third (3)

Splitting the Vote

There's a lot of discussion among Tea Partiers over whether we should be trying to take back the Republican Party from within by running conservative candidates aas Republicans or forming a new third party to compete with the GOP.

I am, and unless things get a whole lot worse will continue to be, firmly in the camp of taking over the Republican party from within, because election history has shown that conservative third party candidates almost always succeed only in splitting a small percentage of votes from the Republican candidate, often giving the Democrat a victory with less that 50% of the vote.

Arizona 2012 is a perfect example of this effect. In two of the state's nine Congressional districts (districts 1 and 9), a formerly Republican district turned Democrat (including the fanatic communist Kyrstin Sinema) because a Libertarian candidate won about 6% of the vote that would otherwise almost certainly have gone to the Republican candidate. Arizona, which before had 3 Democrat districts to 6 Republican, now shamefully slides to having 5 Democrat districts to only 4 Republican.

Here the "Independent Political Report" proudly touts the impact of Libertarian candidates on the elections in Arizona. Proud? Of handing a strongly conservative state a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives? In what twisted way is that a victory for conservatives?

I don't know how many other districts suffered similar results across the country, but this to me shows that you can't simply plough through human psychology with sincerity, truth, facts, or knowledge. Things have to get a whole awful lot worse before the masses are ready to abandon the comfort of the GOP in the 90% proportions necessary for a third party to win elections. That is going to be a massive emotional reaction--not a rational one.
Read more…
I hear plenty of talk of write-in votes for the 2012 presidential race. Apparently the people that intend to write-in a candidate don't understand the repercussions of their planned actions. A write-in vote is the same as a vote for Obama.
Not all Conservatives will be happy with the GOP nomination, but writing in your favorite candidate is not only unwise but selfish.
A write-in candidate has no chance of winning. No third party candidate has a chance of winning. Hence, a vote for a write-in or third party candidate is a wasted vote. It equates a vote for liberalism. Can you say Ross Perot?
The future of our freedom is at stake. Every vote is needed to defeat the socialist movement.
I understand people's convictions; however, common sense must prevail. The country may not survive another four years of this administration.
In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt ran as a progressive and split the GOP vote with Taft and as a result Woodrow Wilson won the election.
Think! Think of what we are fighting for. Think of what we are fighting against. We are on the same side! There is too much at stake.
--Kevin Cronin
Read more…

Tea Party Loses Way, Forgets King-making
Embraces Third-Party Status??
It’s beginning to look like many in the TEA Party have decided that acting in “its” perceived best interest and not in the nation’s best interest is the way to go . . . ho hum, ho hum just another political party that doesn’t understand the difference between winning and vainglory. Truly a sad state of affairs given the TEA (Taxed enough already) Party’s tremendous initial integrity and promise. Rajjpuut believes that thanks to the inclusion of the TEA Party in the affairs of the nation this November, the chances of the Democrats to maintain, or even advance their majorities in the House and Senate have dramatically increased. That is, the once great hope for America, for winning back the country, is proving to be just another short-sighted third party effort.
TEA Party candidates running in primaries, trying to get elected? Sounds like an enormous waste of time and money. Sounds like a sure way to become part of the corrupt system rather than to actually reform it. Rajjpuut would point all TEA Party folks toward the thoughtful example of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican statehood . . . no, no, we're NOT talking about Obama . . . .
The ultra-cynical Barack Obama would like to make Puerto Rico into the 51st State. If he succeeds, he will actually have created real jobs for flagmakers, wow, the very first success of his misguided regime. Mr. Obama, however, is clearly NOT thinking about jobs for flagmakers or for anyone else. He has embarked on a desperate gamble. He needs to add about fifteen million Hispanics to the voting rolls, keep them in a riled up “revolutionary fever-pitch” and use their votes (expecting to win a split of about 80-20 or 85-15 for the Democrats at the ballot boxes) to dominate the elections of 2012 and 2014 and enshrine the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party as the permanent holder of the White House and both chambers of Congress. If you thought he’d brought us hell on earth in 2009 and 2010 . . . consider the specter of “President-for-life” Barack Obama – doesn’t that just thrill you?
Mr. Obama, passing his desired Immigration “Reform” bill into law and once he becomes “el dictador” (the dictator) here could than impose statehood on Puerto Rico from outside if he chooses to, but that’s the only way Puerto Rico would be dragged into the USA. You see, Mr. Obama doesn’t understand PR politics and the model of PR politics is also the model the TEA Party leadership does NOT understand either. The survival of the TEA Party and the utter defeat of the Obama regime depends upon the TEA Party wising up . . . QUICKLY and adopting the PR model. Let Ol’ Rajjpuut make this perfectly clear in case you're not aware of what goes in Puerto Rico . . . .
The single-most burning issue in PR politics for the last sixty years has been American Statehood. Like Hamlet’s vacillation, it’s a major question of “To be or not to be . . . .” In 1952, the Puerto Rican people made a huge deal of demanding (and getting) PR recognized legally with commonwealth status (in Spanish “un estado libre associado” or 'a free but associated state'). Puerto Rico is by law thus a free territory associated with the United States. This single issue has so dominated political thinking for the last six decades that three separate political parties arguing this issue more than any other, have risen up to dominate PR politics. These three sides have been arguing this issue and controlling the country until recently when another seemingly-intelligent fourth side has emerged. We’ll ignore the arising fourth party, its influence is not yet clear, except to say they have chosen perhaps the wisest ground of all, they refuse to get involved in statehood at all which could prove to be a very popular stand and devote themselves to more mundane matters in island life . . . oh, by the way, to be fully accurate there are nineteen political parties in PR but up till now on the most important question of all and on other very important questions only three of these parties have mattered. Understanding that the situation is very fluid in PR and that influence from one party flows easily to other parties within their nineteen parties, here’s what’s going on:
A. The right-wing organization los “Estadistas” believes that the future of Puerto Rico should be aligned with the United State, better yet within the United States. They say that everything good now going on will be amplified a hundredfold and all miseries would be reduced tenfold if PR becomes the 51st state. Their strength from year to year varies from 30-37% with 33-34% of the people agreeing with them on statehood at a given vote. They're somewhat like our Republican Party.
B. There is a left-wing organzation los “Independentistas” that wants Puerto Rico to become a free nation. The most progressive among them actually hate the United States and paint the United States as an empire that dominates and exploits them. Think of them as our revolutionary-progressive Democrats here seeking to fundamentally transform their island. Depending upon economic conditions, their popularity oscillates between 32-38% with 35% of voters typically voting with them on the statehood issue.
C. The third major party when it comes to the big question of statehood is actually not so much a third party but a third way of thinking. They are officially the Commonwealth Party. Every time the issue of statehood comes up for a ballot (Puerto Ricans love voting on this issue far more than any other) their utterly INexpensive and utterly effective campaigning features a lot of volunteers parading around with a few signs emphasizing the beauty of “el estatus quo” or keeping things just the way they are. The Commonwealth Party membership varies from 27-34% with 30% being typical support on the issue of Statehood. While they are not always effective on other issues, the Commonwealth Party always wins the statehood vote because they stake out and dominate the middle ground and the other two positions are mutually exclusive. The common wealth party also does tend to enjoy a far greater domination in issues other than statehood despite their low numbers as they almost universally stake out the middle ground and later when a coalition government is formed, the commonwealth party is one of the few almost always invited to the table by the other parties. In so far as any nation with 19 parties can be dominated by one political party the Commonwealth Party dominates Puerto Rican politics . . . most importantly they exercise this domination by only winning on one issue: statehood.
Rajjpuut would suggest to TEA Party leadership that WINNING (and thus saving our nation) is far more important than just looking good. What does that mean?
For one possible example of the probable wrong course, Rand Paul, a nominal libertarian^^ just won a state primary over a heavily backed Republican candidate. Rand might win in November, but then again he might not. He’s not a Republican and will not have the fund-raising of the Republicans behind him -- NOR SHOULD HE, they've got their own troubles and their own candidates. Those in the know say it’s 50-50 Paul wins in November; Rajjpuut says its fairly unlikely he’ll win . . . votes follow money, unfortunately. While Rajjpuut would clearly prefer Rand Paul over 94% of Democrats and over 100% of progressive Republicans and/or progressive Democrats . . . politics is a profession built upon hard work and practicality which means "MONEY." And that is the dilemma of all third parties in America and all grass-roots movements everywhere: Piling up money and doing the hard work while never being tempted to make shortcuts to get that all-too-crucial monetary backing is essential but -- just as cleanliness is next to Godliness in politics, it's also next to impossible.
Why is the TEA Party even considering nominating candidates? Our early successes have gone to our heads. And the early successes have impressed Republicans and shocked and angered a few Democrats. The TEA Party integrity has also been a refreshing new addition to the American political scene – in fact, Rajjpuut would say the TEA Party integrity and winning . . . highlight the most favorable path ahead: like the Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico let's be real conservatives on fiscal matters and the Constitution and possibly a few more associated matters (such as the TEA Party “Contract FROM America” perhaps the single-greatest political document since the Magana Carta and TEA Party leadership is letting it languish on the sidelines instead of relentlessly educating Americans (“This, this ‘Contract FROM America’ is what we are all about.”) Let’s say the TEA Party’s effectiveness in winning is right about 67-68%. That’s amazing for not having any money. But this figure needs to be tempted by reality and practicality: Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, for example, has done some minor good but sided with Obama on three critical issues so where does that leave us when Brown comes up for a vote? Rajjpuut suggests, it leaves us right where we should be . . . holding Brown's feet to the fire while comparing him to other candidates.
Imagine this lovely scenario: by staying a low-budget, deeply patriotic non-violent group who’s integrity comes to be admired by even the mainstream media (that's not appearing likely yet, eh?) that concentrates on conservative fiscal and constitutional matters (such as repealing Obamacare as a violation of the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment; and amending the Constitution so that all bills must delineate why and where they are justified within the Constitution) say we set as a goal: expanding our power and influence so that the TEA Party supported candidates and issues win 75% . . . the TEA Party becomes the nation’s kingmakers here in America just as the Commonwealth Party dominates in Puerto Rico. That’s an easily achievable and far more noble goal than becoming** another political party.
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
^^ Rajjpuut is a Libertarian and Rand Paul truly does NOT FULLY understand the political thinking of libertarianism as seen by his comments on the civil rights law -- where he argued about angels on the heads of pins rather than just being "Libertarian practical" and saying (to himself) "it's the law of the land and I agree with 99% of it, so I'll keep my mouth shut." For all practical purposes the Civil Rights Law of '64 is as perfect as its ever going to be, shut up and move on to Fiscal Conservativism and Constitutional Conservativism as the only subjects you talk to reporters about. See Rajjpuut's critique of this issue here:
similarly when abortion is brought up: "It's the law of the land" move on to talka about Fiscal Conservativism and Constitutional Conservativism, AMEN!
**This could change for the TEA Party in say, six or eight years as they gain America's esteem . . . and it might become desirable to become a vote-seeking party. But ask yourself this, if winning and advancing the two major conservative issues is all that matters (Rajjpuut says it is NOW and for the foreseeable future) than how much more effective can a political party be than 75%??? Not to mention that political parties and politicians tend to get corrupted. It’s more difficult at first, but after awhile they all lose their integrity. Isn’t it better to be the one holding feet to the fire, than being the one whose “vision slips”???? Better to strategically control the fray while staying apart from it and maintaining one's objectivity and integrity, NO?
Read more…