. Again, it’s not a matter of which side is right or wrong. It’s that a fairly significant and vehement opposition to the level of spending and government expansion that’s being attempted under Obama is a predictable reaction. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/240 "2009-11-03T23:03:24Z")
They ignored the most massive expansion of government and most profligate spending in modern history under Bush. They weren’t out there teabagging each other and painting Hitler mustaches on Bush. Now that Obama is trying to stop the bleeding, they decide to blame him for the headwound? It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s economic policies (which these bozo have no understanding of anyway. There’s absolutely no way they could tell you what they are). All that’s just a pretense, and not one they even work very hard to maintain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942.md?page=13)