Conservative 3rd Party in 2012 - Gingrich Warns

[Zoomie1980]

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.

Newt is simply WRONG. Throughout post WWII history our significant third party movements have done nothing except guarantee election to the other side. John Andersen helped Ronald Reagan roll to power in what became a conservative, 20 year tide. Ross Perot handed the Presidency to Clinton as Bush would have won EASILY without Perot. Ralph Nader and other left-wing fringe candidates turned Florida for Bush, without Nader on the ballot Gore would have won easily and we never would have had a Bush Jr...


If any third party is to take root and alter the political landscape, it will be a CENTRIST party. One that has no problem with social left issues like Stem Cells, Gay Marriage, Abortion, but at the same time has no tolerance for deficit spending or a weak military or soft foreign policy....

 

[DiveCon]

Cherry, if this economy isn't sustantially better by twenty ten the dems who are already unpopular as hell congressionally will do well to hold even a slim majority in either house of congress.

you can BANK that

 

[DiveCon]

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.

Newt is simply WRONG. Throughout post WWII history our significant third party movements have done nothing except guarantee election to the other side. John Andersen helped Ronald Reagan roll to power in what became a conservative, 20 year tide. Ross Perot handed the Presidency to Clinton as Bush would have won EASILY without Perot. Ralph Nader and other left-wing fringe candidates turned Florida for Bush, without Nader on the ballot Gore would have won easily and we never would have had a Bush Jr...


If any third party is to take root and alter the political landscape, it will be a CENTRIST party. One that has no problem with social left issues like Stem Cells, Gay Marriage, Abortion, but at the same time has no tolerance for deficit spending or a weak military or soft foreign policy....

anderson wasnt a democrat and he handed nothing to Reagan

 

[Zoomie1980]

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.

Newt is simply WRONG. Throughout post WWII history our significant third party movements have done nothing except guarantee election to the other side. John Andersen helped Ronald Reagan roll to power in what became a conservative, 20 year tide. Ross Perot handed the Presidency to Clinton as Bush would have won EASILY without Perot. Ralph Nader and other left-wing fringe candidates turned Florida for Bush, without Nader on the ballot Gore would have won easily and we never would have had a Bush Jr...


If any third party is to take root and alter the political landscape, it will be a CENTRIST party. One that has no problem with social left issues like Stem Cells, Gay Marriage, Abortion, but at the same time has no tolerance for deficit spending or a weak military or soft foreign policy....

anderson wasnt a democrat and he handed nothing to Reagan

Andersen took almost ALL his votes from Carter voters.....

 

[DiveCon]

Newt is simply WRONG. Throughout post WWII history our significant third party movements have done nothing except guarantee election to the other side. John Andersen helped Ronald Reagan roll to power in what became a conservative, 20 year tide. Ross Perot handed the Presidency to Clinton as Bush would have won EASILY without Perot. Ralph Nader and other left-wing fringe candidates turned Florida for Bush, without Nader on the ballot Gore would have won easily and we never would have had a Bush Jr...


If any third party is to take root and alter the political landscape, it will be a CENTRIST party. One that has no problem with social left issues like Stem Cells, Gay Marriage, Abortion, but at the same time has no tolerance for deficit spending or a weak military or soft foreign policy....

anderson wasnt a democrat and he handed nothing to Reagan

Andersen took almost ALL his votes from Carter voters.....

well, he was a republican
and how would he take Carter voters when THEY voted for Carter

 

[Silver Diva]

Newt is either mouthing off as a politician, or he is stupider than I thought he was! Right now, and for the past several years, the country has been split almost evenly between the Democrats and the Republicans. The best course of action for the Republicans is to move towards the center and then attract some of the conservative Democrats. If there is third Conservative party that moves further to the Right, all they will accomplish is split the Republicans further. And besides, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want a third party - and if there is one unifying issue, it is that there should not be a viable third party in American politics!!

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Cherry, if this economy isn't sustantially better by twenty ten the dems who are already unpopular as hell congressionally will do well to hold even a slim majority in either house of congress.

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

 

[mash107]

Newt is either mouthing off as a politician, or he is stupider than I thought he was! Right now, and for the past several years, the country has been split almost evenly between the Democrats and the Republicans. The best course of action for the Republicans is to move towards the center and then attract some of the conservative Democrats. If there is third Conservative party that moves further to the Right, all they will accomplish is split the Republicans further. And besides, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want a third party - and if there is one unifying issue, it is that there should not be a viable third party in American politics!!

You still think the political spectrum is as simple as left and right?

You should think it of more along the lines of authoritarian and non-authoritarian. The Democrats has always been authoritarian, and now the Republicans, under Bush, have grown drastically more authoritarian as well. They need to support human rights once again, as Newt says, in order to win more votes.

 

[Annie]

Newt is either mouthing off as a politician, or he is stupider than I thought he was! Right now, and for the past several years, the country has been split almost evenly between the Democrats and the Republicans. The best course of action for the Republicans is to move towards the center and then attract some of the conservative Democrats. If there is third Conservative party that moves further to the Right, all they will accomplish is split the Republicans further. And besides, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want a third party - and if there is one unifying issue, it is that there should not be a viable third party in American politics!!

You still think the political spectrum is as simple as left and right?

You should think it of more along the lines of authoritarian and non-authoritarian. The Democrats has always been authoritarian, and now the Republicans, under Bush, have grown drastically more authoritarian as well. They need to support human rights once again, as Newt says, in order to win more votes.

Indeed.

Noozhawk.com - Locals Join Tea Party Protest Against Escalating Government Spending - Local News - local news and information for Santa Barbara County

...Speakers and protesters alike decried Obama’s $3.5 trillion spending plan that Congress approved last week on party-line votes, $12.8 trillion in bailouts and loan pledges, universal health care, and what they saw as growing government intrusion on the free market.

“They are taking more control of American business,” De Wees said. “They are telling American business what they can earn, what they can not earn, what products to develop.”...

Some unexpected people showing up all over the country, protesting the loss of their children's and grandchildren's future wealth. There are already signs that the status quo is being disrupted, Congressmen have changed their votes.

 

[American Horse]

Conservative 3rd Party in 2012 - Gingrich Warns

That will most likely happen if the Republicans don't change. When George H.W. Bush was in office, Ross Perot was able to get 10% of the vote. We might see something similar in 2012. I doubt this new 3rd party has any chance of winning in 2012, but they could get enough of the vote to either force the GOP to change or get enough converts to become viable in 2016. I fear, though, that it might be too late for the country by then.

This will be entirely different from the Ross Perot phenomenon.

This will be a political re-alignment. The 1980 electon, at the time, was called a re-alignment. But this will be more so because it will consist of all those in the R-party who believe their party no longer stands for its principles, and also a huge percentage from the D-party who don’t understand their party any longer, and doubt that it stands for the same things they do; and those are conservative principles. The average D. I come in contact are about as conservative as I am, and no more so than I am in regards to helping the poor achieve self sufficiency through meaningful work. Add to that the so called Moderate, at least half of which can be won over, and then we have a real political re-alignment.

The argument that party loyalty dominates congressional committees and seniority and stifles alternative party viability will no longer apply. That’s because those who see philosophical principles trumping party because of public outcry will want to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. I for one would like to see the replacement of the R party by a C party. That would enable a whole raft of new talent to begin to lead, and define the differences between the two leading political philosophies in our country today. Money will be the largest part of the difficulty, but public awareness can replace the usual one-minute blurbs on TV and radio.

Our "problems" will become more and more understood in the next two to four years, to the degree that the public’s deepest concerns can be understood in spite of MSM distortions. The bankruptcy of many liberal newspapers, and the growth of FNC (Fox Nation) as a favored news source, is a first symptom that people are no longer buying what they're selling. We can expect to see all these April 15th Tea Parties ignored or buried by the MSM, but not by FNC, and most will be excited by it. Aware people will take notice in spite of the stranglehold the MSM has over reporting, and reject it even more.

Barack Obama will be our best ally in accomplishing this, because we will all tire of his constant sniping, demonizing of his political foes, complaining about how hard it all is, and the change that he is pushing is bound to create major problems in short order. Most of us, even supporters, expected something different from Obama, like his new politics of reaching out to everyone, which any objective observer can see is anything but.

A good signal of how the R's are taking this seriously is that they vote unanimously against his major proposals. This means that the D's own it.

 

[DiveCon]

Cherry, if this economy isn't sustantially better by twenty ten the dems who are already unpopular as hell congressionally will do well to hold even a slim majority in either house of congress.

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

if you havent noticed, congress is BELOW 20%


btw, you are showing signs of BDS, seek out proffesional help, he's not in office anymore

 

[garyd]

By damn near everyone Cherry Democratic congress under Bush ran lower popularity numbers than Bush. Even with Obama carrying water for them now they still have a popularity rating that's barely in Double digits. Obama may be able to dodge the blame for this crap but the Congressional dems sure as hell can't given that they were the party in power in congress when the shit hit the fan.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Cherry, if this economy isn't sustantially better by twenty ten the dems who are already unpopular as hell congressionally will do well to hold even a slim majority in either house of congress.

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

if you havent noticed, congress is BELOW 20%


btw, you are showing signs of BDS, seek out proffesional help, he's not in office anymore

Obviously, you are showing signs of CDS: Calendar Dysfunctional Syndrome.

It's no longer December.

Hasn't been for several months.

March 2, 2009
Poll: New popularity boost for Congress
Posted: 12:00 PM ET

From CNN's Lauren Kornreich

(CNN) – The new Congress is getting higher marks than the last, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll.

Both congressional Democrats and Republicans have enjoyed an increase in their popularity over the past two months, according to the survey released Monday. Democrats saw their approval rating go from 36 percent in December to 47 percent in the latest poll.

After hitting an all-time low in Gallup’s records in December with a 25 percent approval rating, Republicans have also seen their numbers begin to rise. According to the latest poll, 36 percent approve of the job Republicans are doing in Congress....

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll: New popularity boost for Congress « - Blogs from CNN.com

 

[InrXeyelArkvst]

I agree with the second part, but how did Perot get in? was he allowed into the debates, and therefore got the 17 percent, or the other way around?

Back in '92 the percentage required something like only 10%. Then I believe the bar was raised to 12% for '96 and has been 15% since Y2K. They found the magic number to stifle true debate and reinstill leastoftheworst and whybotherness in 3rders.

​

 

[InrXeyelArkvst]

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

In wins by less than 1000? Wasn't everyone blaming Naders Raiders for Gore's deficiencies? How secure is Franken without small i help?

​

 

[DiveCon]

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

In wins by less than 1000? Wasn't everyone blaming Naders Raiders for Gore's deficiencies? How secure is Franken without small i help?

​

gore didnt lose by 1000
he lost because he lost his HOME state

Ten goes to Gore, he wins
but he couldnt even win with those that knew him BEST

LOL

 

[Terry]

It starts in the local elections, this is where 3rd parties will win. After 8 years there will be enough 3rd party people to run for Senate, and President.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

In wins by less than 1000? Wasn't everyone blaming Naders Raiders for Gore's deficiencies? How secure is Franken without small i help?

​

The poster was referring to members of Congress, so I was, too.

IOW, any present Democratic U.S. Representative or Senator who is only unpopular with the right wing of the Republican Party is unlikely to have reelection concerns. He or she would need to be unpopular with mainstream Republicans and at least some Democrats, too, in order to lose his or her seat in 2010.

And, of course, the poster was wrong about the unpopularity of Congress -- particularly Democrats in Congress -- so the point he was trying to make is void, anyway.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

In wins by less than 1000? Wasn't everyone blaming Naders Raiders for Gore's deficiencies? How secure is Franken without small i help?

​

The poster was referring to members of Congress, so I was, too.

IOW, any present Democratic U.S. Representative or Senator who is only unpopular with the right wing of the Republican Party is unlikely to have reelection concerns. He or she would need to be unpopular with mainstream Republicans and at least some Democrats, too, in order to lose his or her seat in 2010.

And, of course, the poster was wrong about the unpopularity of Congress -- particularly Democrats in Congress -- so the point he was trying to make is void, anyway.

 

[elvis]

"Unpopular as hell" with whom? It doesn't mean beans if someone is unpopular with the 20-percenters.

In wins by less than 1000? Wasn't everyone blaming Naders Raiders for Gore's deficiencies? How secure is Franken without small i help?

​

gore didnt lose by 1000
he lost because he lost his HOME state

Ten goes to Gore, he wins
but he couldnt even win with those that knew him BEST

LOL

actually after they recounted, Bush won florida by over 1000.