DescentBB

The Gingrich bandwagon seems to have derailed rather quickly..........
damn, there goes one of the few 'ideas' people on the right, with the wits to put those ideas forth.

I wonder what happened? Everyone jumped ship. Maybe it was sinking?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket ... ign-resign

didn't care for Gingrich anyways

Good riddance (if he does in fact leave.)

From Newts past affiliations, I'd say good riddance to another rino. The left liked Newt because they know Obama would beat him and so you don't see the vitriol that you do against Palin. As to being a thinking man, Newt stopped thinking conservatively after his Contract with America plan dried up.

lol

RINO.

You do realize that phrase is destroying the Republican party, right?

null0010 wrote:lol

RINO.

You do realize that phrase is destroying the Republican party, right?

and has been for nearly a decade.......shhhhhhhush!

null0010 wrote:lol

RINO.

You do realize that phrase is destroying the Republican party, right?

Not the phrase, but the people who wear the tag.

What, you mean the people who *gasp* hold moderate positions and are *gasp gasp* willing to compromise to get things done?

Maybe what we need is a "Moderate" party and call it the RiMoDi party.

woodchip wrote:Maybe what we need is a "Moderate" party and call it the RiMoDi party.

call it what you wish, but such a party would represent around 70% of the population far better than either of the present 'major' parties.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Maybe what we need is a "Moderate" party and call it the RiMoDi party.

call it what you wish, but such a party would represent around 70% of the population far better than either of the present 'major' parties.

You recognize that yet you wouldn't dare advocate abandoning your party! (don't feel singled out, there are many here on the right that I target with the same accusation)
If enough of that 70% would actually show up and vote 'other' just one or two cycles and send off a few letters explaining why they did it you would see the smarter politicians scramble to take the lead of the movement that 70% created with their vote against the status quo and a new viable party would be born.
It would be like giant emema for D.C.

Will Robinson wrote:You recognize that yet you wouldn't dare advocate abandoning your party! (don't feel singled out, there are many here on the right that I target with the same accusation)

you clearly don't know me well enough. I have both been a thorn in the side to the party, and have abandoned it in several races where I backed moderate Repubs with my time and money.

If enough of that 70% would actually show up and vote 'other' just one or two cycles and send off a few letters explaining why they did it you would see the smarter politicians scramble to take the lead of the movement that 70% created with their vote against the status quo and a new viable party would be born.
It would be like giant emema for D.C.

sadly, it's not that easy. It would be more likely to be effective if those 70% put Moderate Reps and Dems into power and explained it to the fringe wingnuts on either extreme.

What moderate candidates from both sides do you see as fitting to lead America back to it's former glory?

flip wrote:What moderate candidates from both sides do you see as fitting to lead America back to it's former glory?

fair enough question, as it's become a dwindling number. On the Dem side, folks like Evan Bayh, Bob Casey, Jim Webb, Bill Bradley. On the GOP side, one could be extremely limited at present, but there are sensible folks out there, if you look hard enough. Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch and others are sensible, decent people.

"Former glory" seems like a bit of a misnomer, too. The basic fact is that the United States is never going to occupy the same exact position that it held for much of the past fifty or sixty years...the world has changed, and there are new powers rising and evolving. Maybe a much better goal to shoot for would be improving our country's internal state and allowing us to maintain a strong position of relevance on the global stage.

Can argue but with one remark in that statement. It has always been about the global stage. Go and read The Communist Manifesto of which I'm no supporter, but it does give a good representation to the order of things before industrialization. The idea to rule the world is a common thread throughout history and a lot of the same bloodlines.

What moderate candidates from both sides do you see as fitting to lead America back to it's former glory?

I am interested in Mitt Romney if he makes it past the primary. His record is socially liberal, fiscally conservative; and this country hasn't seen one of those in a very long time. He doesn't "talk" that way these days, but I think thats how he would end up in office.

I worry he would pull a John McCain and get an ultra conservative running mate to "fire up the base"

I still think I'm gonna wait till the players are set. One idea I've had, is to write every congressman or senator that I feel would have a chance with the real American public. An American Globalist. See, I can do that ★■◆● too

callmeslick wrote:..
sadly, it's not that easy. It would be more likely to be effective if those 70% put Moderate Reps and Dems into power and explained it to the fringe wingnuts on either extreme.

No, because that wouldn't be seen as a defection, everyone would still be voting for their respective party and some of your moderates wouldn't deliver, they will be assimilated or marginalized by the old guard so there would be no sign of a groundswell of discontent. No buzz.

70% voting 3rd party out of outright revolt would be a million times more effective than 70% voting 35% moderate repub and 35% voting moderate dem! Hell they might not even notice a change doing it your way and your letter of explanation would explain what? 'You still voted for the party but boy you really meant to let them have it'?!?

I would take having good people in congress over sending them a message anyday.

Will Robinson wrote:70% voting 3rd party out of outright revolt would be a million times more effective than 70% voting 35% moderate repub and 35% voting moderate dem! Hell they might not even notice a change doing it your way and your letter of explanation would explain what? 'You still voted for the party but boy you really meant to let them have it'?!?

I don't disagree in principle here, Will, it's just that the odds are almost so stacked as to make your vision an impossibility doomed to failure. Try getting a third party candidate onto the ballot in PA, for example.

Heh, seriously. Not that I've been able to vote in many elections yet, but I've yet to see a third-party candidate appear on one of our ballots that wasn't presidential. Hell, the only reason I registered with a party is because we have godawful closed primaries.

Gooberman wrote:I am interested in Mitt Romney if he makes it past the primary. His record is socially liberal, fiscally conservative; and this country hasn't seen one of those in a very long time. He doesn't "talk" that way these days, but I think thats how he would end up in office.

I worry he would pull a John McCain and get an ultra conservative running mate to "fire up the base"

you point up my real problem with Romney. He seems so hell-bent on getting the nomination, I suspect he would go to any extreme. He could actually prove to be far more dangerous due to that fact. Also, I just don't see the intellect, sorry. I see a pure politician, willing to do or say anything to get elected. Say what you wish about Obama, he gets good marks for at least trying to deliver what he promised, under difficult legislative conditions(even in the first two years). Romney was one thing running against Ted Kennedy, another running for governor, another in 2008 and now, morphing a bit more to get into the 2012 race. That isn't a leader...

a bit of elaboration, re: PA election law.
To get on the ballot as an independent/third party candidate, you have to file a nominating petition, with signatures from a number of voters equal to 1.5% of the total vote in the prior election for that level office.
Further, for statewide or national elections, those petitions(requiring roughly 20-25,000 VALID signatures, have to be circulated in EACH district ONLY by residents of that specific district. This is a near impossible task, requiring the candidate to have over 500 individuals from every part of the state to collect around 30,000 signature, due to the rate of tossouts on challenge.
Think you're going to see many independents on the PA ballot?

I always knew our state was ass-backwards in so many ways.

Seems ehow has a different take on the matter than you do slick.


http://www.ehow.com/list_6864108_pennsy ... -laws.html

I suspect Slick is not used to having has “facts” checked.

Ehow may not be correct either I just couldn't find the PA law on the web.

[ Post made via Android ]

Yea, looks like you did jump the gun.

http://www.paballotaccess.org/

I can't find the actual law online. It's Pennsylvania Election Code 25 P.S. $2911, where $ is that funky double-s symbol instead. But I was able to dig up some official PA government sources, including court rulings.

According to this page it takes 2000 signatures for a Republican or Democrat to get on a statewide primary ballot for most offices, and winners of major party primaries go on the general ballot with no additional signatures. (The "Nomination Petitions" procedure is used for major parties; "Nominating Papers" is used for others, and despite the similar names, the procedures are quite different.)

As of right now, this page says it takes 19,082 signatures for all others (linked under "signature requirements") to get on the statewide ballot via the "Nominating Papers" route, due to the requirement that the number of signatures equal 2% of the largest vote-getter's votes in the previous election. In one election it took 67,070 signatures, which was challenged as unconstitutional but upheld. For another dry read, try this ruling on a local election.

http://www.paballotaccess.org/ notes that Pennsylvania is an outlier on this front, and legislation has been introduced to reduce the signature requirement to match that of the major parties.

you point up my real problem with Romney. He seems so hell-bent on getting the nomination, I suspect he would go to any extreme. He could actually prove to be far more dangerous due to that fact.

They are all that way except Ron Paul, and I can't see him getting the nomination. With Romney, its tough to say, we live in a country where having mixed positions basically disqualifies you form being President.

So what do you do? You either not become president, because our system doesn't allow mixed positions. This just tends to keep things as they are.

Or, you change them, so that you can get elected.

Take for example Obama, I would bet he does support gay rights. He has made some significant, or at least not actively tride to block, strides in that area that his campaign rhetoric didn't suggest.

So would it have been better to for Obama to pull a Ron Paul, only saying exactly how he felt on every issue and thus not getting elected? And thus h/we wouldn't have this change that h/we support?

I just don't think its clear cut.

Heretic wrote:Seems ehow has a different take on the matter than you do slick.


http://www.ehow.com/list_6864108_pennsy ... -laws.html

thems the rules for those filing as a member of one of the two major parties. Independents follow completely different rules. I double-checked and the rule is pegged at 2% of the winning vote total in the previous election at a given level. Same effect, roughly 20-25,000 signatures to run for a statewide race.

Spidey wrote:I suspect Slick is not used to having has “facts” checked.

and, if so, I suspect you are a quick-to-judge type. You can apologize at your convenience, now that you've checked your facts.

Gooberman wrote:

you point up my real problem with Romney. He seems so hell-bent on getting the nomination, I suspect he would go to any extreme. He could actually prove to be far more dangerous due to that fact.

They are all that way except Ron Paul,{/quote]

you know, I had that thought while watching the other night, "damn, Paul may be nuttier than Aunt Emma's fruitcake, but he has kept the same tune for a decade or more".

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I suspect Slick is not used to having has “facts” checked.

and, if so, I suspect you are a quick-to-judge type. You can apologize at your convenience, now that you've checked your facts.

That’s funny, I recall accusing you of the very same thing…I guess that means we are even now.

Here, have a squid