E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jim Cole / AP file
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who failed to win the GOP presidential nomination, is now running as the Libertarian candidate.
Dark-horse presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode may not be household names, but with a little help from super PACs, they could peel away precious support from Republican Mitt Romney and possibly even President Barack Obama in some key state races.
The conservative Constitution Party, which seeks to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” has nominated Goode, a former congressman from Virginia, for president, potentially taking votes away from Romney in what has become a presidential swing state.
Meanwhile, Johnson, a former two-term GOP governor of New Mexico who failed to win the 2012 Republican presidential nod, has been nominated by the Libertarian Party — a perch from which he could throw a wrench in the plans of both Obama and Romney in several swing states.
Already, at least three pro-Libertarian super PACs have registered with the Federal Election Commission to support Johnson. And former Nixon administration operative Roger Stone, famous for sporting a tattoo of the disgraced president on his back, has touted a pro-Johnson super PAC.
Super PACs are allowed to collect unlimited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations to produce political advertisements that are not coordinated with any candidate. They were made possible in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
Paul J. Richards / AFP/Getty Images
Former Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode speaks near the Washington Monument during a rally sponsored by the Minutemen Project in June 2007.
Goode, a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and vocal opponent of abortion, served six terms in Congress — first as a Democrat, then as an independent and finally as a Republican, until he was unseated in 2008. Third-party candidates like Goode have no chance of winning the White House, but one only need look to the 2000 presidential election to be reminded of their potential impact.
Dark-horse presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode may not be household names, but with a little help from super PACs, they could peel away precious support from Republican Mitt Romney and possibly even President Barack Obama in some key state races.
The conservative Constitution Party, which seeks to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” has nominated Goode, a former congressman from Virginia, for president, potentially taking votes away from Romney in what has become a presidential swing state.
Goode, a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and vocal opponent of abortion, served six terms in Congress — first as a Democrat, then as an independent and finally as a Republican, until he was unseated in 2008. Third-party candidates like Goode have no chance of winning the White House, but one only need look to the 2000 presidential election to be reminded of their potential impact.
When consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party’s candidate, he infamously garnered more than 97,000 votes in Florida, where Democrat Al Gore lost to Republican George W. Bush by just 537 votes. Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes secured the presidency for Bush, even though Gore won the national popular vote.
One recent poll showed Goode drawing 9 percent of the vote in his home state of Virginia, whose 13 Electoral College votes are being sought by both Romney and Obama.
Similarly, a recent poll showed Johnson — an anti-war candidate who supports marijuana legalization and smaller government — receiving 5.3 percent of the national popular vote. That makes him an afterthought as a presidential candidate, but he may still have an impact in battleground states like New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire and even North Carolina.
Third-party candidates aren’t always suggested as options in polls. But one survey earlier this summer showed Johnson winning 12 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a state that Obama carried handily in 2008, but where Bush eked out a narrow victory in 2004.
GOP rabbi calls Adelsons 'heroes' after getting $500,000 for super PAC
Johnson garnered 7 percent of the vote in a May poll in New Hampshire, which Obama won easily four years ago but Bush carried in 2000. Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling showed Johnson pulling 7 percent of the vote in Colorado, where Obama was the first Democrat since Bill Clinton to win the state. Johnson is also polling at 3 percent in North Carolina, another swing state.
Super PAC spending on behalf of minor-party candidates like Johnson or Goode “definitely could happen,” said Rob Richie, executive director of the nonprofit FairVote, which advocates for increased ballot choice.
“Most people have made up their minds between keeping Obama or going to Romney,” Richie continued. “Some people, though, … if they realized that there was another candidate running, might abandon one of the major-party candidates.”
Will super PACs promote increased choice?
Officials with both the Obama and Romney campaigns declined to comment about whether they were concerned about the role super PACs touting third-party candidates could play in the presidential race.
Some third-party activists, though, are keen to harness super PACs — and their ability to raise unlimited funds, which they argue could increase the visibility of their preferred candidates.
“I wish we had super PACs out there supporting our candidates,” said Jim Clymer, who was the national chairman of the Constitution Party until April. He is now Goode’s vice presidential running mate.
“A couple of people who believe deeply in what we’re trying to promote could put us on the map in a way that we haven’t been,” he added. “The reality is that getting your message out takes a lot of money.”
His sentiments are echoed by Libertarian Party activists.
“A libertarian candidate like Gary Johnson doesn’t have the infrastructure behind him that the major-party candidates have,” said Austin Cassidy, the treasurer of the pro-Johnson Libertarian Victory Committee super PAC, which was formed in May.
“If voters have the chance to compare him on an even playing field that could really spark something,” Cassidy continued.
Cassidy’s Libertarian Victory Committee raised only $200 — all from Cassidy’s own pocket — before throwing in the towel earlier this month, but the pro-Johnson Libertarian Action Super PAC has raised $107,500 as of the end of June. The bulk of that money — $100,000 — came from wealthy entrepreneur Joe Liemandt, the Stanford University dropout who founded and runs the software company Trilogy.
Notably, Liemandt's wife Andra has bundled more than $200,000 for Obama's re-election efforts, and the couple alone has donated $107,400 to the Obama Victory Fund, which benefits Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Together, they have also donated more than $130,000 to the Libertarian National Committee since 2009.
Wes Benedict, the former executive director of the Libertarian Party who is now the treasurer of the Libertarian Action super PAC, stresses that $100,000 in receipts is “significant,” even if it’s dwarfed by the tens of millions of dollars raised by the pro-Obama and pro-Romney super PACs.
“In Libertarian terms, this is a big step forward,” he said. “We’re in new territory running this super PAC,” he continued. “I hope we make a difference.”
Since it was launched in April, Libertarian Action, which promotes “low-cost, high-quality Gary Johnson materials” such as yard signs, bumper stickers and door hangers on its website, has reported making more than $16,000 in independent expenditures.
Another pro-Johnson super PAC, called Freedom and Liberty PAC, has also raised $100,000, though it has yet to make any expenditures touting Johnson or criticizing his rivals. The group was founded by one-time Johnson aide Kelly Casaday, and its sole donor is Chris J. Rufer, the founder of the Morning Star Company, a California-based agribusiness and food processing company.
The super PACs file their campaign finance reports with the FEC on a quarterly basis, so it’s unknown how much money they have raised since the end of the second quarter in June. A few wealthy donors could easily make them more flush with cash. At least one million-dollar contribution has been given to a pro-Johnson super PAC, according to Jim Gray, the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee.
Not all third-party activists, though, think embracing super PACs is a good thing.
“(Super PACs) are squashing competition,” said David Cobb, who was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2004. “When the wealthy elite can buy microphones and amplifiers and drown out the rest of us, it is supremely ridiculous to say that that somehow increases the competition of ideas.”
Good things or dirty tricks?
One person with the potential to make a large super PAC splash for a third-party candidate is longtime Republican operative Roger Stone.
Stone was the youngest staffer on Nixon’s infamous Committee for the Re-Election of the President, the group that financed the Watergate break-in. He later went on to work with the late Lee Atwater, the strategist who managed Republican George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign against Democrat Michael Dukakis. And during the contentious Florida recount between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, Stone was dispatched to supervise the process.
Yet, in February, Stone, who did not respond to requests for an interview, said goodbye to the GOP and registered as a Libertarian after casting a vote for Ron Paul in the Florida GOP presidential primary.
In June, the Huffington Post reported Stone was constructing a pro-Johnson super PAC.
Tom Reed / AP
Roger Stone, shown in his Washington D.C. office in 1987.
“The American people have never been offered a candidate who is fiscally and economically conservative but socially tolerant,” Stone has said. “With Gary Johnson, you can have the best of both.”
In his writings online, Stone stresses that Johnson has the potential to perform well in many battleground states, particularly in the West — and that Johnson has the potential to win over both supporters of Obama and Romney.
Stone’s name has not yet appeared in any FEC super PAC filings and, so far, his new Libertarian Party allies are cautiously optimistic about his planned endeavors.
“Hopefully he’s up to good things and not dirty tricks,” said Benedict, the former Libertarian Party executive director.
Most political observers argue that outside groups are unlikely to change the fundamental calculus that makes a third-party presidential bid an uphill battle.
Americans Elect is a prime example, according to political science professor Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. The organization launched in 2010 with the hope of getting a centrist political candidate onto the ballot in all 50 states. The group raised more than $35 million — including $5.5 million from billionaire hedge fund investor Peter Ackerman — but it failed to find a willing candidate and has since retreated from the limelight.
“A super PAC can only sell a candidate if there's a market for him or her,” Sabato said. “I don't think there is one in this highly polarized year.”
But as Democrats learned in 2000, a third-party candidate need not be a threat to win to have an impact.
The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent investigative news outlet. For more CPI stories on this topic go tohttp://www.publicintegrity.org.
More from Open Channel:
- CIA ends investigation of terror detainees' deaths without charges
- S. African telecom firm helped Iran evade US sanctions, documents show
- Vote on an iPad? Technology could supplant voter IDs at polls
- One of the most dangerous cities in the US plans to ditch its police force
- Navy sought to stifle concerns about radiation at ex-base, emails show
- Drug ingredients made in China entering market with little oversight
- Florida once again a battleground as rules tighten on voter registration
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
We are in desperate need of viable third, fourth and fifth party candidates, to somehow address the fundamentally broken two-party system of professional, corrupt politicians and parties that has destroyed what was, as recently as thirty years ago, the greatest country and political experiment in modern times. of course, to get there, we first need an electorate (We, the People) to wake up and stop the silly shouting at each other from mindless positions of the nutty left and the even nuttier right. The criminals (both reds and blues) who have destroyed our country and have looted our national treasure (the politicians of both controlling parties and the lobbyists who funnel wealth and power to them) love to hide behind the smoke created by our silly, loud-mouthed squabbling as they do their dirty work of destroying us (We, the People) for their own accounts.
Our choices are Obama and Romney. The winner is Goldman Sacks!
well, if tea potty and other conservatives are not happy with Mitt the Vulture, then I guess, the SuperPack of Wolves can prop up a third party candidate, even more emphatically securing Obama's re-election which should not be in doubt even without the help of a conservative third-party candidate.
No mention of former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party. Heard him speak on Morning Joe and Maddow months ago, and he's the only candidate I've heard that makes any sense. Don't know if he could accomplish his goals if elected, but then I've heard less about him than the guys in this article, and that's not much.
I agree that the two party system is broken and to some extent rigged by those that pull the purse strings. Third party candidates stand little chance because the big money goes elsewhere, the reporters follow, and few think it's worth "wasting" their vote on someone who can't win.
Maybe it's not a waste. Maybe it's a statement. And if things don't improve, we will get the the point were more and more voters will make such a statement, and then the press will have to pay attention.
Ron Paul can be a real viable candidate for the 3rd party... and should name his party 'Rob Peter to Pay Paul' Party, or 'RPPP' Party
but 3 is a crowd
Anybody who thinks they know Romney needs to read this article in a Rolling Stones Magazine.
He is truly frightening. He is without a doubt one of the most devious men to ever run for Presidency.
DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING HE TELLS YOU. He is trying to pull off the biggest scam of them all.
(remove the spaces in the url - links can't be submitted here)
go to www. rollingstone.com/ politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
Ron Paul 2012, we can still write him in!
The last time, Clinton really enjoyed the help he got from Ross Perot who was entertaining, actually a lot of Americans loved Ross The Parrot.
Ross the Parrot, I remember he did kind of talk like one. Our last best chance for an honest president.
The more the merrier. Ron Paul will no doubt still draw votes from his fervent followers. Johnson will certainly get votes in protest against the Repubbies elitist candudate Romoney. Others mentioned will also draw votes from Mitt Robme. The ones shown drawing several percent now will undoubtedly see those numbers shrink as the electorate gets serious. But just 1 or 2 percent in the crucial swing states can turn a razor thin win into a cake walk to gain the all important electoral votes. Our POTUS will be sitting pretty if these 3rd party candidates gain any traction.
Obama/Biden 2012!
Gary Johnson might be good, but Jon Huntsman strikes me as the most viable Independent candidate. For those of us who believe in science, education, true bipartisanship and being fiscally conservative while not obsessing over the private parts and personal choices of one gender or another.
Realistically speaking none of the third party candidates noted have a chance at winning or garnering a huge portion of the votes. Every election there is a Green Party candidate, a Communist Party candidate, a Libertarian Party Candidate, etc. but they don't win because they don't represent large portions of the country and don't get the big bucks that the entrenched parties do.
The biggest danger would be for someone like Ron Paul to have a go at it. The consequence is that it would guarantee President Obama another term, which Paul wouldn't want either.
Pigotry- I actually liked Ross Perot at the time. He presented himself as a viable third party, though a kooky character. He brought facts to the table, business experience, and leadership ability that neither of the big parties had. Sure you could say Clinton was great, but Perot was capible of showing up to the table and challenging everyone there to a good debate. He emphasized the business-as-usual aspects of both parties and how they were failing us (guess what- they still are, but worse). Didn't work out, oh well.
I think the best viable third party is for those whom want their own lives, own freedoms, a responsible small government, and self determination. Yep, sounds kind of like the Tea Party but it easily extends across the aisle when you ask around there are plenty of Democrats whom are getting pretty sick of working hard for someone else. Just for perspective- if you work to July for the government (taxes), then you only are getting half of the benefits of your labors. With closing on 50% of people not paying federal income taxes that makes the remaining ones of us a bit frustrated as we are asked to carry more and more of the growing burden.
Happy Labor Day!
Come to think of it, it's highly likely that someone will come out as the third party candidate.
Many right-wing Christian fundamentalists are still miffed at the Mormons - although uncalled for and unjustified. But these fundamentalists also have deep pockets. The SuperPack of Wolves may just do that and put up a third party candidate, effectively helping Obama to win.
Third Party sway the election? eh, not so much.
Unless it's Ron Paul or Paul endorses a third party candidate, THEN you'll see some GOP doing the "Tighten up" PDQ.
But it's all academic, third party or not, Obama will win in 2012.
Obama/Biden 2012
It it was Ron Paul for P and Gary Johnson for VP under the Libertarian party, they'd have my vote instantly !
Correction:
IF it was Ron Paul
It's simple
The only place that picked up Livingston's article other than Rolling Stone was the Huffington Post. That should have been enough SIMPLY understand that the assertions lack any credibility.
I only heard about Gary Johnson a few days ago when I took one of those "who should you vote for" surveys. After I checked him out, I found him a very viable candidate who more closely matches what I want right now than our main party choices. Since I live in Colorado, I guess I'm one of those swing voters the article talks about.
Johnson certainly won't win, but I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils again if I can find someone better. If we all did that, maybe we could budge the gridlock in Congress. Don't vote R or D just because you think you have to. That's just buying into one party line or the other.
It it was Ron Paul for P and Gary Johnson for VP under the Libertarian party, they'd have my vote instantly !
--------------------
I would flip it around. I am not religious so Garys stance on some issues works better for me.
Third party candidates like Goode may be the only true choice for many Republicans. Romney is all for abortion of the unborn because it suites his ambition so... in Republican speak he is for murdering babys! So do they support the death of children or or stay true to the "FAITH" they want to impose on everyone else? Your Vote Your Soul... Support Mitt = Death for the Unborn!
A third party libertarian candidate benefits only Obama. Suggesting Gary Johnson at this time is more about trying to split of dissatisfied conserveratvies. John Corzine tried this in New Jersey and even contributed money to the independent candidate's campaign. It didn't work out to good. One has to wonder if Obama is having late night phone calls with Corzine about this.
Now a third party candidate that was center based would be interesting and would draw equally from both parties.
DB Akron: I was going to vote Obama until I decided on Gary (and I may still do so, but I'm almost certainly not voting Romney because of all the GOP baggage he's saddled with).
Yeah, that's the problem.
I find it funny how conservatives think voting for a 3rd party candidate helps Obama win.... it is like they subconsciously know how crazy the GoP party sounds to the rest of the country and how they don't have enough votes to win...
DB Akron you don't understand who is backing Romney. Billionaires who want to buy the White House. This is perhaps the greatest threat to our democracy. We are under attack. Private citizens both Republicans and Dems our voices in how this country is to be run is being sold off.
Money can come in FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. It is a monetary invasion.
anyone on the fence about Romney needs to read how devious this man truly is. He's trying to get away with one of the biggest scams of all time
(remove the spaces in the url - links can't be submitted here)
go to www. rollingstone.com/ politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
I agree. The current 2 party system is a total racket. Special interest groups bet on both horses running and win every time. I will vote 3rd party regardless of who they are. We voters need to show our rejection of the current crooked system. Vote 3 party or NONE OF THE ABOVE!
The worst vote I have ever cast was for John Anderson in 1980. I thought Jimmy Carter smiled too much and had boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 which I did not like. I agreed with George Bush I's claim during primary campaign that Trickle Down Economics was in GB's own words "VOODOO Economics".
I still don't think trickle down economics works to stimulate growth in an economy, but only serves as an excuse for Republicans to further enrich the already rich who provide them with money to run their campaigns.
I liked John Anderson's plan to raise the gasoline tax 50 cents per gallon to encourage moving to more fuel efficient cars and to subsidize alternate forms of energy. I thought this would help America prosper in the future and end our dependence on foreign oil. Anderson, a Republican primary opponent of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I, got 10% of the vote that year and Reagan won.
Now, for 30 + years, I have watched as trickle down economics has enriched the rich while increasing our national debt. I wish I had voted for Jimmy Carter because he would have kept the alternative energy tax credits he had signed into law in place and I believe our solar and wind industries would be leading the world. Instead, I got Ronald Reagan who repealed these tax credits (for homeowners) and killed these fledgling industries.
If only I could go back in time and change my vote.
That would just further split the country..... We just need to get enough hair on our ass to kick all these current clowns out.....
Do you realize the inconsistency in what you have just said? If you work to July, then that doesn't just include Federal taxes - that also includes state and sales tax and pretty much every other tax you have paid. And EVERYONE of those 50% also pays many non-Federal taxes.
As a matter of fact, Obama reduced the burden for you - he lowered your social security taxes. Governor Romney's plan, on the other hand, closes certain tax deductions you receive, thereby increasing your taxes, and using the extra money you would be paying into a larger tax break for the top 1%.
And yet, middle-class folk who want lower taxes think that Romney is the guy to vote for. He is, if you want lower taxes for the rich. Not if you want lower taxes for yourself.
The "anybody but Obama" mentality is the biggest hurdle to Gary Johnson receiving significant support. People need to realize that Romney is, if at all, not much better than Obama. Both support: endless wars, SOPA, PATRIOT Act, corporate subsidies, bailouts, the War On Drugs, etc. and they are both corrupted by the number one problem in politics: money. If you keep an open mind and check him out for yourself, you'll find Gary Johnson has appeal to both the left and the right. Believe it or not, there is a lot of common ground. www.garyjohnson2012.com Gary will take away as many votes from Obama as he will from Romney.
If you've ever supported Ron Paul, Gary is an easy choice.
The Citizens United decision simply added another layer of corruption to an already compromised system.
alan_static
Let the man retire already. Ron Paul has stated that Gary Johnson is the only candidate that he would consider endorsing. And, Gary is on the ballot in all 50 states already.
Vote on your principles, not for the lesser of two evils.
Tbourlan ....glad you agree that the President is going to win re-election.
Obama/Biden 2012
Hmmmm.... Maybe this is the flip side of citizens united..... Well this is a sure sign that it will get over turned. No way will either the dems or cons allow a 3rd party to rain on their parade.
Yeah, Rolling Stone is a credible NEWS magazine, hah. And dems whining about billionaires supporting Romney, what about Soros (the puppet master) and all the little left wing mega rich? Never mention them do you? And Soros is just biding his time to destroy the U.S. economy like he did with the British pound.
You're wasting your time if you think that a third party candidate at the national level could do anything other than have some degree of influence over the eventual outcome, but the tragic irony is that by exerting such influence, the major party candidate with whom the third party had LESS IN COMMON usually derives the greater benefit.
In 2000, Ralph Nader's candidacy hurt Al Gore far more than George W. Bush, even though in practice his platform was far more in tune with the values of Democrats than Republicans.
Eight years earlier, in 1992, Ross Perot's candidacy ultimately attracted more conservatives than liberals, swinging the election toward Bill Clinton, even though Perot was largely seen as the center-right alternative to George H. W. Bush.
So it would seem that the only viable governing 'petri dish' for a third party to establish a toe-hold in national politics would be in the House of Representatives. After a series of election cycles, if enough representatives of the same third party in any given state were able to win election to the House, a Senate candidate within that particular state might stand a chance.
...and so it would go. Unfortunately, the road to the White House would take decades and, as such, is likely doomed to failure.
The real solution, and perhaps the ONLY solution, is the restoration of compromise as a political value in American politics. Working against this, however, is the partisan media who derive more revenue from the promotion of fear and hate than they ever might from coverage of bi-partisan negotiation.
Also working against compromise is the sheer volume of dollars flowing into campaigns, where only a handful of the uber-rich can invest into a race a small percentage of their accumulated wealth in order to extract massive returns within a few years time.
It's simply a mess it's getting messier, thanks in large part to Citizens United, cable news, and talk radio.
Heres a little somthing I found on Foxes web site
Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words
By Sally Kohn
Published
August 30, 2012
FoxNews.com
1. Dazzling
At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul
Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him
view him favorably.
So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself
and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the
speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan
talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end
of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and
enthusiasm that’s what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been
desperately lacking in this campaign.
To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying
much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect
Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of
guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play
soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have
done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney
has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized
himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.
2. Deceiving
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of
attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world
record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped
into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran
the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely
created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that
media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that
flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain
arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United
States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was
actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down
of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under
President George W. Bush. Ryan
actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has
criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to
prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to
give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what
the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking
$716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in
Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients
out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget
plan.
Elections should be about competing based on your record
in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get
away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to
care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should
be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but
sadly, there were many.
3. Distracting
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.
Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all
abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch
with 75% of American voters.
Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social
Security to Wall Street.
Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending
and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.
Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate
programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut
taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase
—the deficit.
These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to
say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and
explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan
airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.
At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used
to say to him, “"Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem,
or you can be part of the solution."
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability
problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic
facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a
much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer.
America Needs a 3rd Party because You Can't TRUST Republicans
What Republicans Say:
Chris Christie - On Aug 28, 2012 Tampa, used the word "Truth" 16 Times in his keynote speech at the RNC convention. And he specifically said this…
What Republicans Do:
Romney pollster Neil Newhouse stated: "We're not going [to] let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." ... on the same day as Christie's speech, during an ABC News/Yahoo! News event at the RNC Convention.
Then Paul Ryan Spoke:
... and Fox News contributor Sally Kohn had this to say about Paul Ryan's convention speech on August 29th, 2012
Republicans SAY ONE THING and DO ANOTHER.
How can anyone TRUST a Republican?
That doesn't make any sense. Assuming you believe all that anti-Republican tripe, why not just vote Democrat every time? Why the need for a third party then?
You can help end all super PAC's and all other corporate/union/PAC/non-profit/etc. influence in our federal elections by getting involved in the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampaignreform.us. Join today to help pass the attached two constitutional amendments. Download them from the website, sign and circulate them, pass them on to family, friends, co-workers, and everyone on your email lists. This is a true grassroots movement with NO financial support from ANY outside sources (unlike all of the other amendment movements that have popped up since PAM started in August 2010.)
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Last night, Mitt made a lot of empty promises that he knows he can't fulfil. For example, if he plans to cut more taxes for the rich - which I have no doubt he will do to benefit himself if elected, tax revenue has to come from somethere else - such as the great multitude of the middle class, but he promised to cut middle class taxes as well, then he is not going to fulfil another promise (he also made), that of lowering the deficit. No tax revenue, no deficit reduction.
This doesn't bode well, we don't want someone lying without blinking with bunch of empty promises.
anti-trust, you have some good ideas but I don't believe that term limits for Congress will improve the situation. It may even make it worse since then they only have their 2 terms to get as much money from lobbyists as possible. I think we need lobbying changes. Money needs to be completely removed from the equation. In fact, I'd even be for increasing the salaries for Congress as long as they couldn't take money from lobbyists.
"Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met."
Seriously? So if circumstances change during a President's term in office which requires a shift in position you'd take that person to court. That is total poppycock!
The "Clean Government Amendment" should also state that contributions can only come from people, that the candidate will represent. Term limits should allow a really good politician (oxymoron) to serve for a total of 28 years. 4 two year terms in the house - 2 terms senate - 2 terms president.
Anti-trust
The forefathers were lightyears ahead of you in thinking.
Their conclusions were
Money = Voice
Simple majorty rule = 1 vote Tyrrany
The Electoral College did three things.
1) Prevents 1 one vote ballot stuffing dictator
2) Permits a 3 way race that can actually win without going by a popular vote and cannot be won or dominated by one highly populated region.
3) Gives a greater voice to less popluated states. This year those states are New Hampshire, Nevada, & Colorado.
"Third-party candidates like Goode have no chance of winning the White House, but one only need look to the 2000 presidential election to be reminded of their potential impact."
Hmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because you guys, the MEDIA, including you MSNBC, decide who gets elected. Want it different? You have the power to make these third candidates known. You choose not to. That's your fault.
Instead we get stuck fighting between the two brainwashed sides.
There you go... blame the media for a candidates own failings. If a candidate wants to win election they need to latch onto some big money donors. The media loved Ron Paul and wrote about him constantly. He was constantly on the various news channels being interviewed. But the reality is Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers weren't interested in him, so they didn't give him ridiculous amounts of money so he didn't get the nomination.
The media talking about candidates isn't what wins elections. It's big money donors. Heck, the media used to kill on Romney saying he was as charismatic as a blank chalkboard, yet somehow he won the nomination. I wonder how that happened.
This article is very Goode news!!!! It will be interesting to watch Romney-Ryan get "Nadered........." You Go Virginia!!
skiing111, The media loved Ron Paul ??? You're joking, right ? Anytime he was gaining any sort of traction, he was completely ignored by the media. Let's go back to the Iowa Straw poll where Michelle Bachmann took first (barely) and Ron Paul came in second. The media gave Bachmann all the coverage in the world while barely mentioning anything about Ron Paul, even though he nearly won that event. Jon Stewart even did a skit on how ridiculous it was. The media wouldn't even mention his name. After that, Rick Perry became the "flavor of the week" and the media once again gave him loads of coverage. After that was Hermain Cain. Even though it was pretty obvious that these other candidates' popularity was going to fade, the media had absolutely no problem giving them lots of coverage. Meanwhile, Ron Paul was being ignored even though he had a much more consistent following than any of the previously mentioned candidates. If they had given him as much coverage as they did the other candidates, I believe he would have been a much bigger challenger than he was.
I know some people hate a 2 party system. Well, were stuck with it, so deal. If you want to CHANGE things you would need the majority of voters in this country to uniformly get off their asses and become proactive. Thats NOT going to happen.
"I know some people hate a 2 party system. Well, were stuck with it, so deal."
You are exactly the problem.
Let me guess, if the ship is sinking, you already made the decision to drown.
It has happened once before when Ross Pierot ran a third party race. He took many of Bush's would be support and it helped Bill Clinton win the White House.
We do need a better way to decide who represents us. The problem remains the supporters with the big bucks will not give to the best candidate but rather the best candidate who will give in to them.
So, the best man or woman does not necessarily win.
The best man or woman would win if people would take the time to research these candidates themselves instead of eating what's spoon-fed to them by PACs, but most of us are too lazy even though we have the internet at our fingertips.
A third party candidate - IS EVERYONE CRAZY ? No ONE can get it right in one convention, let alone two, and that goes with three years of preparation. Ross Perot, the computer mogul, with his goofy cardboard pie charts. There's a genius for you! Much like "The Donald" who is lots of 'pompadour with no circumstance! To think that these bozo’s could prepare better than Willard and Carl?
I have watched this GOP fascist demonstration, let alone a THIRD PARTY, and still cannot believe that any middle-class American, with even half a mind, can be drawn into such an abysmal attempt, and display of smoke and mirrors; as Carl Rove, and his GOP ‘Storm troopers’ anoint Willard Romney as their party’s choice for their poster boy, and puppet, to lead the new ‘Right-wing Christian Fundamentalist American Taliban-like Fascist Movement” that has taken over parts this country. We need a Third Party like we need another Fundamenbtalist!
The over dramatized use of the words “WE, US, MIDDLE CLASS, JOIN, SAVE, TOGETHER, etc……” all bantered time, and time again, by the likes of Romney, and Ryan, and their co-illusionists – millionaires all of them, time and again over and over again, have no clue as to what “WE, US, MIDDLE CLASS, JOIN, SAVE, TOGETHER, etc……” constitutes nothing more than a MASSIVE SHIELD that hides the GOP’s true agenda. In their GOP cowardice from the real truth is nothing more than the norm. The GOP shielding them from the defenseless, from who they choose as targets, is just base, and so filled with a gross nature that it is despicable!
Yes, I said “GOP COWARDICE”, all of them, all of those with long roots in Washington. The’ institutionalized re-elected lobbyist lined pockets’ called Congressman and Senators have surely turned against ‘We the People’ and have all joined hands, and big mouth, in perpetuating this fascist illusionist fraud! Also, those known as the ‘2010 Tea Party Caucus Elected’ to the House and the Senate: Who turned out to be a bunch of PUNKS who have barnstormed, held hostage MY government, and embarrassed this USA in the eyes of the WORLD, where repair may be too late – all helped in creating the GOP illusion. The hate directed against women of reproductive age, the retired, the aged and infirm, the poor, the youth voter, the aged voter, the under educated, the new ‘racial issues’ erupting out of GOP cause, the hijacking of the democratic process, the union voter, the non-union voter. Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS as I PAID FOR THEM IN ALL OF MY PAY CHECKS WITH EMPLOER CONTRIBUTIONS - ENTITLEMENTS IS AN ILLUSION! All of those issues are SMOKE SCREENS & SHIELD, and not WARS with seeds fostered in State laws, and Federal law –bantered and argued over and over, and over again- are COWERDICE ploys hiding the ROVE AGENDA! Carl Rove and his cohorts have almost pulled off the greatest coup in America, and might have the American public’s endorsement, because of cowards! Elected cowards! They have created enough confusion to win single issue voters!
Carl Rove, on the eve of the inauguration of Barack Obama, made a pact with the likes of the KOCH Brothers (et.al), to assure that Obama served one term, and that millions of dollars spent would result in the ‘INCORPORATION OF AMERICA’, where the 1% ruled all, there would be a disenfranchised - if not destroyed - middle class, resulting in a stable consumer class of just above the poverty level - mules of the machine – doing the bidding of the super elite. Willard Romney and Paul Ryan are the ubermench of the NEW GOP – the puppets and the poster boys for the likes of KOCH’s, and Adelson! This is the face of the new FASCIST GOP!
To consistently blame President Barak Obama for an inherited failure of economy and presidency of George w. Bush and Dick Cheney is not only a historical failure of fact, but one that is ceaselessly ignored by the fascist GOP, but totally portrayed through illusion and lie, more smoke and mirror to blind the American public! Lie to the American public about a single issue, long enough, with many voices, over and over again, no matter how many protests, and no matter from where, and the people will eventually believe the lie! Look at the Kardashian's! This is a family that SERVES NO EARTLY PURPOSE, and yet the American public blindly gives them $200m+/yr. to do NOTHING! WHY ? Why are these middle class voters following this blind leading the blind engineered dogma? Carl Rove is good that is WHY! His smoke and mirrors works! He took his lead from the reality shows, brought politics into our living rooms, hooked the middle class, and then led them on his own $200million tour – now a word from our sponsors- THANK YOU KOCH BROTHERS, THANK YOU ADELSON!
Never mind that A.L.E.C.com has closed down, or revamped its platform, due to corporate pullout, and exposure of numerous political unethical and highly illegal behaviors as paid for and influenced by huge moneyed families of gigantic power bases, some say the KOCH brothers, and others say Adelson; Who knows? ---the 1% of the 1%’er’s! For the ‘Right-wing Christian Fundamentalist American Taliban-like Fascist Movement” has the 1% of the 1%’er’s and their club “THE BILDERBERG GROUP” to keep driving world political policy into the realm of the ‘oligarchic corporate led money laundering official carpetbaggers’ that have no interest in the middle class, only the 1% of the 1%’er’s! Yes, the re-elected fat cats, and the PUNK tea party crowd, and all buddies of Carl Rove! Also, pals of Romney and Ryan! Most of your Third Party candidates would come from the same pool as Romney and Ryan - NOTHING DIFFERENT - millionaires – all “1%’er’s CLUB” – SO WHY A THIRD PARTY?
I just cannot understand how the average American cannot see through the smoke and mirrors. As for the NEW GOP, Romney, and Ryan………Well, history has a way of telling me that smoke, and mirrors, and oligarchic corporate fascism have horrid end results! With all appearances of good intent, and public support at the beginning of 2010, Carl Rove has done his job, and delivered to the “1% of the 1%’er’s Club” a confused part of the general public that is now brainwashed with cowardice shield jargon that may result in the biggest mistake in all of mankind’s history! Now people think that a THIRD PARTY will change the insanity!
Quite frankly, they have not got to my brain yet! I’ve never watched the Kardashian's so I guess I am not immediately susceptible to the GOP 2010 ROVE PUBLIC BRAIN BAR-B-QUE! I am free to vote for the guy in the White House right now, and I am fine with that!
Unlike Obama and Romney, at least Gary John has an idea that the United States is bankrupt.
Conservative Constitution Party? Sounds more like the Christian Sharia Party!
I remember when conventional wisdom said there would never be room for a fourth broadcast television network. That was before Fox proved that belief wrong. I'm now being told that unless I vote for one of the two major party candidates, I'm wasting my vote. Well this isn't the first time I couldn't support one of the major party candidates. If more people would vote their conscience, maybe we would be able to break the two party deadlock we have had to endure.
We did not vote for the best 3rd Party Candidate in 2008, what makes NBC think it would be any different in 2012? We lost our chance in 2008 to vote for the best and most qualified President Candidate, Alan Keyes. Instead we got stuck with 4 years of Soetoro's misery.
Its too late to get on most state ballots but if Ron Paul supporters mount a vigorous write-in campaign, it would scuttle the GOP's chances in November. That little "salute" to Paul by Republicans at the convention most likely insulted more Paul supporters than it placated. No, Paul can't win the election but victory can also be found in denying it to another and there are some very bitter people lined up behind Ron Paul that the GOP is counting on as default voters.
I'd vote for Gary Johnson if he had ANY chance of winning. Trouble is that you need billionaire backers. You need to flood the airwaves in order to become viable. I am very disappointed in Ron Paul for not running as a Third Party candidate or as an independent. The way the Republican Party has screwed him out of states like Maine and Lousiana - why he has any loyalty to them is beyond me.
It's not a horse race. Letting the candidates know your opinion via the ballot is important.
Important to whom? Your own self-esteem?
You really think both these 1percenters about to become top .001 percenters, give a hoot what you think? Who you are? What is important to you??
Then you also believe that Kate Upton will ask the judge if the restraining order I took out against her can be lifted.
If Gary Johnson is who you want to be the next president, then why on earth wouldn't you vote for him? Is it better to support someone you don't want just because they might win?
David--what you expressed is why we are in the mess we are in--and if we keep doing the same thing we always did, we will keep getting the same results we always got! Like Trevor said--it's not a horse race. Quite candidly, I believe that whoever gets elected will not be able to stop the economy from crashing--It's too late to stop it. And it took decades for us to get to where we are now, but we need someone at the helm who will help us rebuild in a viable, self sustaining, fair way. Someone who will be HONEST with us about what we are currently facing, as well. Someone who is not bought by anyone.
David, you're the same type of person that changes their favorite football team depending on who has the best chance of winning the Superbowl. baaa baaa black sheep.
Look - when it comes to Primaries I vote my conscience. When it comes to National elections I have to be a little wise about it. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I'd vote for him again in the National election if he were running again not only because I like him, but also becuase I know he has enough of a following to at least make him somewhat viable, and enough money from individual contributors to make a valiant campaign. However, I am not going to waste my National vote on someone who has zero chance of winning or even coming close. Say I like 2 guys, but 1 a little more. They are running against another guy whom I hate. If the "little more guy" has no chance, why would I not vote for my second choice.
Democrats have a choice. Rosanne Barr or Barrack Obama. Unfortunately there is not much difference between the two.
There is no choice. Rosanne doesn't want the job. She's holding out for another "National Anthem" gig at the World Series.
Ms. Barr lost out on the Green Party nomination at their Convention. Of course, a Barr Presidency would surely lower the Barr as low as the current Occupier of the Oval Office
She might even take it lower ... like to Bush levels..
Tampa, Aug 30, 2012: at a fundraiser during the Republican National Convention, GOP strategist Karl Rove said, "We should sink Todd Akin," and followed that by stating, "If he's found mysteriously murdered, don't look for my whereabouts!"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/todd-akins-office-disturbed-by-karl-roves-joke/
Karl Rove, GOP/Republican strategist
Todd Akin, GOP/Republican Congressman, candidate for U.S. Senator of Missouri
No. TheBamster, in all his lightweightiness, cluelessness, because of the left, and no reall honest to goodness right, will be put back into the Oral Office by AIPAC and the media.
Taking all bets, all comers, and all amounts.
Deal?
The "Center for Public Integrity"????
Fraud alert right there... The Patriot Act is unAmerican, Citizens United is not about Citizens, and the "Center for Public Integrity" is just the way The Party likes to dress things up for public consumption.
The message of this article is that conservative splinter groups are going to hurt Romney. It mentions their names, histories, previous affiliations... it's a commercial.
It's big on Libertarians. Thing is, Libertarians run as Republicans and so will the various Conservative splinter groups this article wants us to think are spoilers.
There is only one party in the US.. it is the Party of the wars, of selling American wealth to corporate and foreign interests in return for campaign donations, the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention... and it owns both sides of every ticket and can never lose an election.. and Michael Becket is its mouthpiece.
The Party could not care less about whether the Republicans or the Democrats win... They ARE the Democrats and Republicans. Their only interest is to keep an actual SECOND party from forming that might run candidates against the Democrats and Republicans.
The Party created the "Tea Party" to keep an actual party from forming after the Bush sell off. They will also create these "spoilers"...pretend parties made up of Party operatives.. to keep folks voting obediently for our one American Party.
They want war, they want the war on drugs. they want Citizens United, and they want the largest prison population per capita AND in raw numbers. They want the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention... in short, they want a government that is entirely free of legislated limits, that has no reason to be concerned about its citizenry, as the citizens vote as they are told, and there's no trouble.
Their goal is not to govern, it is to collect. Fundraising is their focus. Their only political strategy is to make sure a second party does not form...
...and they will be as many parties as they need to be to keep that from happening.
People... You will know them by their policies. Do not listen to them talk..they will say anything.
Watch what they do instead. Is the GOP against abortion, or is it just an issue they trot out to keep folks contributing against the Dems? Well.. if the GOP was against abortion..why didn't they move on it when they had both houses, the SCOTUS and the POTUS under Bush?
The GOP is The Party... along with their cronies and co-conspirators, the Democrats.. and Michael Beckel.
Ok... riddle me this Batman... Who was the Libertarian Candidate for 2008? That's right...a Republican... or more properly, Paul was a DemocratandRepublican, running as one of them, fundraising for them and playing his role to keep an actual second party from forming that might challenge them..
And if you listen to what he said, he seemed to be against them... if you watch what he did, he is one of them.
And that's how you know. Don't listen... watch.
The 2008 Libertarian candidate for POTUS was Bob Barr, not Ron Paul, you dolt.
I'm all in for a viable third party but the religious nuts are already being capably addressed by the Republican party. Thank God the conservatives on the Supreme Court had the vision to approve our country being sold to the highest bidder with their decision on unlimited contributions from these Super Pacs. We're swirling around the drain. Let's just put big oil and the Wall Street banks officially in charge and stop the pretense.
Just a side thought. Ann Romney stated that the BEST PART of the GOP convention was being there with HER CHILDREN and HER GRAND CHILDREN and when the ballons were released, THEY almost lost some of THEIR GRAND CHILDREN. Sounds like it was 'All about Ann and the Romneys'. Isn't the convention 'all about the American public'?? With a statement like Ann's this morning, between the lessor of the two evils of the 'Romneys' and the 'Obamas', I know who I am voting for...........the former 'COMMUNITY organizer' working for general population, and not 'it's all about me'. The 'hand writing is on the wall' of that potential adminstration.
In order for all those politicians and parties to get it we need to send a dark horse to the oval office. Imagine the day after that happens. it would be something to see when it dawns on them that business as usual is over. And life with REp will not be much different from life with DEMS. I have no use for either POTUS choice. We need change but change will only come when we turn out both parties en mass
YES! and not one of their pretend parties... no Libertarians.. We need someone who is not one of them.
Yes! I am not voting for any Republican or any incumbent regardless of party. I could care less about party! I will vote for the best person, I feel, for the job. It will not be for anyone who help ruin our Country!! Everyone else must do the same for our Country to make a come back!!!
Nader 2000 = Bush.
Yeah - I know they can sway an election.
With due respect to Mr. Nader for calling out corporate ownership of government, be careful what you wish for.
A better way is simply vote out corruption in your and/or your opponents party. Wipe till clean. May take more than a few election cycles but if you want REAL change - make your government yours again.
Al Gore was Bush..not Nader. The DemocratsandRepublicans own both sides of every ticket...they never lose an election. A Vote for Al Gore would do the same as a vote for Bush..start some wars, keep the prisons full, and collect campaign donations.
Obama is Bush... Jill is not.
Yearning - Al Gore = center left. Nader = left.
Votes for Nader took away Gore margin that would have made up difference from Republican felon name-share voter role cleaning in Florida. Forerunner to voter suppression initiatives in Republican legislation dominated states like PA today.
Quieteye... Al Gore is a member of The Party.... just like Bush and Obama He's not left or right... He's a member of the DemocratsandRepublicans.
Their trick is to make you think they're competitors...they are not. They gave us the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention.. they lower taxes on the wealthy.. they keep the prisons full..and they own both sides of every ticket.
Their job is to keep you voting for them. Is the GOP against abortion? Of course not..even when they had both houses, the SCOTUS and POTUS.. they did nothing about it... they NEED the issue.. plus, every time the Dems can make you think the GOP is against it... "you" the editorial "you" send them another round of checks.
The Dems don't raise taxes, they don't empty the prisons, they don't end wars. The GOP doesn't make government smaller.
Ya gotta stop listening to what they say. You have to start watching what they do. That's the only way you'll quit supporting them.
Until campaign finance reform is in place, Citizens United overturned and lobbyists are curtailed, it doesn't matter if we have a 3rd or 4th party...they will all be bought by big money.
Don't forget, the equal time rule for political advertisment needs to be reinstated as well.
Since I am not satisfied with either Obama or Romney, I would welcome a third of fourth option.
A vote for Mitt or Barack is a vote to allow Goldman Sachs to continue raping and pillaging our country. Vote Gary Johnson 2012!!!
Rufus, you need a factcheck, a CEO from Goldman Sachs was a Senator of NJ, but Jim Corzine was not of the party of Mitt Romney but rather of the same party of Barry Soetoro.
Why not. This whole election season is starting to remind me of something attributable to Harry Truman when Richard Nixon was elected to president. He said, "My father told me that anyone could grow up and be president and, by God, I'm starting to believe it."
LOL can you imagine the nightmare for Romney/Ryan if they lose the deal because of these do nothing candidates. man I would be looking for some satisfaction!!! How about a drink for these two who could screw up the dreams of two frat boys like Romney/Ryan!!! LOL
Traditionally a 3rd party candidate bleeds the conservatives.
A platform of God and guns doesn't appeal to alot of liberals.
Hmmm, one of the most influential third party candidates in recent memory was Ralph Nader. History would have been much different if Nader had not syphoned off 3 million votes in 2000. It's obvious the Nader votes would have been Gore votes since Nader's populace, consumer advocate message was more appealing to liberals than conservatives. Gore narrowly lost Florida and New Hampshire, both of which would have been Gore states if you take away the Nader votes. Those two states had a total of 29 electorate votes which would have given Gore 295 votes, more than enough for Gore to win. Even if you claim Florida was an illegitimate win for Bush, although multiple recounts have proved otherwise, New Hampshire was worth 9 electorate votes, giving Gore the win with 275.
BTW, if guns only appeal to conservatives, why do Democrat canddates avoid talking about gun control like the plague?