Conservative 3rd Party in 2012 - Gingrich Warns

Discussion in 'Politics' started by American Horse, Apr 4, 2009.

  1. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget"

    “If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

    “Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

    “If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

    In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

    It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.

    It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.

    The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?

    Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.

    Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.
     
  2. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.
     
  3. mash107
    Offline

    mash107 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    570
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    There are too many "conservatives" who don't firmly believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a complete and total abject failure and waste of taxpayer money. In 2000, I was looking forward to a shrinking of government, less spending, less inflation and less taxes. We got none. The tax cuts were a joke, and since spending never decreased, it meant less job creation and more inflation. It's mere partisan hackery that's sunk us into bankruptcy, and while Obama has certainly pushed us off the cliff, the blame lies squarely on the decades of excessive spending and regulation by both R's and D's that has gotten us here.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,513
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,922
    Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.
     
  5. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    That may be true, but I don't see a third party candidate having a chance any time soon.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,513
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,922
    The claim is NOT that a new party will win in 2012, just that a new one will become viable. Took the Republican party I believe the 3rd National election to win. Might have been the second.
     
  7. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    when they say viable, do they mean like Ross Perot viable?
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,513
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,922
    Viable would mean that it does not fold and vanish after one election. That it continues to grow and become stronger. That it does not let the Press decide it should blow away cause it did not win it's first election.
     
  9. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    to be viable, the candidate has to be allowed at the debate like Perot was.
     
  10. WorldAHope
    Offline

    WorldAHope Ready to Rock n' Roll

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    415
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +45
    There are enough moderate and conservative GOP members sick of what has happened to split and form new parties/party.
    I think it would be good, as far as representation. But for 2012, it would ensure an Obama re-election.
    The GOP is totally screwed up right now. Moderates are excluded, and have to go to Independent or to even being Democrats.
    We will probably see a third party form, maybe soon after the GOP has a disastrous 2010.
    It would will make the USA like Israel or Britain or Canada - multiparty legislatures.
    Which means Dems will be more organized and better financed, and will rule for at least a few more elections.
    Is that good ? From my view as a New Yorker, where Dems have tight control, I don't like one
    party rule. Without real honest competition, corruption and personal greed become the ruler.
    Not good.
     

Share This Page