Larry King: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- ‘Can A Modern Day Ross Perot Win The White House?’

Source:Larry King– former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to longtime talk show host Larry King.

“Will voter frustration with ‘party politics’ create a wave of support for a modern day Ross Perot? Former presidential candidate Ron Paul tells Larry why it’s so difficult for a third party to succeed.”

From Larry King

I think the main reason why Independent presidential campaigns have failed and have barely won even on state when they’ve run, even the well-funded candidates like Ross Perot in 1992 and 96, or John Anderson in 1992, has to do with party infrastructure. And in the Independents case of even the Reform Party’s case, no party infrastructure.

If you are raising money not just to keep your national presidential campaign going, but money to get ballot access or get in TV debates or just to get on TV, you are digging yourself a bigger hole anytime you try to do anything. The main advantage that the Democrats and Republicans have over even the Center-Right Independents like the Ross Perot’s, has to do with party infrastructure.

The Democrats and Republicans are already on every ballot that they run for office for. Unlike the third-party candidates whether they’re Far-Left like with the Green Party or Libertarian-Right with the Libertarian Party or Center-Right like with the Reform Party candidates, who are not just struggling to keep their campaigns going and stay in business, but then have to raise a lot more money just to try to get ballot access or get into the debates or get on TV at all.

Read Full Post »

PBS NewsHour: Hari Sreenivasan- Nathan Gonzalez: ‘Would a Third Major Party Ease Congressional Gridlock?’

Source:PBS NewsHour– Nathan Gonzalez from the Rothenberg Political Report.

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House.”

From Wikipedia

“For the past 10 years, Gallup has asked: Do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job representing the American people or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed? This week, respondents saying the two major parties did an adequate job hit an all-time low, and the percentage of people saying a third party is needed hit an all-time high. Nathan Gonzales, Deputy Editor of the Rothenberg Political Report joins Hari Sreenivasan from Washington.”

From the PBS NewsHour

I’ve probably said this before on this blog, but I’m a proud Liberal Democrat and expect to be a Democrat my entire life. Unless the Far-Left were to takeover the Democratic Party, which is not likely. More likely would be a socialist third-party emerging that could actually challenge Democrats.

But the two-party-system simply does not work and even though I do blame the Republicans especially their Far-Right and their anti-government Libertarian-Right more on this, one strong political party in America which is the Democratic Party right now if you look at the power, that they have, but also where they are on the issues compared with Americans as a whole, where they are blowing Republicans away right now, is not enough for a large liberal democracy.

One strong political party even if that political party is my party the Democratic Party is simply not enough. The two-party system right now is not just broken, but it is broken and bankrupt and failing. American voters not just themselves with their gerrymandering and their primary systems that in many cases especially the Republican Party, tend to select the most fringe candidates and people who are least interested in governing. And more interested in building their movement and becoming popular. As we see right now in the House Tea Party Caucus.

The current Republican Party is designed to fail and will go out of business as even a potential governing party, probably within ten years. And if that does happen and a real Center-Right party does not emerge to replace the Republican Party, we will become of a one-party-state in a country that is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Not healthy, because that is how centralized dictatorships get created. And why we need short-term at least a new Center-Right party to replace what use to be a Center-Right party in the Republican Party.

Northeastern and Midwest Republicans and Blue Dog and Southern Democrats need to think about creating a new Center-Right party and getting together with Center-Right Independents who are not Republicans, because of either the Religious-Right or the partisanship and the Tea Party calling them rhinos and all of that, to save our political system. Long-term I would like to see a multiple-party system going from Socialists, or Communists on the Far-Left, to Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right. Let everybody be heard and have their voice and let the voters decide who should be in power.

Progressives on the Center-Left and Classical-Liberals Conservatives on the Center-Right, for most likely always be governing America, at least at the Federal level. But short-term we need a strong Center-Right party in America to compete against the Center-Left Democratic Party for the good of our political system. So the Republican Party as it is currently set up doesn’t become a failed party. Without a strong party to replace it.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

Socialist Party USA: ‘Response to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address’

Source:The White House– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union.

“The phrase that came to mind immediately upon hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is “too little, too late.” After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for “economic fairness.” To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich. For working people in America real fairness means the right to a job, a guarantee of healthcare for all and an end to the Military Industrial Complex. Obama won’t deliver this. That’s why I am running for President against him.”

From The Independent Political Report

“President Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.”

From The White House

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America (at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics) have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe, for the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Socialists want to move America to Canada and Europe economically and politically: “So we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) doesn’t trust the private sector to do.

Socialists want the national government running things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions, etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government.

One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus) in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the so-called Progressive Party (not Theodore Roosevelt’s party) bring in the Democratic Socialists USA, the Green Party, leftist Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Socialist Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political party’s. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own movement. But together into one SocialistParty, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord: ‘Sarah Palin to Sean Hannity: I May Run’

Source:The American Spectator– Sean Hannity talking to Tea Party activist Sarah Palin.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Source:The American Spectator:

“Nbsp;Does Sarah Palin have a secret Nixon strategy?

Last night on Hannity (as seen here in Part 1 and here in Part 2) former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin dropped into the Iowa State Fair to say that she is indeed considering a presidential run….and the place went nuts. Calling for an “American Restoration” her appearance drew noisy cheers from the surrounding crowd when she suggested among other things (and here she pointed to the crowd) that it was the job of Americans to be “holding those liars accountable” who insist big government is the answer.

Time moves quickly, and what was interesting in Palin’s appearance was not just the crowd response. It was almost that in her long absence from the presidential campaign, leading many to suggest she was in fact not a candidate, rank-and-file Republicans had scanned the potential candidates and suddenly realized it was Palin they had loved all along.

If in fact Palin finally jumps into this race, there is an interesting historical precedent for the idea that a self-enforced absence from the political scene makes the public’s heart grow fonder for the missing candidate.

In 1967 Richard Nixon, rejuvenated by the GOP success in the 1966 elections (like the GOP 2010 victories a stunning GOP comeback) and wanting badly to have a second shot in 1968 after his narrow loss to JFK in 1960, had an interesting strategy. He believed his biggest problem was the belief by many that, in his words, “Nixon can’t win.” How to ge around this? While privately telling his closest friends he wanted them to move ahead with plans to run, publicly he announced that he would spend 1967 in a self-imposed political “moratorium.” Nixon later wrote:

… I considered the ability to remain officially undecided for as long as possible to be one of my greatest advantages. Not only would this allow me more independence, but the speculation about my intentions guaranteed far more media attention than I would have if I announced…

Here’s another interesting coincidence. The front runner of the day in 1967 for the GOP? That would be the popular Republican Governor of Michigan – Mitt Romney’s dad, George. Nixon said the risk in letting Romney have all the attention in 1967

was carefully calculated. George Romney would be out front taking the heat from the press and the pundits while I continued my quiet planning.…

In the end, Romney did step in it, saying he had been brainwashed while in Vietnam by the LBJ folks. Nixon, on the sidelines, suddenly looked very responsible — and electable. Palin is decidedly not Nixon. Still… a famous old strategy for someone dismissed as not being able to win can still be a good one.

And based on her Iowa appearance and the response from the crowd watching her newsworthy re-emergence on Hannity, Palin may suddenly be a serious threat not just to Romney but every other GOP candidate as well.

Palin will make her decision by the end of this month or early September, she has said.

Stay tuned.” From Jeffrey Lord.

“In a June 3, 2011 interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News , former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressed frustration over the Republican Party and hinted of a possible third party run in 2012.

“You know what, a year ago I would have said please don’t even consider third party,” Palin told Hannity. “I think conditions have changed in this last year…if they’re not careful in the GOP there will be a third party rise up just like back in the day when the Whigs finally went away and Republicans rose up.”

Please proceed to The New Conservative Journal for the full transcript of this portion of Gov. Palin’s interview.”

Source:

From the Conservative Journal

It would be a great day for the Republican Party and a bad day for comedians, pundits and bloggers if Sarah Palin left the GOP to run for President. Probably for some Far-Right third-party.

She doesn’t have a blizzard’s chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination for president in 2012 and perhaps ever. Because the GOP establishment has essentially told her, perhaps even to her face that she won’t win it. Because they are looking for a presidential nominee that can beat the President and win the White House in 2012.

Which is why Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty look so good to them right now. And why Mitch Daniels had he decided to run for President for 2012, would’ve look so good to them as well.

The GOP establishment wants to win in 2012. While the GOP base is looking for a presidential nominee that’s perfect in their mind ideologically. Especially on social issues where Sarah Palin fits in so well with them: anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc, where they don’t trust Mitt Romney.

Sarah Palin doesn’t belong in a major political party like the GOP. But at the head of a fringe Far-Right party. And the GOP would be better off if she left them for good.

Read Full Post »