Originally Posted by djplong

they'll have to have more than the libertarians. The last 'new' 3rd party that had a chance was perot's reform party and that fizzled after pat buchannan took over.

obama and socialism>

Not to be rude, just realistic - the Libertarians already have the structure in place. It takes a LONG time to build that and the Tea Party is just getting started.

The only reason the Reform Party got started so fast was because of Perot's money and his fame got him on the news.

The Tea Party, for the most part, is really grass roots - and not all the publicity has been good. This is going to have to be a *sustained* effort with the 'local cells' coming together and agreeing on a set of principals that can become a platform.

Personally, I think this is why the GOP came back in 1994 - the Contract With America was 10 easy-to-understand principles that most Americans could get behind. If you, as a candidate, "signed the contract", you gave the electorate a promise that made it easy to hold your feet to the fire (and let's face it, that's what we want).

If the Tea Party had a "Contract for a New America", I think that would go a long way. In addition, the process of formulating that contract would allow for some good debate. I think having a party debate within itself MIGHT be divisive, but it's got to have a better shot at producing compromise and unity than the current Democrat/Republican "they're for it therefore we're against it" mentality.

Originally Posted by djplong

Not to be rude, just realistic - the Libertarians already have the structure in place. It takes a LONG time to build that and the Tea Party is just getting started.

The only reason the Reform Party got started so fast was because of Perot's money and his fame got him on the news.

The Tea Party, for the most part, is really grass roots - and not all the publicity has been good. This is going to have to be a *sustained* effort with the 'local cells' coming together and agreeing on a set of principals that can become a platform.

Personally, I think this is why the GOP came back in 1994 - the Contract With America was 10 easy-to-understand principles that most Americans could get behind. If you, as a candidate, "signed the contract", you gave the electorate a promise that made it easy to hold your feet to the fire (and let's face it, that's what we want).

If the Tea Party had a "Contract for a New America", I think that would go a long way. In addition, the process of formulating that contract would allow for some good debate. I think having a party debate within itself MIGHT be divisive, but it's got to have a better shot at producing compromise and unity than the current Democrat/Republican "they're for it therefore we're against it" mentality.

For pointing out that the TEA PARTY is made up of Grass Roots Americans.
Let us pray that they are allowed to make the right decision next November.

I don't think looking at next November is realistic. There just aren't enough candidates with a 'different message'. Those that *do* have a different message are all over the map. Let's face it, many get re-elected on the platform of "I can't stop all the pork in D.C. so I'll make sure we at least get our cut".

A 3rd party has *no* clout right now when it comes to where the sausages, er, laws are made - in the committees. At best you have a couple of independents who are mostly aligning themselves "for caucus purposes" with the Democrats.

The Tea Party, and this is STRICTLY my opinion, needs a haymaker punch in order to do anything real anytime soon. Power doesn't exactly give itself up willingly. You need a set of priciples that a LOT of people can get behind - and capitalizing on the disenchantments of party members might be a good place to start. You also need a charismatic leader who will be taken seriously. Colin Powell comes to mind - someone like that.

I've long advocated that a *real* and *viable* 3rd party has to exist in order for the United States to progress. Unfortunately, the Libertarians are too radical for American tastes. To pick an easy example, Americans was an FDA that protects our food supply but is not beholden to drug companies. They do not, as far as I can tell, want to abolish the FDA the way the Libertarian Party does.

Originally Posted by djplong

I don't think looking at next November is realistic. There just aren't enough candidates with a 'different message'. Those that *do* have a different message are all over the map. Let's face it, many get re-elected on the platform of "I can't stop all the pork in D.C. so I'll make sure we at least get our cut".

A 3rd party has *no* clout right now when it comes to where the sausages, er, laws are made - in the committees. At best you have a couple of independents who are mostly aligning themselves "for caucus purposes" with the Democrats.

The Tea Party, and this is STRICTLY my opinion, needs a haymaker punch in order to do anything real anytime soon. Power doesn't exactly give itself up willingly. You need a set of priciples that a LOT of people can get behind - and capitalizing on the disenchantments of party members might be a good place to start. You also need a charismatic leader who will be taken seriously. Colin Powell comes to mind - someone like that.

I've long advocated that a *real* and *viable* 3rd party has to exist in order for the United States to progress. Unfortunately, the Libertarians are too radical for American tastes. To pick an easy example, Americans was an FDA that protects our food supply but is not beholden to drug companies. They do not, as far as I can tell, want to abolish the FDA the way the Libertarian Party does.

The Libertarians will never make it in my opinion.

A new party would fail if Colin Powell were the leader. He may have been a fair General but he is no politician. He cannot remember what he says from one speech to the next. Or he does not really care.

Colin Powell is a RINO. I can't imagine that teapartiers would go for him. I lost all respect for him many years ago.

Being a RINO might be a good thing. For example, if one could show that they were blackballed or shunned from the Rupublican Party because of their beliefs in smaller and more responsible government along with protecting individual liberties, that could be a HUGE selling point on a 3rd part ticket.

On the flip side, imagine the profile of a Democrat who can't stand the vote-buying, promise-everything-to-everyone, reckless growth of government when combined with the staples of Political Correctness.

How would THAT be for a ticket? A disaffected Republican coming together with a disaffected Democrat for the good of the nation...

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Originally Posted by djplong

Being a RINO might be a good thing. For example, if one could show that they were blackballed or shunned from the Rupublican Party because of their beliefs in smaller and more responsible government along with protecting individual liberties, that could be a HUGE selling point on a 3rd part ticket.

On the flip side, imagine the profile of a Democrat who can't stand the vote-buying, promise-everything-to-everyone, reckless growth of government when combined with the staples of Political Correctness.

How would THAT be for a ticket? A disaffected Republican coming together with a disaffected Democrat for the good of the nation...

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Powell is no republican that I would vote for. He is a Liberal.

MEETINGS: Held at the Lady Lake Community Building at 237 W. Guava St., Lady Lake FL 32159-3735 (352) 750-2064 Starting at 7:30pm. Starting January 2010 meetings will be held every Wednesday. Bring a chair in case needed, and your own water. Please have your cell phones, pagers, etc. turned off or on vibrate during the meeting as a courtesy to the speakers and the others at the meeting. Thank you.