Is America Primed for a Third or Fourth Party Candidate?

For the most part, America has been a two political party country for over a century.  Like fish and garbage, the two party system is yielding a foul stench that is permeating throughout the land.  And like fish and garbage, the only way to eliminate the smell is to get rid of the source, and in this case, we are speaking about the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Washington DC has become a quagmire of unproductive ineptitude as a direct result of the two major political parties.  Neither one of them are willing to work with the other for the greater good of the nation.  And to be honest, our out of control super mega jumbo sized federal government is the product of both parties, not just the Democrats.

But who or should I say, what party or parties will replace them?

Searching online, I find at least forty different political parties listed, half of which I’ve never heard of and some I never want to hear of.  One of every four political parties listed had communism, Nazism or socialism in their names.

One of the names that caught my attention was the Objectionist Party.  Founded in 2008 by Dr Tom Stevens, this party states that it stands for Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectionism.  Guess I’ll just to object to that party.

One of the more popular parties these days is the Libertarian Party of which presidential candidate Ron Paul is associated with.  For the most part they have some descent fundamental values, but they also hold to some other values that I would define as being more liberal than conservative.  Some of their platforms could be interpreted to justify such things as pedophilia, even though I’ve never heard or read anywhere that they would condone it.

Then we have a couple of different Independent parties, but the one that has my focus at the moment is the Constitution Party.  Their basic platform is to restore America to the biblical and Constitutional form of government initially established by our nation’s founders over 230 years ago.  I’ve been reading through their platform and I have found not one item to which I object and to be honest, I would whole heartedly support and cast my vote to anyone who stood for the same things that the Constitution Party spells out in their platform.

The only problem I see with a Constitution Party presidential candidate at this stage of the game is that they would have little support in Congress with them being controlled by the Democrats and Republicans, but if more people started getting on board with this Party, then perhaps in a few more elections they could start getting Constitution Party members into Congress where they can start to make a difference.

For those wanting to know more about the Constitution Party, here is their Preamble and you can read the rest by checking out the link above.


The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

  • That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
  • That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
  • That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
  • That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
  • That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.



  • Crom

    One of the major problems with the Constitution Party is they are not accurately representing the Constitution and its Orignal Intent.

    Constitutional Originalism seeks to understand what was meant, what did the terms mean....what did the thinkers like Blackstone mean when they wrote about the Executive for example? Modern thinking is very different on this score, especially on issues like Defense where the Constitution Party is totally out of line with the actual Constitution of 1789.

    the "constitutionalism" of the Constitution Party and others, is like the Biblical Interpretations of a Fred Phelps on many things.

    Plus there are many things the Framers themselves didn't agree on or have a final interpretation of and finalized as they began to govern. The famous case of Washington vs. the Senate over Treaty Ratification is a good example.

    • RALPH


    • jlmealer

      This is the reason MEALER is so important when connected the the CP. Today the CP leaders are aligning themselves with corrupt politicians (V. Goode, for example) simply to gain notoriety.

      I challenge you to review and find ONE POINT that is not Constitutional or ONE POINT that will not 100% resurrect this dying nation from day one.

    • Bill Weston

      Have you heard of a dictionary? I recomend Webster's. How about the Bible? Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus as a starting place. Evidently you have not examined the "planks" established by the Constitution Party. If you had, you wouldn't have challenged the accuracy. Of course there was disagreement among the draters of the Constitution. After all, they were searching for "liberty, justice, and equal rights under the law". This was a new and radical concept in the 18th century. Today, too many take these things for granted.


    The first and foremost objective of 2012 is to get rid of Obama. Third party candidates will just splinter the vote and will NOT cause that to happen.

    • bpitas

      Thing is nobody in the Republican party besides Ron Paul is worth voting for either. What's the point of voting for someone like Romney or Genrich who would continue Obama's policies the same way Obama continued with GWB's policies?
      We need someone who will make the drastic changes we need to make *right now* to save our once-great country.
      - Stop the wars and bring the troops home
      - End the federal reserve and finally liquidate our debt
      - Shrink the federal government back down to it's originally authorized role by closing agencies

      If we don't do those things (and only Ron Paul will do them) then it doesn't really matter WHO gets elected in 2012.

      • Bill F.

        Reply to bpitas: Ron Paul is his own worst enemy! Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) said Iran should be armed with nuclear weapons, and America should not defend Israel, even if Iran annihilates Jews. Ron Paul was one of only 6 Congressmen who voted "NO" in a 407-6 vote on H.Res 268 to help Israel last month, when 13 liberal Democrats voted "PRESENT."

        Ahmadinejad the dictator Ron Paul wants to arm with nuclear weapons? Seriously? If it wasn't bad enough when Ron Paul promoted marijuana and homosexualized the military, Ron Paul wants nukes for Muslim terrorists who are already launching Rockets now killing Jews?

        Let's call Ron Paul's office today at (202) 225-2831, and demand he retract his implied support for Iran's nuclear destruction of Israel.

        Pro-homosexual candidate Ron Paul is one of only a very few Republicans who voted for open-homosexual service, insulting our troops and joining Nancy Pelosi's San-Francisco Democrats to repeal DADT in December.

        • Rene

          Bill F. where are you getting your script from, you are dead wrong on Ron Paul, he did not say Iran should be armed with nukes, he said they are a Republic, and have the right to have what ever the other nations have, because they have not threatened us, nor Israel, and he did not say the US should not defend Israel, he said Israel has thousands of nuclear weapons, and they are fully capable of defending themselves.

          Also Iran's President did not say they would wipe Israel off the map, he said the Zionist organization would meet it's demise.

          I'm not pro Iran, and I would hate to live under that regime, but the truth is the truth.

        • bpitas

          Ron Paul didn't say any of that stuff. You must be one of those gullible folks who watches CBS and listens to the campaigns of other candidates. If you're curious about Ron Paul's positions, I'd recommend you FIRST go look at his voting record (which is stellar!) and then go to his website to see his positions on the various issues. Then you'll understand what you're talking about and you'll understand why Ron Paul is in second in both Iowa and New Hampshire and still rising in the polls.

      • lensc

        If you do not vote for Romney or Gingrich then you will get Obama. How is he working out for you so far ?

        • bpitas

          Actually according to the polls right now a vote to nominate Newt or Romney almost guarantees an Obama win. Only Ron Paul beats Obama.

    • Patricia

      Yes, I pray no one will be silly enough to run on a 3rd party ticket. That will give Obama a 2nd term and will be the end of America.

    • Gray2Hairs

      Replacing Obama with a RINO is not really a step in the right direction. If a RINO (Ronmey, Perry or Newt) is nominated I'll vote for a 3rd party period! McCain was the last RINO I will ever vote for. Under Obama our coutry will default quickly and after the revolution we can rebuild. With a RINO in charge we will still will just take a little longer and by that time those old enough to know how to recover our country will be too old to do so. Break the system now and let the fight begin!

      • lensc

        A third party vote puts Obama back in, you must really like Obama to want him to win. After to revolution the liberals will rebuild the country for you, minus the Constitution etc.

    • workforit

      The first and foremost objective is not to get rid of Obama. If we rid ourselves of Obama and put in someone who has the same policies and the same governing philosophy we have accomplished little --possibly nothing. We are where we are today because we simply wanted to get rid of Bush. The policies that led to the housing crises were already in place under the Bush Administration before Obama was elected. Consider also that both Mitt Romney and Gingrich were in favor for mandated health care. Consider also that in the past 3 years Gingrich has been getting rich from Freddie Mac and Fannie May who were responsible for the housing crisis. Consider that Romney irresponsibly pushed mandated health care into his home state.
      Consider that many--if not most of the companies that caused the market crash are tied in to Newt Gingrich. Consider how Gingrich teamed up with Pelosi on health care issues. I doubt that you could say anything concerning major political issues and how they are handled by Obama that you couldn't say the identical thing about both Gingrich and Romney.

      IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO GET OUT THE MAN----WE MUST ELIMINATE THE PLAN... We must not be influenced by the News Media and we absolutely must read the bills, see the connections of these men behind the scenes and understand their real agenda. These three men I have mentioned in this post are of the same political philosophy and have the same political agenda. They are self serving and not servants of the country.

      When the GOP could have offered and passed an acceptable and workable budget it was not the Democrats who shot it down, but the Republicans themselves. IF WE NOT NOT CEASE SPENDING IN THESE FOREIGN COUNTRIES UNDER THE GUISE OF NATIONAL DEFENSE WE SHALL HAVE NO NATIONAL DEFENSE.

      • bpitas

        You are so right workforit. Getting rid of Obama and replacing him with a RINO is not the goal at all. The goal is to put someone in office who will actually turn things around by shrinking the federal government and stop all the foreign occupations.

    • George

      Having your first and foremost objective, 'to get rid of Obama,' is short sighted and won't change a thing.

    • Steve

      I learned that lesson the hard way in 1992. Yes, that's what we need, a real businessman to run this country. So, I voted for Ross Perot. I helped splinter the Republican vote, and we got eight long years of Bill Clinton. So for any of you saying, "Well, I've voted my conscience". Never forget that Obama now is already bypassing Congress with executive orders right and left. Can you imagine the damage that he could do no longer worrying about reelection? Don't be stupid and vote third-party.

    • Phil

      Another party is not the answer, the Liberitian Party is a failure with good intentions. Things are to the point we don't have several election cycles to build up another party, there's just not time. For all people who want to go back to the constitution, become a Tea Party Republician. While this isn't a perfect solution, it's the best we have right now. The Tea Party movement accomplished more in eighteen months than the Liberitian Party accomplished in thirity eight years. The only real answer is to clean up the two main parties, starting with the Republican Party. The Tea Party has accomplished alot but there is still clean up to do in 2012. If the Tea Party had become another independent party it would have accomplished nothing.

    • Steve

      You are going to continue the problem with that logic. All the candidates are banker funded and will continue the same economic policy, the same foreign policy thereby driving America right to it's end.
      Research this and you will understand why your thinking is exactly what the elites want from you so you will embrace the next puppet.

    • Randy

      Don't you just love the whole "Split the vote" argument?!?!?!?!?!?!

      When given the choice between sh1t and cr@p, does it really make a difference?

  • Willy

    The only party we need is the INDEPENDANT Party, Everybody run under that and have a runoff if needed.

    • pat

      i agree with willy,,,once u have a two party system u divide this country,,u pit neighbor against neighbor..this is one country under god,,INDIVISIBLE,, being the prime word here...our country was not formed as a democracy it was formed as a union..I have been saying this for 40 years,,but nobody seems too listen..

  • rockthebenz

    Take a look at the TVP. (Twelve Visions Party) if you want to save the country and the world. They are new and have the
    answer to make all people rich; even the poor. I believe their website is
    If not you can google it...

    • Kevin

      You can't make all the people Rich, it's Impossible . You can make all the people poor.

      • daves

        Of course all people can be rich. The sad truth is that many people are not not happy with wealth unless they have the most. They like to look down on others.

  • dan

    They have needed one for a long time. Are they ready? Who knows. With a proper third party, at least we
    could vote with a clear conscience. Read Why Are So Many Conservatives So Liberal? at

    • daves

      Exactly, we should have about 10 different parties so we can vote on more than two or three issues.



    • 1599

      And if we had a bad Republican president, a third party would insure his/.her reelection too?

      • daves

        True - I don't think Hillary running as a third party candidate would ensure that President Obama another 4 years.

        • j.j.

          maybe not,but she would just carry-on with the same social programs that the food stamp president what's in charge is now what good would that do????????? none !!!!!!!!!

        • John Hand

          Hillary is being primed to run, either as a replacement for Obama if they can talk him into stepping down, or as a vice president on his ticket to try and gather more female votes. Notice how the liberal press is playing up her trip to Myanmar (Burma) right now.

    • John Hand

      You said what I was itching to type. A third party now would help Obama. I am soooooo afraid that Paul might do just that.

      • bpitas

        Better nominate Ron Paul then, just to be safe. When you look at "likely voters" (not likely republican voters) which includes republicans, democrats, and republicans, he beats Obama by more than any of the other Republican candidates. The media likes to use "likely republican voters" because it makes Ron Paul look bad and Newt/Romney look better, but the reality is Ron Paul would get more votes than either Newt or Romney in the general election.
        In 2008 I held my nose and voted for McCain because that's who the GOP pushed down my throat even though he was a horrible candidate. That's the last time I ever vote for a RINO. The future of the country is much more important than any party affiliation - if the GOP puts forward Romney or Gengrich then I'm writing in Ron Paul.

        • lensc

          You will either vote for a RHINO or Obama if you vote. A vote for Paul is an Obama vote.

        • bpitas

          First of all it's RINO - no H. Secondly, Dr Paul is currently 7 pts ahead of Romney and 10 pts ahead of Newt when compared against Obama. Paul is the only choice if you want Obama out.

    • Randy

      The current crop of GOP candidates are going to be able to assure this all on their own.

    • Patriotic Jones


    • Orley

      John, You are so right and I can't imagine any sane person even thinking that you could make everyone rich. There are too many people that don't know how to handle money and too many that won't work if they had a job and feel that everything is owed to them. Plain and simple.

  • Rjgarfunkel

    Here we have again the GOP minority, blocking legislation with another cloture vote the extension of the payroll tax “holiday.” Again they oppose an increase of 3.5% on people who earn over $1 million per year to fund this middle class tax cut. How would that increase reflect negatively on job creation? It won’t! We have had the Bush tax cuts for years and what have we gotten? We have gotten greater income disparity, the middle class shrinking, the blue collar civil servants under attack, and the 1% doing quite well. Just read the impartial studies.

    As to the Republicans in Congress-

    House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, signaled his support for an eventual deal Thursday by telling reporters: “I don’t think there’s any question that the payroll tax relief, in fact, helps the economy.”

    His stance represented a sharp shift from previous opposition by Senate Republicans to extending the payroll tax cut. On Sunday, conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said Republicans opposed extending the lower payroll tax rate because it didn’t provide much help to the economy.

    “The payroll tax holiday has not stimulated job creation,” Kyl said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We don’t think that is a good way to do it.” (But unemployment is starting to drop, now down to 8.6% and the trend with auto sales, along with the stock market above 12,000 bodes good for the future)

    The GOP opposition wavered Wednesday when Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said his party would support an extension of the payroll tax cut, but opposed a tax increase to pay for it.

    Eventually the voters will decide and it won’t be over the crazy issues that are posted here on a moment by moment basis. It won’t be because of the slurs, insults, accusations, Muslim hatred, religious claptrap, flat-earth thinking, neo-fascism, impeachment fantasy and the “birther” nonsense. It will be over leadership, consistency and honesty.

    Perry, Bachmann, Santurum are considered by most people as, off-the-chart nobodies, who don’t have the gravitas to be in the race. Perry is not only unqualified, but he is totally uninformed. Citizen Cain is a joke and has been exposed as a person who is uninformed, doesn’t know Austria from Australia, and had better be ready for litigation from his wife. His future as a book hawker and right-wing cable host has gone up in smoke. Ron Paul, though the darling of many on this site, is considered “nuts” by most Americans. Can anyone really imagine that flake from some crazy district in Texas running for president?

    As to the so-called finalists in the GOP circular firing squad, Gingrich is a bounder, and a duplicitous low-life, who has not only been a hypocritical moral miscreant, but a super lobbyist who has gamed the system for millions and Romney, who no one in the GOP likes, would be better off as the CEO of the House of Pancakes, because his expertise in the art of the flip-flop.

    • Gary

      There is one thing you are missing, funkle, the unemployment rate was the lowest in history during Bushes term. What happened? The demorats took over congress in 2006 and the fit hit the shan! They started dismanteling the energy production and the loss of jobs began, then the EPA, driven by the communists that run this "environmental" movement ( much like a bowel movement) have been running amoke since! Until we get these socialist/communist fools out of the white house and congress we are going further into the abyss. YOU SOUND LIKE A TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!

      • Rjgarfunkel

        Unemployment was no where near the lowest in history. Get an almanac if you can read. During WWII we had zero unemployment, and much lower in the Kennedy and Johnson Years.

        By the way the myth regarding unemployment: Courtesy the United States Bureau of Statistics
        Since 1928 there have been 13 presidents, 7 Republicans (Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr) and 6 Democrats (FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter and Clinton).
        Six of the seven Republican Presidents had unemployment increase while in office. Ronald Reagan is the only Republican President since 1928 to leave office with a lower unemployment rate.
        All six Democratic Presidents had unemployment decrease or stay the same while in office. The worst Democratic performance was Jimmy Carter, who had the same unemployment rate when he left office as when he entered.
        Viewing the President's 4 year term gives an even more pronounced effect.
        Of the Republican President's 9 terms, unemployment has increased in 7 of the 9 terms.
        Of the Democratic President's 10 terms, the unemployment rate never increased.
        Here is the same list, sorted by decrease in the unemployment rate.

        Civilian Unemployment Rate, U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
        period start end chng President Party
        Jan 1993 Jan 1997 7.3 5.3 -2.0 Clinton I Democrat
        Jan 1985 Jan 1989 7.3 5.4 -1.9 Reagan II Republican
        Jan 1961 Jan 1965 6.6 4.9 -1.7 JFK/Johnson Democrat
        Jan 1965 Jan 1969 4.9 3.4 -1.5 Johnson Democrat
        Jan 1949 Jan 1953 4.3 2.9 -1.4 Truman Democrat
        Jan 1997 Jan 2001 5.3 4.2 -1.1 Clinton II Democrat
        Jan 1981 Jan 1985 7.5 7.3 -0.2 Reagan I Republican
        Jan 1977 Jan 1981 7.5 7.5 0.0 Carter Democrat
        Jan 2005 Aug 2008 5.2 6.1 +0.9 Bush, GW II Republican
        Jan 2001 Jan 2005 4.2 5.2 +1.0 Bush, GW I Republican
        Jan 1953 Jan 1957 2.9 4.2 +1.3 Eisenhower I Republican
        Jan 1969 Jan 1973 3.4 4.9 +1.5 Nixon Republican
        Jan 1989 Jan 1993 5.4 7.3 +1.9 Bush, GHW Republican
        Jan 1957 Jan 1961 4.2 6.6 +2.4 Eisenhower II Republican
        Jan 1973 Jan 1977 4.9 7.5 +2.6 Nixon/Ford Republican

        • Rjgarfunkel

          By the way, I forgot to say, you are an uninformed clod, who, like many here mislead others. Your statement on unemployment is self-serving and astonishingly stupid.

        • Moe

          Perhaps you had better research your statements and correct them, and/or give the entire view of events surrounding them, not selecting those that justify your own political purposes and left wing (communist) implications. If you like Chinese communism, go there and see how you like living under their watchful eyes 24/7.
          By the way, all pure socialist and communist nations that ever existed had a central ruling party with a President that acted only as a spokesman, that was self appointed. If you criticize them, you go directly to jail. NO charges, no jury trial, no appeal, one hearing by a military type panel with absolute authority over your life.
          Suggest you educate yourself and see how good we have it in the United States under free enterprise and private ownersip of personal and real property.

        • John Hand

          Don't try to feed me that crap. I was in the military during the Jimmy Carter years, and I remember very well how the unemployment figures soared under him, the inflation rate went way up, and how the military forgot how to look sharp and hold its head up high under Carter. It took Ronald Reagan two years to undo what Carter had done to the economy and employment rate, and I remember how excited the stock market got when it hit 2000 (the figure back then) when Reaganomics took hold. Carter did untold damage to us in Iran, Afghanistan, the Panama Canal, and even now while he panders to the Palestinians. Carter has cost a lot of American ives, and the list will grow because of him, and Obama.

        • Moe

          Most of the Democrat Presidents were in office at the beginning of a war or during a war. Those wars took a whole lot of workers off the employment rolls and sent them into conbat. Hence, the remaining umemployed took the empty jobs and became employed. Roosevelt and Truman with WWII, Kennedy started the Viet Nam war and Johnson sent a standing military of 500,000.

          Some of the Republicans ended the existing wars, Eisenhower ended the Korean war and Nixon ended the Viet Nam war for example. Bush declared war on terrorism and sent far less troops to a much larger area than Johnson sent to Viet Nam.

          The war on terrorism is the first war in over 100 years that we had a Republican President Democrats send workers off to war to come back dead or wounded. Republican Presidents end the wars and bring them home ASAP.

          What is the price in lives that justifies unemployment rates reported?

    • Robert

      In regards to Dr. Ron Paul. Most Americans must either be nuts themselves or have a low cognitive understanding of what is at stake. Rather then challenging themselves to try and understand the concept, and actually spite themselves and try to learn something. It being different, as in more then most Americans are familiar with. A apathetical mind is quick to say, thats not what I've heard, they must be nuts. Rather then challenging themselves to try and understand the concept, and actually learn something.

    • Gray2Hairs

      Unemployment is NOT starting to drop, just the number of new claims is slightly lower and the number of unemployed increases every day. All tax increases remove capital from the real economy and adds it to a government based economy.

      Do you actually believe the things you say?

      • daves

        So a middle class tax cut of $200 billion along with a millionaire tax increase of $200 billion would result in more money for the Government?

      • Rjgarfunkel

        Maybe you folks have forgotten some recent history. In the last 21 months, private sector jobs have increased to over 3 million. The greatest impediment to the recovery is the housing sector and the mortgage writing by the Countrywide Financials and their clones.

        A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

        What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.
        The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977. As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006.

        •Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

        • Moe

          21 months, 3 million. How about the 25% unemployment built over the years because of Clinton and his "Most Favored Trading Nation" status that he gave to Communist China. Talk about aid and comfort for the enemy.

          The Democrats intentionally created the depression we are now suffering and want to blame Republicans. Now the Democrats use that to push Socialism/Communism promising everything for everyone.

          Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kamph
          A lie is the truth if it furthers the Communist ideals - Karl Marx

        • workforit

          I think it may do us well to define private sector jobs, and to discern where many of these jobs are coming from. First, the addition of private sector jobs means nothing to the economy if these private sector jobs were stimulated by the government putting money into the private sector and then demanding that they hire more employees. When this occurs all that has happened is the government forced business A out of business and gave money to business B and then demanded that business B hire employees. Now Business B must hire employees since they are indebted to a government loan. The actual amount of money being circulated in the economy is actually less.

          One case in point is Airport security. There is job growth in recent months due to the fact that the government has demanded certain Airlines hire more employees. Since the Airlines are operating on Gov. money they begin hiring employees. But many of these same Airlines were in financial trouble due to over-regulation. In these same areas we are basically seeing job growth in the very sectors wherein people were laid off. The growth is artificial and it has not contributed to the efficiency of the economy. Our local Airport here is loaded with employees now, many who cannot read or write. Some are working security---this is so bad it is hard to address or write about. Our security is managed by so many incompetent people it is hard to talk about. It is a disgrace, but, hey the economy is growing???
          Garfunkle's stats concerning Mortgages are right on the button. But don't forget that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed greatly to the bursting of the bubble.
          Gar, the economy is going to have surges in the private sector due to the overwhelming number of people who lost their jobs with Corporate America. Many of these people have started their own private business. Herein lies the misconception of true economic growth. Yes, we have a surge wherein more people are working; but more people working doesn't mean more people showing a profit. And it doesn't mean more people who are making more money than what they previously made. They are making less-----much less.

          So we essentially have two groups. Group one is represented by people who have jobs from stimulus money which is temporary and isn't going to last. This actually compromises the economy more since it creates a false sense of security. Then there is Group 2 which represents people who were forced into private sector jobs because they lost their job. Group 2 consists mostly of people who are barely surviving, and many who are completely failing--so this statistic will be short lived. When there is no improvement in ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY jobs mean little to nothing;

          What complicates economic growth even more is the fact that many businesses are failing because they are forced to compete with businesses who have government money behind them. The restaurant industry is a good example.
          Many have gone out of business because they can't compete with new Immigrants who receive free interest money from the government to run their restaurants. These businesses thrive for several reasons. 1) No interest and low interest loans 2) other immigrants both legal and illegal eat there 3) purchasing power. Now here you have job creation. But for every job created this way there are one to two businesses that fail because they can't compete with those receiving free government money--consequently they close the doors. This is happening in most of the small towns in West Tennessee. Basically what we have when the data is summed up is THE GOVERNMENT IS CHOOSING WHO SUCCEEDS AND WHO FAILS.

          Gar, much of your data is accurate, but little of it applies in a practical way to what is killing this economy.

    • Beepster

      Taxes. The ones that are now set are not the problem. The problem for jobs are regulations that have been put in place, and the biggest regulation/law is OBAMACARE!!!! People with money that have a business won't hire due to not really knowing just how greatly this will affect them and their business. One of the most stupid ideas is to cut SS tax by 2% when SS is hurting due to stolen funds by congress. That will only increase the losses that will have to be made up somewhere else. Since Cain got caught (or at least accused) of Clintonitis (medically, that open fly syndrome), Paul would be the best to serve, BUT, he won't get the nomination because his ideas are too "on the spot". Gingrich is Obama just dressed differently. Romney will insure Obamacare is carried thru. To put it mildly, we be in a wurld of hurts!!!!!!

      • Rjgarfunkel

        Too bad you'll have to suffer. I know its been tough these past 30 years since Ronnie Boy was elected and your freedoms eroded. It was tough that women, minorities and others got your job. It was tough that big business ran to China and Sam Walton died and "Buy America" died with him. It is tough that healthcare in America was imploding with thousands dropping their coverage daily and all others were married to their insincere employers plans. Now they have to pay 15-25% of 16K plans with 1k deductibles. In other words, smart-ass, they were behind the 8-Ball $5K before they had a cold. Blame that on Obama, the Democrats and all the people outside of the private enterprise of healthcare. I know you are a capitalist like I have been for 50 years, but should CEOs of HMOs and healthcare companies who make zillions pay the lowest FIT ever? Keep on raving away. Keep on supporting the GOP oligarchs, I know they are really concerned about you. But realistically they could care a fig whether you lived or died.

        • workforit

          I agree on this Gar. I don't support the GOP and I don't have a solid opinion on raising taxes for the wealthy. I really don't care however if we raise their taxes or not. I don't think that is the bigger issue. The Republicans have definitely shown their colors by the fact that desire to protect the wealthy and seem little concerned about the working class. The GOP message is "don't let the Dems run us down let us do it." They think we should rely on them simply because they can say "no" to any and every thing.

    • Gadfly

      What we need are jobs. Remove all laws/regulations that hamper the exploring for or recovering oil, building refineries and stoping companies from building in the U.S. where ever they want. empose a 10% import tax on foreign made goods. BUY AMERICAN, if not made here do without. Get rid of the EPA, Curtail the FDA. This will help get jobs to our people. Seal the borders.

      Stop foreign aid (we give 2 billion a year to china,WHY) . Close any foreign bases not needed to protect the U.S..
      Why do we have troops based in Korea Japan and Germany, can't these nations defend themselves.
      We do not need troops all over the world to protect the U.S.

      • Rjgarfunkel

        Genius, a recent survey of all the Fortune 500 CEOs determined that regulations affected 3% of the hiring decisions. So you''go along with PCPs in the water, more Love Canals, more hidden fees, more hidden surrender charges, less transparency, no minimum wage, no holidays, no wages and hours, SEC, and in fact, getting rid of collective bargaining and even unions. Yes, we'll be exactly like Bachmann declared the other day, like China. You are what is termed in the English language an isolationist moron. I am sure that even the certifiable Ron Paul, would have you put away for your own safety. Seriously though, what in the hell do you know about world trade and commerce? You should have listened in last year's 6th grade class on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and the collapse of America's economy in 1929.

        • Orley

          Yes Riger, the unions are a bunch of loving people, "If you don't go along with our strike we will bust up your equipment and if need be maybe even shoot at you. Do you know some of the laws about labor are federal laws but the union takes credit for it" I suppose that is to justify taking part of your wages for getting it for you.
          I am seventy four and only worked under union two and a half years and I won't go into detail what they did to I mean for me. If your a drunk or lazy you probably need a union, Those of a kind look out for each other,

      • daves

        Who told you that we give $2 billion a year to China?

    • Rene

      Ron Paul is an intellegent, and sensable man, he knows more about economics, foreign policy, and the Constitution than all the rest put together, except Gary Johnson whom would come in second. the reason the majority of the public might think they are nuts, is because the Globalist Corporate Media tells them so, and ignores these candidates, because they represent real change, and they are afraid of them. Especially Ron Paul. If you would study the Constitution, you might like Ron Paul yourself.

      • mjnellett

        Ron Paul is a timid, little man who's thinking is pre-World War 2 isolationist. His foreign policy, if you would stop and really LISTEN to him, is more dangerous than that of Neville Chamberlain! Ron Paul thinks you can stick your head in the sand without getting your butt shot off, unfortunately! We live in a very dangerous world today, not in Never Never land. Ron Paul would make a great Secretary of the Treasury, but NOT President. November 2012 is coming and so is the change that we are all hoping for!

      • amagi

        Agree with you, Rene. Also, Gary Johnson left his state with a surplus and used his veto pen 750 times.
        Obviously, the establishment types are not interested in such things.

    • common man

      Oh, the Democrats are so much better under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi who would prefer to work behind closed doors, not force their caucuses to debate on difficult issues such as gay marriage in the military, changing the military code to allow sodomy, satainic worship and beastiality, refuse to vote on house bills that actually might postitively, outlaw religious freedom and continue to spend their from one economic catasrophe to another. Give me a break! What are you a "seminar poster"?

    • John Hand

      Hey funkie, they ALL sound better, and more qualified than the Obamasan. Tell me, are you worried about now? Is your liberal flunkie looking like he is going to be drummed out of office like that other worst president, Jimmy Carter?

    • MajJohn

      You managed to find something wrong with every Republican candidate. That goes to show we are not perfect human beings. Interestingly, you are hard pressed to find something wrong with the current socialist administration. The payroll tax holiday is not relief from income taxes. It is relief from paying part of the FICA tax. This only results in causing SSA to go bankrupt sooner.
      The unemployment rate fell to 8.6% in November because of seasonal hiring and people have given up looking for work. Further their unemployment has run out and they are no longer counted. The employment figures are still awful. There has been no stimulus resulting in jobs.
      The Republicans have proposed 27 job creating bills and sent them to the Senate. The Senate has yet to bring one to the floor for a up or down vote.
      The Bush tax cuts brought prosperity until the housing bust in 2008. Even Clinton has said that increasing taxes on those who create private sector jobs is nuts. Obama owns the current massive debt. Stop blaming Bush.

    • Moe

      Taxing the "rich" may sound good on the surface, but when the rich get taxed, they simply charge more for their products or services, passing the tax increase on to consumers. Tax their businesses too much and they pack up and leave the U.S. using employees of another nation.
      How about a non-deduction type of flat tax. Example: If you make a buck, you pay 10 cents, if you make a million bucks, you pay $100,000. That way, you don't punish anyone, rich or poor, everyone pays the same rate. It would reduce the IRS and save billion of their wages and salaries each year, as well as collecting more taxes.
      ONe problem with it would be the taking away the political football idiots like you use to bash one party, when both Parties are being controlled with the same puppet strings.

    • Cape Coddah

      Have you talked with "most Americans?" Have you, in fact, done any research on Dr. Paul's 24 years in Congress, the positions he's taken, legislation he's championed? Take a look at the state of the Republic, and then YOU decide who's nuts-the guy whose advice might have put us on a better course, or the hacks and gangsters who have got us to where we are. By the way-since you seem to disparage everyone in the pack, who do you think should get the nod?

    • Orley

      This guy has to be a left wing democrat and if he can't see the mess the this turkey has gotten us into we have real problems. I wonder if obomer paid any income taxes on the millions he mad on the books he has sold that blast America and everyone he doesn't like but he wants their vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he has the election so rigged that he has already won.. Which means gas prices will go to five or six dollars a gallon and start killing off all the infidels.

    • Orley

      Rigewr, also Obamer the crook thinks there are 57 states, I think he may have remembered his history or geography wrong.

  • dan

    Allow me to add due to one comment above that we have been following "we have to get rid of" type of thinking for
    a long time, and it has not worked. Give me one good reason to think that has changed. Ask Barry Goldwater.
    Its over. On to the third or fourth or fifth party. Read also Sheriffs Standing Up to Feds also at

  • Cameron

    We dont need more parties. We need no parties. Look how many people like Romney. Just because he says he is a republican doest mean anything. He is a flaming liberal. Alot are too stupid to look at the facts.

    • Eve

      I agree!

      • Steven

        So did George Washington. That is basically the theme of his Farewell Address.

    • 1599

      And Perry who used to be a Democrat. We really live under a one party government cleverly desguised as a two party system.

    • ardis


      When president, Reagan vetoed his Democrat congress 78 times in 8 years.

      Romney vetoed his far left Massachusetts' legislature over 800 times in 4 years. Ditto, Romney's vetoes were very conservative & not popular in that liberal state. Does that sound like a politician who "only tells people what they want to hear" & won't fight for conservatism?

      If conservatives want to vett Gingrich they should see the Ron Paul ad exposing his record. INCREDIBLE & spot on. Washington insider & crony capitalist Gingrich spent the last ten years making millions FOR HIRE walking hand in hand with cohorts Pelosi, Hillary, Sharpton, illegal aliens, and Freddie Mac promoting the "We Can Solve It" progressive Big Gov't agenda.

      Ditto Gingrich actually blames his serial adulteries on his "love of country. i.e., My passionate patriotism overwhelmed me and forced me to commit serial adulteries, dump two gravely sick wives & take off with my mistresses. However I asked my God to forgive me and he has. Now let's move on to more important matters.

      Too bad Clinton, John Edwards, Spitzer, Sandford, & Governor Arnold hustle Gingrich's spin.

      By the way, if Gingrich "defeated communism" why is there a communist in the White House?

      When the only thing Gingrich has got on his resume is that he once upon a time with Clinton passed a fleeting "balanced budget", passed hallow welfare reform, voted for "One Time Only/Seal The Borders" Amnesty in 1986 that begot 15 million MORE illegals--and is the only Speaker in U.S. history to be sanctioned by the House Ethics Committee $300,000 for violating federal laws & LYING to subvert justice by a vote of 295/28--where else is there to go but to an "alternative universe" where he defeated communism & saved the planet?

      Too bad Freddie Mac lobbyist for hire "think tank" Newt didn't think to save Ameruca from Freddie Mac imploding the U.S. economy in Sept. 2008--& putting a 15 trillion Marxist in the White House.

      By the way, what real time "idea core beliefs" has blowhard Newt ever got off the ground before he had to expediently flip 180 to save his Washington insider rear end?


      His Pelosi Cap & Trade flip.

      His initial opposition to the Bush Bank Bailouts.

      His 1992-May2004 adament support for the Individual Mandate at the federal level.

      His amnesty/legalization obfuscation walk back.

      His targeting "extremist..right-wing social engineering" Ryan Plan.

      His crony capitalist $$ ties to Freddie Mac to spread federal dollars around so that low credit borrowers could buy houses they couldn't afford--ditto his demand that "political influences" should go to jail & refund contributions from Freddie Mac.

      His "Go/Stay" Iraq & Lybia stances flips on a dime.

      His serial adulteries, marriages, & divorces. etc.


      • Rjgarfunkel

        Ronald Reagan, who is loved by the idiotic right wing of this country. He has the most fraudulent reputation of any that has ever served in public office. He was certainly genial, a decent guy, a 3rd rate actor that had his career revived by the advice by his new father-in-law, Dr, Davis (a supporter the John Birch Society) "Go where the money is!" In other words flack for 20 Mule Team Borax and GE. This confused guy even voted for FDR four times by his own admission. He learned that it was "good business" to give up a lifetime of supposed ideals. He was a quick study, but basically a "dope" who was lost without a script. One day Jack Benny went into a theater where his "rival" Fred Allen was doing a remote for his radio program. Allen was giving out cheap Depression glass plates to the audience. All of a sudden Benny stood up and demanded a plate. Allen seeing the opportunity to score on his rival, said, "There is Jack Benny, one of the richest men in America trying to huckster a plate from you people." Allen kept up the barraging harangue and finally the frustrated Benny yelled out, "You wouldn't say that if my writers were here!" Well that fits Reagan to a tee. He even thought that the co2 from a tree was equivalent to a car's emissions. He was a "stiff" built up by his handlers. His last term was a disaster, and to cap it off during the Poindexter and McFarlane Trials he said under oath over 400 times that he did not remember! With a history of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Nixon I can understand easily that the "flat-earth" Luddites of the new GOP love to worship the memory of the “Gipper” whose understanding of the problems of this country matched his inability to answer a question “off the cuff.” Maybe that's why he ran out after every press conference yelling over his shoulder. They couldn't wait to get him away.

        • Rjgarfunkel

          Reagan II
          In the wake of the public mourning of Ronald Reagan, our 40th President of the United States, his supporters made certain claims. One of these claims was that he was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. As an avid student of history and a witness to those events I must beg to disagree. The process that led to its welcomed collapse was in the works long before he was elected. In a sense it was a result of the confluence of disparate events and circumstances. In 1982 after 13 years of litigation against ATT by the Justice Department, the case was settled, and ATT agreed to give up their 22 Bell Systems and their subsequent monopoly over technology. This “breakup” began a “golden age” of communication that eventually resulted in fax machines, cable television, cell phones and the Internet. Meanwhile in Poland, after 2 months of labor turmoil at the Lenin Shipyards, Gdansk, in 1980 that had paralyzed the country, the Polish government gave into the demands of the workers. This of course was before Ronald Reagan was elected. Over the next few years, Poland, in need for “hard” foreign currency was starting to invite Polish-American retirees from the steel industry to come back and live in Poland. With their large union pensions they were able to buy “dachas”, or country houses and live like princes. This reality was not lost on Walesa, who saw his workers starving, as opposed to American steel workers who were “rich” and now “landed gentry.”

          Others soon became aware of this reality and eventually through the lowering of phone rates, and the development of the fax machines, etc, communication between citizens of the Eastern Bloc and the West opened up. Hungary started to liberalize in 1989 and a flow of East German citizens started to circumvent the Berlin Wall as they traveled through Hungary to West Germany. So the proverbial “flood-gate” was opened, and it could not be shut. By 1991 the old Warsaw Pact countries had removed their Communist bosses and Soviet troops finally went home. Without their client states, the Soviet system was finally exposed as the economic “basket case” it was, and they shut down the whole bankrupt operation. All in all, his real credit should be for the following; the useless and expensive 600 ship navy, the invasion of tiny Grenada, SDI, the Strategic Defense Imitative (Star Wars), Iran-Contra scandal, the death of 240+ Marines in Beirut, the stock market collapse of 1987, and the tripling of the National Debt, vetoing sanctions against South Africa, the speech at the SS cemetery in Bitburg, backing military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, and the Philippines, arming Sadaam Hussein, voodoo economics (George Bush’s phrase), inaction against the AIDS epidemic, the nearly 200 members of his administration that faced indictment and prosecution, his appointment of Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, the S & L scandal that stuck the taxpayers with a bill approaching a trillion dollars, his relentless attacks on affirmative action, his deregulation of broadcasting gave rise to today’s monopolistic media industry, and a host of other wonderful accomplishments. Ronald Reagan got the last laugh in the end. He is still fooling the impotent media with his “teflon” image that was carefully crafted by his handlers, apologists and sycophants. But let's look at the record: he tripled the National Debt in 8 years, unemployment almost averaged 8% in his 8 years, he raised the tax bracket on the lowest earners to 15%, created a greater gap between rich and poor than any time since the New Deal, and never shrunk government. In fact his 8 budgets were always bigger then the proposed Congressional budgets over his 8 years.

    • Andy

      Ii agree, Cameron. It isn't the two party system that is the problem, it is the lack of education or interest in anything political on the part of the voting public. When these "useful idiots" show up to vote the just select based on R or D and have no idea who most of the candidates are let alone what they stand for.

    • mary hinson

      You know some people cannot win for losing. At least Mitt loves his family and is a full pledge christian and has enough wisdom to have businesses that succeeded. We need someone up there that has had money and knows how to balance the budget, he might just be the man.

  • taina2

    We will have a conservative third party candidate if Romney is nominated. No more RINOs.

  • Dean

    I am a registered independent who is a conservative after listening to the republican candidates I would vote for Bachman
    or none I have found a Candidate who I am willing to vote for without question Laurie Roth as long as she makes all 50 states Ballots I believe she can pull it off But only if the non voting conservatives come out and vote non the less non of the current republican front runners lights my fire.
    check out

  • tod

    Dr. Ron Paul is the only one standing up for our beloved Constitution,and Freedoms,Period !!!

    • Robert, TX

      And the vast majority of the people I met at the Constitution party support Ron Paul vigorously. A Ron Paul victory with the current Congress returning (minus Ron Paul) will not be much of a victory at all. He will need patriots in Congress to support his plan to get us off the Obama/Boehner baseline to hell.

  • Eve

    As a member of the Republican party, I can only say that if Gingrich or Romney get the nomination, I HOPE someone will run third party so that I can switch. There is no way on God's green earth I'd EVER vote for either of them.

    Anyone REMOTELY considering Newt needs to read these two articles:

    • bbgunner

      The add on Gingrich was put out by Ron Paul to ruin his support. It was hightly slanted and Gringrich is not even close to Romney. I would still rather see Bachman, Cain, Palin if they have kept their noses clean.

    • ardis

      If you would rather have 4 more years of 15 trillion deficits "USA of KKK" Rev. Wright mentored Obama--than have Romney with a solid record in the private & public sector of "turning around" failed entities, creating jobs/businesses, producing profits, and balancing budgets i.e., at Bain & Company (saved it), Bain Capital (65 billion in assets), the Olympics (Most sucesful in history)& as governor of far left state Massachusetts (balanced the budget)--on your conscience be it.

      Enjoy your bankruptcy!

    • Dave N' Tejas

      So you think Obamma would be the best alternative?? As far as third party, all that would do, is ensure 4 more years of tearing this country apart.

  • Cameron

    Everyone who says voting third party will get Obama reelected are weak. I will not compromise my beliefs to vote for the status quo. Its that kind of thinking that has brought this country to its knees. Obama was elected because people wanted someone that wasnt like Bush. We would be no better off with Mc Cain in office. They all stand for big govt. If you dont want third party to shake up the election then vote Ron Paul in the primary. I wont vote for any of the other republican candidates. The others lie and flip flop.

    • Bruce

      A lot of conservative people were saying something like this in 2006 and again in 2008, because the "Republican" majority in Congress was acting so much like Democrats. The result was that the Democrats took over in the Senate in January 2007, as a result of the election in November 2006, and then increased their majority in 2009 along with putting a closet communist in the White House.
      Do you like these results? I don't.

    • ardis

      Read a history book.

      A third party candidate has never become president.

      Clinton won with a 41% plurality over Bush 1 in 1992 because third Party Perot split the vote.

    • Juggernaut69

      McCain intended for Obama to take office. How else can you even remotely enplane how he ran his campaign? He would give hope to the conservatives by bringing in a wild card Palin (I am sure she was not aware of this). Force her to the back burner after exciting the base and let the media trash her and her family. He would allow nothing but softballs to be thrown form the press and his campaign about the Obama's shady past and associations.
      McCain would let his questionable record turn off a number of conservative voters (who do outnumber the liberal voters) In the perfect storm to bring the current president into office.
      From his protected spot he could start legislation to shred the Constitution as he did with bill the introduction of Bill S.1253. I assure you he will have a cushy place at the right hand of the dictator and chief for this treasonous act.
      I am not sure we will have an election and if we do I cannot say it will be a fair one. I think we are heading straight for the meat grinder with this and it doesn't not matter how many parties run.
      That said should there be an election I will attempt to get the most conservative person we can.

      • Rjgarfunkel

        McCain reached out to Palin as a move of desperation. He was loosing badly and took a risk. She was worse. She gave him some conservative, lunatic cover for a few weeks, but was exposed as another know-nothing in the same class as Perry and Cain. She was poorly educated, read nothing, had no concept of foreign affairs and was a climber in Alaska who bucked the GOP establishment, As to Palin she went to 6 or 7 colleges and I can hardly believe any one school would have accepted her credits for a diploma. Obama went to Columbia and the Harvard Law School, made The Law Review and its head (no affirmative action there) and taught law for ten years at the prestigious U of Chicago Law School. McCain flunked out of Presbyterian HS in DC, and was 895th out of 900 at Annapolis. If any one was affirmative action it was he. Palin probably never got a degree.

        • Shaggon

          You , like all the rest of your progressive friends were scared of Pailn. If she was the on the other side of the ticket, yes, if she was the President nominee instead of the VP. She would have beat Obama. If she was running now, she would have beat Obama. You can't find anything on her. SHE IS A WINNER. SHE'S THE BEST!!!!

    • Patrioticnut

      Cameron, one simple question. If Ron Paul were elected, how much do you think he would be able to change with little to no support from congress? All of the third party folks need to understand that you must start from the local level and work your way up to effectively change the system. Don't blow the presidential election due to ideals that will not be enacted without the foundation work required. Elect the most conservative person possible at the time that can actually effect some change, or at least slowing of the downfall of our country. THEN, work to establish a base to work from beginning with local government officials.

  • 1599

    There are enough voters who would like additional choices. Unfortunately, the two party system has such a tight grip on our political system that is is very difficult to establish a voting party that will challenge them. This is one thing to which Democrats and Republicans agree.

  • PastorCarmen

    Third party gives BHO four more years and the death of America.

    • taina2

      The pain will be terrible, but we will be done with liberals for a generation. The main problem is judge nominations.

    • mediazorba

      I totally agree with you! Anyone but Obama! If Obama wins we can kiss our Country good bye.


    It was a Third Party that got us to where we are today. Starting with Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose Party". That opened the door to the Gods of Liberalism Wilson and FDR and every other Progressive,Socialist, Pinko, Uber Sensitive Do Gooder Swine or Worse. Till here we are today.....Third Party.....I don't think so.

    • Rjgarfunkel

      You sound more like an UN-American. Who taught you all that fiction? Did you pick it up at Bund Reunion Meeting. As I recall there was no 3rd party candidate when FDR squashed Hoover and 3 others, and with the victories of JFK, LBJ, Obama and Obama. With Bush I he had 37% of the vote the lowest total an incumbent had since the 1830's. Obviously people didn't want him and Bush II was elected by the Supreme Court. What a mistake.


        Iggy for Ignoramus you must be new in America. Do some homework on the Progressive Movement in the US of A before you post me. I hate to see children embarrass themselves. Just looking out for you ...Comrade Rjgarfunkel

  • charleydan

    Ron Paul and many other of us who like the libertarian concept. Know that the constitution is written and should not be changed. Mainly, because once it is open, anything goes. So I would not worry about the differences there as most libertarians would gladly accept the constitution as is.

    For conservatives? The word stinks to high heavens with moral majority. Not a thing wrong with morals, majority is mob rule and that is the main problem with conservatives as they want to dictate their beliefs on others that our framers so denied.

    Conservatives as a whole do not understand individual liberty that our constitution gave us, but rather come with their ideas of conservatism tainted in their beliefs and shove it down in a majority vote. Instead of individual liberty.

    • Crom

      Ron Paul is changing the Constitution, one he doesn't believe I might regularly lying about what is or is not Constitutional.

      David Bahnsen covered the Lew Rockwell camps hatred of the Constitution in his article on Paul:

      • Rene

        Crom, you are lying, just who do you work for, everyone that has ever heard Paul talk, and knows the Constitution would know this. Ron Paul not only knows the Constitution, but he has been defending it publically for over thirty years. I don't know how you thought you could get away with your "smear Paul tactic".

      • Rene

        Crom, Bahnsen makes all of these statements about Ron Paul, and Lew Rockwell, and then closes himself off to reader comments, so no one can rebuke him. How can we trust him? He said he had an ax to grind.

        • bpitas

          I read that entire article, although it was difficult. Bahnsen purports to have been someone who supported Ron Paul until he "learned more about him" but you can tell that's an utter lie. It's proven out by some of the baseless claims he makes in his analysis - nobody who knows anything about Ron Paul (or Lew Rockwell for that matter) would say the things that Bahnsen said. Yet another attempt by trolls to make undecided people think Ron Paul isn't worthy of the presidency. Anyone who has done the tiniest bit of independent research about Ron Paul and his voting history would see through this in a heartbeat, but there may be some gullible people who haven't done research who might believe it...

      • TradeDeficit

        Libertarianism has some very oddly leftist and frankly scary, aspects to it:

        "I grew up in a Communist culture," In the Ethics of Liberty Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues regarding children's rights. These include women's right to abortion, proscriptions on parents aggressing against children once they are born, and the issue of the state forcing parents to care for children, including those with severe health problems. He also holds children have the right to "run away" from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He suggested parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or even sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract, which he feels is more humane than artificial governmental restriction of the number of children available to willing and often superior parents.

        Selling Children? Sounds like USSR or PRC Anarchism.

      • bpitas

        Sorry Crom - with the invention of the internet and information sources like Wikipedia it's trivial for someone to go do some independent research and tell that what you said is completely FALSE. Ron's voting record is public and anyone can just go look at it. Looking at someone's voting record can be a little tricky, but once people realize that you can't use the name of a bill to tell what it actually has in it ("Patriot act" being the perfect example of an unpatriotic bill!), you can tell how a politician votes versus what he says in his campaign speeches.
        And that is where Ron Paul is unassailable.

    • KenJack

      You're ignorant.

      • Rene

        KenJack, maybe you need to do your homework, charleydan is correct.

    • EAGLE 1

      Ron Paul is the country's only hope to maintain our libertys and freedom and should be our number one objective if we are to survive as a FREE PEOPLE!

    • Rene

      You are very right about this, we don't need a Constitutional Convention, it is very dangerous. A Constitutional Convention cannot be controlled, and could very well turn into a runaway convention, completly destroying this Republic.

  • rocco r. rossano

    My suggestion, do away with all parties !! One country, one agenda.... The D's and the R's are having the "PARTIES !" Not you and me !! The deficit, the debt, the two no-win wars, the unemployment, and most of all the corruption !!!! What are the American "SHEEP" waiting for ???? Solidarity, my fellow Americans...

    • Rjgarfunkel

      Huh! Why don't you do away with the Supreme Court while you are at it. The ruled for Citizen's United against Chicago and opened the floodgate on spending? By the way where did you get your degree in American Government or your brain? Were you just bored today?

  • Jack

    The major problems of this country could be fixed with a two fold approach. First no identification of party affiliation and second term limits. Money gets politicians elected. Those with the money to throw behind candidates expect political favors. What they do to insure their interests is put their money behind certain candidates in both parties, that way no matter which party prevails during an election, one of their candidates gets in.

    Another element is ideologies. The Democratic party has banded together a multitude of fanatical special interests. Some are marxists/communists, some race baters, Muslim radicals, etc.. The general American public is not associated with these and is forced over and over again to choose the lesser of two evils, instead of choosing the best candidate. With the help of a Democratic leaning media, people think they are making a choice but actually are choosing between clones from the same fold....that fold being globalism. Candidates either put globalism first or they put America/Americans first...that's the real choice and the choice we Americans should be making.

  • Chan K.

    We don't need any more parties we need to get rid of career politicians,The I.R.S,Federal reserve and most of all Obama.Who ever gets nominated to go against O we all need to get behind that person and STOP socialism and sharia law and through the bums in the courts out on there ear or we could be looking at civil war.

    • mary c. hinson

      Amen, you are right we need a christian nation, not socialiam or sharia law. We need to pray to our Heavenly Father and ask Him to help us get someone up there to balance the budget and do the work our Heavenly Father wants for this nation.

  • Pappy

    I've been wondering, why is it that the Republican Party cannot put forth a viable candidate? They do this every time. The RNC does what it wants, and the People be damed. The above is the reason I have told them not to request donations from me for the National Party. I only donate to the candidate directly, if there is a good one. And on a completely different topic, Why is everybody hopeing for one of these 'candidates' to choose Marco Rubio as a running mate, is there not a problem with meeting Constitutional requirements involved here??????

    • Pappy

      Please, don't get me wrong, I love Rubio. He is one of, if not the best conservative in DC, but the law is the law, even though most no one follows it any more, especialy in DC

    • Rjgarfunkel

      They do not have viable candidates. Their crazy governors are all in trouble, there are recall votes all over the place and the Presidential wannabees who are running today are either moral, low-lies, certifiable crazies like Bachmann, Paul or Santorum or the House of Pancakes, Flip-Flop King Mitt. Gingrich is not only morally flawed, but he's a slime ball who has gamed the system for millions and has been a lobbyists for all the folks you hate or have been ripping you off.

      • Rene

        Apparently you are not educated in what is happening in the Republican Primary Race, you don't know any of these people, you listen to the Major Media, and they will tell you anything the Establishment wants you to know. Check some of these people out, check their history, and their stand on the Constitution. If you will do that' and study the US Constitution, you will realize that Ron Paul is the most qualified candidate, Gary Johnson would be next, and Bachmann wwould be next. You are correct though about Santorum, he is an idiot, and the others are Globalists. Do your research!

    • Rene

      The Republican and Democrat Party is a two headed snake, bitting both sides of the isle, by playing good cop, bad cop! Both parties are owned by the International Banking and Corporate Machines.

    • Dale

      Rubio is one of the main reasons the Republicans in Congress will not address the Obama "natural born" situation and get rid of him.
      Get rid of anyone in Congress who does not have the guts to stand up for our Constitution.

    • TradeDeficit

      You may like this guy:

      • amagi

        I read he was considering Lieberman as his running mate. Really ?

    • Lyle

      You have to be a member of the Washington Mafia in order to get the GOP or the Dem nomination.

      The good guys always finish last

  • Link Hogtrob

    "Is America Primed for a Third or Fourth Party Candidate?"
    Only if America wants 4 more years of the turd in chief.

  • KenJack

    I would love to see some new candidates that are independent thinkers. Unfortunately, as long as we have the "gimme what I'm entitled to from the earnings of others" voters, Obama, Reid, Boxer, Pulosi, Frank, Emmanuel, and those like them will continue to thrive. Why? Because that parasitical half of us who call themselves Americans will always outnumber the productive, real Americans who are searching the country for a candidate like Ronald Reagan who is smart, articulate, charismatic, and forthright. I don't see anyone like that in the current slate of candidates and starting a new party will further divide what we have left of the conservative movement.

    • Rene

      Don't you know that what you said you would like to see, is what Ron and Rand Paul are? They are totally different from the rest in Washington, they are Constitutional Conservatives.

  • judy

    we have had third and fourth parties for decades. i remember the liberal and communist candidates on the ballots. for the love of God do not go splitting things now. all it will do is allow obumbo to get back in.

    • Randy

      Or for the love of God, split the vote and allow EL GOP to put on the sheep's clothig.

  • Patricia

    What we need are Patriots in both present Parties that vote for the good of America and not for Party.

    • Robert, TX

      And then their parties will drum them out. Remember, all 240 republicans voted for John Boehner as Speaker, and they knew exactly what they were getting: a do-nothing, compromising eunuch that is a disgrace to this nation.

      • TradeDeficit


  • BigrayMich

    Both of our current parties are bankrupt at the top. There may be a few good men out in the trenches but they and their efforts are thwarted by the liberals in Washington at the top of their respective parties.

    As for Ron Paul and libertarians, they strike me as somewhat naive with respect to both foreign and domestic issues. They rely too heavily on the idea that everyone has everyone else's best interests at heart and that no one would ever think of or or try to get the better of their fellow man. Just listen to and contemplate Paul's ideas with respect to Iran as an example.

    • Susie4Liberty

      Then please go back and re-read his Platform... PARTICULARLY in respect to Iran... Talk to a few Servicemen who support him...will feel as though a light switched on...

  • Robert Trebes

    America, PLEASE wake up!…A recent poll of registered Republicans indicate that 52% of them want a third party that is ‘Truly Conservative’, not what the Rino’s in Washington is offering the Republican voters. A recent poll of registered Democrats have an equal disgust for their representatives, stating this is NOT the Democratic Party that my parents belonged to. The point is, both parties are equally corrupt, they just have a different agenda. Neither party will allow a candidate into their ‘Party’ that has NOT been ‘Sanctioned’ by the “Elite’ of either party. Both parties fight among themselves jockeying for control of the government, but neither party is willing to govern in a manner that “We the People of the United States” demand! Both parties refuse to give up the “People’s Golden Goose” that benefit their own pockets, and NOT to the benefit of the country at large. Now, more than ever, we the ‘Blue Collar Worker’ (majority of Americans) must forget about being Democrat, Republican or Independent and become the ‘Party’ of “We the People” and throw the self serving “Elitists” out of office, so we can preserve the ‘American Dream’! I believe we need to form a new party called “The Founding Fathers Party”, the core party platform will be a strict adherence to the United States Constitution. If we follow the Founding Fathers foot prints, we will once again become the most powerful, wealthy country in the world, whereas ‘ALL’ people will have the 'Oppourtunity' to prosper, NOT just a ‘Select’ few!

    • George

      Good one, Robert. Thanks for articulating this.

  • Robert

    Ron Paul is three or four parties all rolled into one, The Constdemlibgop party.

  • FlaJim

    It appears that Giacomo is referring to the future, not the present contest, John Clements. A third party would need at least 4 years to set up properly and maybe more. Something like flocking to the Constitution Party would require huge amounts of money just to fund a nationwide functioning organization.

    Then, there's the problem of staffing and recruitment. Traditionally, true conservatives aren't drawn to government service at a young age because they have aspirations to achieve in the marketplace rather than wallow in a culture that rewards mediocrity and feeds off the public teat. I don't advocate higher pay for public service but term limits would enable and encourage those who wanted to put in a few years and return to private enterprise.

    The other option is to simply take over the GOP, throw out the establishment types, and reform it. This starts at the grass roots level and trickles up until the country club 'go along to get along' types in the hierarchy are forced out. When the Republican Party started, it absorbed the best of the old Whig party and the rest were left to sulk at home.

  • Richard Davis

    A third and forth party candidate would be good in an "all being equal and objective" to the American cause. But, in todays liberal, anti God culture, another vote seeker in the last end run would almost assure the loss for the conervative side of the spectrim. Liberals would enjoy it, most likely encourage it and enjoy seeing their agenda advance by default. The Good Lord will allow his choice, whether to bless, control or to disclipline the country. Biblically speaking, the end time is likely too near for believers to just wait and see. "Who is on the Lord's side?". Not in word or creed, but real in heart surrender and obedience.

  • rocco r. rossano

    there are 535 of them and 308+ million of us.. strength in numbers.. we have the advantage.. are we that

    dumb ?? are we that preoccupied ?? are we making too many deals ?? look in the mirror, are you being

    honest with yourself ?? the truth will set you free.. barney frank is retiring, he can smell the smoke..

    he allegedly started several fires or turned his back on them.... sad, so very sad....

  • Robert, TX

    Great article and great idea! I went to the Constitution Party planning meeting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and the people are great - and their ideas are right on - and they are willing to work with other patriots (unlike republicans). I left the republican party in 2009 (after 29 years), and I told people that little johnny would not DO anything. The republican party died a long time ago, and the democratic party no longer represents 85% of its voters. The question is not "third party" but are we ready for a NEW party - one that will unapologetically represent patriots? The answer is no - right now - but after Obama/Romney and more RINOS are elected, and after this eunuch Congress fails again, then more people will get it. But will it be too late?

  • barbara

    Third and/or fourth party candidates only serve to divide the vote and elect the opposition. Let Hillary and Obama run and their vote can be divided. Ours shouldn't be!

  • Anne

    I agree in theory that a major change is needed, but folks, this is not the time to risk four more years of BO. Additional party choices will certainly allow that to happen.

    I also am concerned when I read comments indicating only a particular candidate will be considered. We may not get our first choice (we certainly didn't in 2008), but really! Anyone but Obama should rule!

  • @ConnorVlakancic

    Whatever is a GIACOMO??, writes: "Washington DC has become a quagmire of unproductive ineptitude as a direct result of the two major political parties.".

    ACTUALLY!!! Washington DC has become greatly productive of ineptitude.

    Have a nice day :-)

    • disgusted

      BUT - it's NOT just Wash DeCadence!
      We have PLENTY- local, State & National!

  • TedRWeiland

    Giacomo: "The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law..."

    A document (along with the Articles of Confederation) that established a government of, by, and for the people, essentially usurping the 17th-century American government of, by, and for Yahweh (the God of the Bible) and whose nearly every article and amendment is antithetical, if not adversarial, to Yahweh's morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments is NOT rooted in Biblical law! I know those who own this site, write for it, and most of its visitors have the best of intentions and want to see this nation return to her Christian/Biblical roots, but it's never going to happen by promoting a document hostile to Yahweh's morality and sovereignty.

    Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey <a href="http://(" target="_blank">( and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

  • @2WarAbnVet

    Face it; a third party would guarantee Obama's reelection. All the parasites, the simple-minded, the elitists, the true believers, and the dead Democrat voters would still support him. It's difficult enough to overcome that bloc under normal circumstances, particularly since the Parasite Class has grown astronomically in recent years.

  • old1

    The foreign, Kenyan Muslim Communist , usurper needs a 3rd party candidate to win. Gotta split America right down the middle or the Communists ain't got a chance! Rally around someone as a Group if you want to save America from the Communist coup. Ron Paul ain't perfect but he is electable!

    • Ralph

      Oh Good God when will you patnetic out of touch with rrealily Ron Paul freakos accept your phon nearly 80 ear old gong
      senile crazy tea party messiah Ron Paul has already been rejected by the voters twice before and will be rejected again
      in 2012! Face Reality Ron Paul is as nutty as a fruitcake and as dangerous as the Kenyan Psycho in the White House
      now Barack Hussein Obama you naive foolish brainwashed Ron Paul freakos? No To Ron Paul again in 2012!

  • Warrior07

    The third party is the TEA Party and the goal is to remove the Progressive Donks and RINOs from politics. We will rise to the forefront after the holiday season and take on the Zoo Crew [Donks and RINOs]

    • Susie4Liberty

      And so, you do know the History of the Tea Party...

      • Warrior07

        Does the history of the T-Par-T really matter? I know the here and now and politics is focused on the Zoo Crew (Donkeycrats and RINOS.)

  • perry

    we had the person, it was gary johnson ,but the media shut him out ..people just listen to what he has to say

    • Susie4Liberty

      And which of the Candidates does he support?

  • Katie2011


    And look at how the numerous bills the House has passed and are sitting in front of Congress to vote on. More than 25 great ideas to get the jobs UP and the Congress refuses to even LOOK at them much less vote on them. Tell ME who is obstructing what. If Congress would act on them, it would ruin the Dems plan to just declare the R's do nothing as their platform for the election. They don't care about the Country, they only care about the election!

  • George

    A third party is an option,first you need to make a challenge to local gov.Then you need to have to challenge the state gov.Have success in these areas then you could take on Congress,have major wins there,then go for the White House.
    This would take around 12 to 16 years.DO WE HAVE THE TIME, we have to win our battles NOW.

  • julian

    We could use a conservative party, kinda like the Republican party but without the RINO's. Wouldn't be many in it to begin with, but it would grow without the GOP controlling it.

    • Speed

      I believe that'd be the Tea Party. Now is NOT the time though. Whoever is the Republican Candidate,we need to back him or her full strength,get Obama out,and with a republican in office we can begin getting this country right again. THEN we can look at a third party.

  • Vienna

    Wake up folks and stop being so naive - a 3rd party will ensure Obama's re-election just like Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton

    • Nick

      We keep saying we want conservative candidates, but we keep electing the same political parties that are screwing us out of our property, money, and conservative education for our future posterity.
      HMMMMM! let me smash my left hand with a hammer and lets see if it hurts. OUCH> Let me smash my right hand with the hammer and see if it hurts, OUCH> Maybe I didn't smash my left hand properly, let me try it again, OUCH> Let me try the other side of the hammer on my right hand, maybe it won't hurt as much....... Doing the same thing over and over and over is sheer stupidity. Vote for principle and get others to wake up. Voting for a republican won't solve our problems. they are all in on the problem. There is no difference between the two. It is a one party Oligarchy called the republocrats. What part of this don't you see or don't understand.

  • JerryS

    3rd party = guaranteed re-election of Obama !

    • Nick

      All conservatives need to start voting for principle instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. Voting fo rthe lesser of two evils is still and evil. Change will have to come from within our hearts. Unless we are willing to sacrifice a few elections, then we will not be willing to vote for real change.

  • Bruce

    I've been thinking about a third party since about November 2008. I voted for Sarah Palin for Vice President, holding my nose because of the name above hers. I would have been much happier to vote for her for President, but the king-makers in the mainstream media (aka the Democrat Party's press agents) made sure that we couldn't do that.

  • John

    Usually this is a good blog but saying that you could see a Libertarian condoning pedophilia is assanine. That comment reeks of Saul Alinsky.


    If people get pissed at both partys then they will vote for a third party.

    • Susie4Liberty

      WELL, I AM!!!

  • Sergio Sr.

    The only Party that we will need is a "CELEBRATION PATRY' once bho is evicted from the White House. OUT WITH THE TRASH!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!


    Third / Forth party Bad news. We must get obama out at all cost. Heck Bozo the Clown would be a better Presisent!

  • Carol

    Perhaps the freedom that your fear of the libertarian party of allowing things like pediphilia would also give citizens the freedom to react to such perversions instead of defending them. What we have no is not only allowing perversions but giving them rights over citizens and defending them. So you are your children have no defense. And to take away your guns so the criminals are the only ones with guns when they break into your home or catch you on the street at night. Thats not freedom. The constitution gives a great deal of freedoms but doesnt take away States or the people rights to deal with things not listed. And contrary to what the federal government on both sides is doing now it limits federal government greatly. I know insane people like McCain hate that idea. I for one am willing to look into the libertarian values as long as they are constitutional.

    • Susie4Liberty

      I will NEVER understand why people FEAR the Liberty and Freedoms guaranteed under Our Constitution!

      • Bill Weston

        Tyrants fear the concept of The Constitution because they are out of business when it is followed. Not all tyrants are from foriegn countries either. Every generation will have to face an assault on our liberty as a result. Now that dictators in this world are basically ineffective and "liberty" is catching on, the assault is from within this time.

  • South1

    These parties might have influence if we had a parliamentary form of government, then they could align themselves with other conservatives to exercise power. Under the circumstances it is better to push the Republicans to be more libertarian/constitutionalist. To do otherwise will spli this vote and allow the socialists democrats to control the government while the country goes to hell.

  • Carol

    The constitution party also sounds like a good option. I cringe at the idea of what these people in Washington can do to us in the meantime, but its a start back in the right direction. As long as all the damage will be undone there is hope and that will give me the strength to fight. Right now my hope is failing because we are getting closer and closer to loosing all our rights.

  • KPJ2

    Any serious third party candidate will insure that Obama is reelected. In the middle of next year, the mainstream media and the other Obama lapdogs will be trying to create a serious third party candidate to get Obama reelected. We all have to stick together and vote for the Republican candidate, WHOEVER THAT IS!! Another 4 years of Obama destroys this country.

  • Cameron

    To all of you with no principles on here, anything isnt better than Obama. If you dont want him to have a second term vote Ron Paul. I will never compromise to vote for Newt, Romney, Cain, or Perry. In my mind, you will ensure Obamas reelection by not boting Ron Paul.

  • flyguy

    To vote for Newt or the lesser of 2 evils, is just forstalling what Obama has been trying to do for the past 3 years. Eliminate our sovergnty and turn us into the NWO. I will not compromise my beliefs and vote for a RINO that supports gun control, illegal immigration, Amnesty, TARP, Global Warming, Dede Scozafuzza (NY 23) to name a few.

    Sorry, but if defeat is the only way to finally get rid of the RINO's, then so be it. I broke away from the Repub. party (40 year member) after the 2010 elections when Newt, Rove, McPain, the RNP et al refused to support the conservative candidates supported by the Tea Party. They let people that won the Republican primaries, like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle and Joe (?) from Alaska and the conservative candidate for the house in NY district 23, also, Hayworth for congress in AZ, Instead of helping them, they were critical of these people and let them all go down in defeat.

    Why should I help any RINO now?

    At least with Obama, we know up front where that sleaze wants to take us and can prepare for the worst. With Newt, Perry, Romney, they will take us along the same slippery slope only a little slower.

    Semper Fi

    • Susie4Liberty

      GREAT POST!!! I'm with you, flyguy! There are many of us who have awakened!

  • joe

    At this point, I'd take pee wee herman.

  • Susie4Liberty

    Well, apparently many of you missed the vote late yesterday - "Defense Authorization Act" - allowing for 'indefinite detention of American Citizens' by the Military, our Homeland now being same as war zone. In other words, with a vote of 97-3, American Citizens were stripped of all rights, And ANYONE would have a 2nd thought about voting AGAINST someone who approved this? And I voted FOR MCCAIN who co-sponsored it? And any of you would wonder why I wear my shirt every chance I get? "RECLAIMING Our Constitution Our Liberties Our Sovereignty The Rule of Law..." And for which Candidate do I wear it - proudly... Ron Paul

  • Bumps

    Third party? - fourth party? Answers to Obama's muslim prayers. Remember the little jug eared Texan Perot assured Clinton's election by splitting the Republican vote. Let us not be stupid. Back whoever the Republican candidate is - anyone would be better than 4 more years of the ruination of the USA by Obama.

  • Elwood

    Bumps, did you say the little jug eared Texan Perot? Oh, you mean the little short guy with a bad haircut, right? Anyway, as to the matter of a third party for 2012, it is a bad, bad idea! It would assure the election of the demo rats and Obummer, pure and simple, no further discussion!

  • OhYeah

    A third party is more desirable than voting in the SAME horse of another color. Yes, replace Obama. However, if the Republicans don't offer anything better, I'm looking elsewhere. Here is where somewhere inserts the ever coy, "A vote for a third party is a vote for Obama." Woopty-doo. I will not compromise principal to beat one t*rd with another t*rd. I can well imagine the same thing was said about third party candidates in the day of Lincoln when the Republican party was that third party.

    • Elwood

      OhYeah, you have the right to not compromise your principal all you want to but the fact remains the formation of a third party will mean one thing and that is the reelection of the boy that currently occupies the White House, like it or not!

  • Blair Franconia, NH

    I don't think so. Third party candidates usually flame out.

  • CaptTurbo

    I see only two candidates who would support our Constitution, Michele Bachmann, and Dr Ron Paul. I doubt the American public has enough brain cells to vote the right way this time either though.

  • W Smith

    The modern "Libertarian" party was founded when I was in college. Let's just say that was a while ago. I found my way with the rise of Ronald Reagan and have not looked back since 1976 and his failed bid for the Presidency. Third party candidates tend to place in power those who give rise to their movement. Do not mistake cause with solution. Perhaps change our party name but a third way is no way at all that cannot be manipulated against us when media is at the knee of a new master. Just recently CBS 60 Minutes conducted an experiment in investigative journalism dealing with Insider Trading within our Bureaucracy. I hold little hope it is any other than a fleeting cause. The rules are the rules depending on who you are. It's called "Social Justice" as determined by who the "Master" is. Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and many more. Take your pick and then your position at "Masters " knee lest you be not needed and receive the 10 cent solution along with all who will not bow.

  • Doff D. Trolio

    All of the above never has read the Declaration.

  • W Smith

    Of what country are you referring? And what Declaration? Perhaps you have gotten your continents mixed up.

  • Henry

    Or maybe, we can have 140 party's! Now that would be fun wouldn't it? Bye bye Republic, hello Marxism!

  • John Hand

    Hey all you Ron Paul fanatics....have you noticed that during all those debates on TV, that all the other candidates address and maybe attack EACH OTHER, but do not bother to respond to Paul's comments? Well, have you noticed that? That is because THEY ALL KNOW that Paul does not have a chance, and do not want to waste their valuable time responding to anything he says, which is usually wacky. So get with it people and support whatever candidate the Republicans come up with, and forget this "I'm gonna go hide my head, or not vote, or vote third party" crap!

  • Moe

    Please do not believe stats given out by the Feds on anything, let alone the unemployment percentage. It is figured on how many people are receiving unemployment benefits. Clinton "renewed" China's Most Favored Trading Nation status after nearly 50 years being denied by every President since Eisenhower. Then came unprecedented: *tax breaks for any company moving to China and average import tax reductions of 95%, *tax levies and over-regulation on domestic businesses, *allowing pubic access stores to violate the Constitution by refusing to carry any products not made in China (discrimination in national origin of the producers). All these combined forcing domestic businesses to either move to China or quickly fold further exacerbating our failing economy. Not counted are those who lost their unemployment benefits or have lost their residences cannot so they can't even apply for welfare or work making them "non-persons. The actual unemployment rate is closer to 25%. Not counted, the 500,000 who lost their benefits last June. Not mentioned are the many thousands more are layed off each month. Gone with those jobs are family and tax base supporting dollars. .

  • Daniel from TN

    We definately need replacement parties for the Democrat and Republican parties. Almost all the parties formed in the last few years are working in the wrong direction politically. When you climb a ladder you start at the bottom rung and gradually work your way up; otherwise, you fall flat on your face and you are no closer to the top than when you started. The most recent new parties are trying to start at president, and are falling flat on their faces.
    The TEA Party has a unique strategy. Instead of forming a new party they are working within the Republican party. Their plan is to support more TEA Party candidates, at ALL levels of government, within the Republican Party so that eventually the TEA Party will BE the Republican Party. At that point the name can officially be changed to TEA Party. Communism is gradually accomplishing the same thing from within the Democrat Party.

    • Patrioticnut

      Good post Daniel! I tried to say the same thing, however I believe the Tea Party got overzealous in their efforts and jumped to the federal level to quickly, thus the recent lack of growth and quieting of their message. I support the Tea Party and hope we can get it right but think we need to go back to the local level and build a stronger base of support first. I could be wrong but don't think there are enough local government supporters for the Tea Party yet.

    • Bertram A. Magnus

      The Tea Party should not be considered as aligning itself with any political party but should put their efforts into finding good candidates, not only for the top but for all the bottom positions in whatever party they are associating themselves with. This does not mean sending out requests for money on each email, that places them along with all the other political pests. Lets find and support those who have a like mind with most of us that want this country back to what it was supposed to be. We fought Communism, the NAZIS and other freedom takers, now who is there to fight for us... only ourselves.

  • Moe

    I tried to post a comment about 1/3 of the size of rjgarfunkle's and got a message that my comment was too long. I stated publically know facts and I guess chronicalling facts are not politically correct here. I reduced it to 12 lines and it was still too long.

    How does rj get his very long comments through? Does he know someone or is he a company schill?

    So many questions..........

  • mjnellett

    The only thing standing between full employment and unemployment in this country is Barrack Obama! 20K immediate jobs on the Keystone XL pipeline shot down by Obama, 100K jobs lost in the Gulf of Mexico because of Obama's oil drilling moratorium! 100K coal mining jobs lost or in jeopardy because Obama's hatred of fossil fuels. UNNECESSARILY SKYROCKETING enegy costs that hurt the people who can afford it the least....senior, the disabled, the poor and the middle class. Obama's EPA is his instrument of destruction to the American way of life. Ever wonder WHAT fuels they would let us burn to cook food and keep warm? The environmentalist nuts who care more about some obscure plant or animal than they do about human beings, constantly stand in the way of economic progress not for honorable reasons, but because they love the power that controlling other people gives them. We don't need more political parties, we need two less! People who care about this country not some party are what we need now. November 2012 is coming and so is REAL change in America.

  • Patrioticnut

    The problem facing any third party effort is the same, they all try to start at the top, electing their president, and are doomed because of it. A third party will only succeed if it begins at the local level and progresses from small towns, counties, states, then U.S. congress. The Tea Party has come the closest to this by trying to elect congress persons first but failed to get their state representatives first. If we want to change the system we must do it from the local level first.

  • George

    This is so funny. It seems a lot of people are worried that a third or fourth party will splinter the anti-Obama vote, more than the pro-Obama vote. The Republicans practically drove Obama to the White House, after our country suffered through eight years of an incompetent, lying, coward. So, if Obama losses we can all get ready for the same thing with some more hypocrisy thrown in. The whole point of this article is that both The R's and The D's are cut from the same pile of ___________. Good luck to all of us.

  • TradeDeficit

    You may like Buddy Roemer, as an old American School of Economics Republican, he is considering a 3rd party run.

  • TheGizmo51

    I think people are just tired of the lying and dishonesty of our elected lawmakers and would prefer a change. A third party or not doesn't matter to me.

  • mike

    I have on occasion voted constitution party (nee Taxpayer's Party). Though I agree that a third party in the presidential election right now would be a disaster of incredible dimensions this article points to an approach that I hadn't considered. Strong constitutional parties need to focus on congressional seats where there is much more opportunity to win and have an effect. A truly constitutional legislature would be an important check on the statist tendencies of the major party administration.

    In the end of course the only cure for our republic is a revival of moral and constitutional principles among the citizenry. As long as 50%+ of the public covets their neighbors possessions and position we will continue to have thieves elected to office.

  • Pete

    Not if you want obama reelected.

  • Cape Coddah

    As regards the Constitution party-read Sen. Barry Goldwater on the subject of religion and politics. As regards the concept of "any but Obama...." I recall "...anybody but Gore," and ".....anybody but Kerry." How'd that work out for us? If either of the "front runners" we are being sold-Gingrich or Romney-are the nominee, it really won't matter which of these corporatists are in the White House; Gingrich, Romney or Obama. Though the frosting on this rotten cake may look a little different, the dough is the same. In that event, those who seek fundamental change and a return to Constitutional governing principles had best hope that Ron Paul runs in the general election as an independent. In any case, I'd write him in. I see no point to the endless seesawing between statists of the "right" and statists of the "left." Hard to tell, in fact, which of these Romney and Gingrich are, as they''ve made careers out of cozying up to both, as the political winds dictate.

  • Lyle

    America has come full circle.

    The founders know that if they didn't all hang together, they would all hang together.

    Today we are at the same dilemma, if we don't find a way to pull together we will all sink together.

  • BigD

    O.K.folks lets think outside the box,there are many disenchanted Democrats who feel that their party has been hi jacked by the Marxist/Socialists.There are approx 70 mambers of congress that are members of Socialist groups.Add these Dem's to the disenchanted G.O.P. members and it is obvious there can be a viable 3rd Party,which I would like to see named as the American Party.

  • Maynard Merrell

    I became a member of the constitution Party many years ago. It is a party that I still believe would be the party of Tea Party people. The Constitution Party has been silenced by the left wing news media, and has been denied by both major political parties to partiscipate in any political debates, that's how fearful the liberal are of the Constitution Party, and why most patriotic americans know nothing about them. The Constitution party would be the slvation of American freedom, and turn our country upward, and not downward. A third party would prevent any major party contyrol over our country. In England, the Fabian Socialist took control of the third part, the Liberal Party, then destroyed it so that there would only be two parties. then they infiltrated the Labot Party ang have socialized England.

  • Bill Weston

    I worked for Howard Phillips, C.E.O. of the Conservative Caucus, for 10 years. While I was there, I learned a tremendous amount about the workings of politics and I watched the formation of the Constitution Party. I know a few of the leaders and their sincerity in restoring our country. I recommend this party as strongly as I can and without any reservations. Fact is though, some members of congress listed generally as republicans are supporters, or affiliated with, another party. Ron Paul is an example. Furthermore, a few members of the Constitution Party are elected officials in a couple of states, Wisconsin being one of those states. The last time I had first hand information, the Constitution Party was registered in 31 states. If anyone has reservations about supporting and voting for a third party candidate, consider a statement made by former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. "We're taught that America has a two party system. Guess what. That gives us exactly one more candidate than the soviets had." Check out www., The Institution on The Constitution,, The Conservative Caucus, and the party's website. Also, check out a television show found on many public access stations around the country and on the web. The show is Conservative Roundtable with Howard Phillips. Listings can be found on

  • jlmealer

    The ONLY WAY to fix this nation is JL MEALER. Bar None.
    The Dems and GOP are one and the same.... Obummer is just as good as any of the other anti-American goons.

  • Colorado Joe

    Any additional parties will only insure an Obama win in 2012. The Republicans and conservatives need to stop splitting hairs and expecting that a Republican candidate must also qualify as a candidate for sainthood. No such animal.

  • June

    Speaking of "odumbo" - -there is no need for impeachment, since he's not even eligible to be in the oval office; what IS needed is military arrest and tribunal for espionage and treason, not just for obama-soetoro - -that should include his entire cabal!

  • Gale

    I don't care for O. As a former Marine I've learned ALL FOR ONE and ONE FOR ALL.
    It works folks. O has got to be put out and that's not going to happen with a split vote
    or a 3rd party. Put it in your mind it has to be a straight GOP vote. A sound mind is what
    is needed here, not a wavering or liberal mind. With those we will only be defeated.