Republicans Eager To Surrender

If the definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, the obvious question is - Should the GOP keep doing what it has been doing?

I would have thought the answer was a no-brainer...

However, if the party plans to stay the course, then a new strategy would have to emerge from the outside - a legitimate, truly representative 3rd party.

Democrats would oppose it because they would otherwise have a guaranteed win against a weak and obsolete GOP opponent.

Republicans would oppose it - or those with power in the party would - because they would be ceding personal power and seniority in the old system.

With both parties against it, is there any doubt that it would be the right thing to do...?
 
Quote from MarketMasher:

If the definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, the obvious question is - Should the GOP keep doing what it has been doing?

I would have thought the answer was a no-brainer...

However, if the party plans to stay the course, then a new strategy would have to emerge from the outside - a legitimate, truly representative 3rd party.

Democrats would oppose it because they would otherwise have a guaranteed win against a weak and obsolete GOP opponent.

Republicans would oppose it - or those with power in the party would - because they would be ceding personal power and seniority in the old system.

With both parties against it, is there any doubt that it would be the right thing to do...?
More...
I voted Ron Paul in my states primary. Although not technically third party. I would have happily voted for him in the general election except there was some indication Romney might have a chance. So I felt compelled to do my part in ousting Odumbo. Since it's clear to me the entitlement/welfare/parasite class and their bleeding heart liberal cheerleaders now outnumber responsible tax payers. Next time I won't "waste" a vote on the Republican challenger. From now on it's the Ron Paul, Virgil Goode, or Gary Johnson's for me.
 
The old specious argument that a 3rd party would divide the GOP even more has a basic assumption that the Democratic party is monolithic in itself. In reality, there are marginal democrats too that do not share all that party's stands, political or social.

To maintain the illusion that the 2 parties are distinct, they purposely lean far left/right, while all hands actually stretch towards wherever the money is.

A legitimate 3rd party would more than likely draw the disaffected from both parties.

It would also have the benefit of forcing those who want to buy politics to spend even more money to cover their bases and hedge the winners. In that regard, 4 or 5 or more parties would be even better - stretch their financial resources too thin to own enough politicians to do anything with.

Competition is good. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top