A Case for a New Party: "The Conservative Party"

[Douglass Bartley]

Dr. Paul ought consider using the occasion of his speech (tomorrow?) at the Conservative Political Action Conference to announce his departure from the Stupid Party and the formation of a new party: “The Conservative Party”. That asks a lot of him, but the Republican Party of Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan is no more and will never be revived into what it once was.

The occasion could be the best opportunity he’ll have to recruit disenchanted republicans of which there are many and more to come once McVain seals the Republican doom.

The Republican (Stupid) Party is a shipwreck. Dr. Paul ought to get out of it before he drowns with the Know-Nothings and rats piloting the doomed vessel. Let’s have a new party: “The Conservative Party”, which by its very name, will draw all manner of people who perceive themselves as conservatives. The party, headed by Dr. Paul, would do very well pitted against liberals McCain and Hillary (or Obama). The party could start up at the CPAC conference I mentioned earlier. Richard Viguerie is an excellent organizer and has his own Ron Paul website.

 

[MalcolmGandi]

Sounds good to me.

 

[wgadget]

Funny, someone over at Hannity was suggesting Romney do the same thing...LOL.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

the Constitution Party is the best name. The "Conservative party" alienates leftists.

 

[joehollywood]

the constitution party already exists ( at least in 46 states ), although I'm sure they'd be willing and wanting to take the congressman, I'm not sure he would want to go with this specific party.

 

[specsaregood]

the constitution party already exists ( at least in 46 states ), although I'm sure they'd be willing and wanting to take the congressman, I'm not sure he would want to go with this specific party.

They have offered him the nomination of their party. BUT some of the things in their platform conflict with his views.

Federal laws on social issues, where ron paul is a true federalist.

 

[colin1]

Dr. Paul ought consider using the occasion of his speech (tomorrow?) at the Conservative Political Action Conference to announce his departure from the Stupid Party and the formation of a new party: “The Conservative Party”. That asks a lot of him, but the Republican Party of Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan is no more and will never be revived into what it once was.

The occasion could be the best opportunity he’ll have to recruit disenchanted republicans of which there are many and more to come once McVain seals the Republican doom.

The Republican (Stupid) Party is a shipwreck. Dr. Paul ought to get out of it before he drowns with the Know-Nothings and rats piloting the doomed vessel. Let’s have a new party: “The Conservative Party”, which by its very name, will draw all manner of people who perceive themselves as conservatives. The party, headed by Dr. Paul, would do very well pitted against liberals McCain and Hillary (or Obama). The party could start up at the CPAC conference I mentioned earlier. Richard Viguerie is an excellent organizer and has his own Ron Paul website.

Ron Paul is mighty, but conjuring a political party out of thin air might be beyond his power. Organized third parties that have been around for years, i.e. Libertarian and Constitution are inconsequential and have very little in the way of any sort of electoral success.

Retaking the Republican Party from the ground up makes way more sense then starting a third party. A Ron Paul Republican can get elected as a Republican. That same RP Republican wouldn't break 10% of the vote as a third party candidate. It's just how things work in the US. Ballot-access laws have the deck stacked against third parties.

 

[garyallen59]

i have been thinking about that for the last week or two

 

[dvictr]

i just want to know what the implications are from a "third" party run or an independent

 

[Ironyinc]

No, there are numerous reasons why that will not and should not happen.

Creating a third party and going straight into the presidential elections is what the libertarians and conservative parties did, they lost badly their first time in the race and now are a laughing stock or unknown to most voters. A third party must show an ability to win BEFORE nominating a presidential candidate, if we want to create a successful third party (which I definitely want to happen) it must start on a stateside level. Get people into state legislatures and a few congressmen. That's why if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, I would want him to stay as a congressman, but run under a new third party. In his district he already has a long history with the voters and the democrats there have stopped running candidates so he stands a good chance of winning which might mean publicity for a third party getting a voice in congress.

Secondly, we definitely don't want people like Ron Paul to lose any say in the government even if it is a very small one, so he should keep his seat over running outside the two parties and while probably garnering a large percentage of the vote (for a 3rd party), I am doubtful that he would win outright. Although, I would not be fully against him just running Independent.

Finally, a vast majority of republicans are good people, and while it may not seem that way to us, for Paul to break away and create a new party would be a large screw you to republicans, and as conservatives are who we wish to court that would alienate us before we started.

 

[Christopher David]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=111402

 

[IcyPeaceMaker]

An Independent run is very viable, and he should make one. Simply running as an Independent, such as Lieberman did to win his seat, would split the moderates away from both parties. Independents are the largest registration bloc in the country, this article proves it, and the run should be made, if for no other reason than to punish the party leaders.
http://www.independentnation.org/rise_of_independents.htm

 

[dvictr]

No, there are numerous reasons why that will not and should not happen.

Creating a third party and going straight into the presidential elections is what the libertarians and conservative parties did, they lost badly their first time in the race and now are a laughing stock or unknown to most voters. A third party must show an ability to win BEFORE nominating a presidential candidate, if we want to create a successful third party (which I definitely want to happen) it must start on a stateside level. Get people into state legislatures and a few congressmen. That's why if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, I would want him to stay as a congressman, but run under a new third party. In his district he already has a long history with the voters and the democrats there have stopped running candidates so he stands a good chance of winning which might mean publicity for a third party getting a voice in congress.

Secondly, we definitely don't want people like Ron Paul to lose any say in the government even if it is a very small one, so he should keep his seat over running outside the two parties and while probably garnering a large percentage of the vote (for a 3rd party), I am doubtful that he would win outright. Although, I would not be fully against him just running Independent.

Finally, a vast majority of republicans are good people, and while it may not seem that way to us, for Paul to break away and create a new party would be a large screw you to republicans, and as conservatives are who we wish to court that would alienate us before we started.

this is problably the best idea +1

 

[stevedasbach]

Ron Paul is mighty, but conjuring a political party out of thin air might be beyond his power. Organized third parties that have been around for years, i.e. Libertarian and Constitution are inconsequential and have very little in the way of any sort of electoral success.

Retaking the Republican Party from the ground up makes way more sense then starting a third party. A Ron Paul Republican can get elected as a Republican. That same RP Republican wouldn't break 10% of the vote as a third party candidate. It's just how things work in the US. Ballot-access laws have the deck stacked against third parties.

While ballot access laws are an obstacle, they aren't one of the major ones. The LP got on the ballot in every state and DC in 1992, 1996, and 2000. They fell short in 2004 because the LNC was unwilling to make ballot access a priority. The same situation is likely to occur this year unless Paul decides to seek their nomination. For an organized party like the LP, getting on the ballot is a matter of appropriating enough funds (less than $1 million) and managing the project to make sure all deadlines are met.

The real hurdle for third party success is the "wasted vote" syndrome, which in turn is related to getting into the fall debates, which in turn relates to raising enough money (or having enough personal wealth) to be competitive.

You need 15% in national polls in the fall to qualify for the debates. To run the necessary national advertising and attract the necessary media coverage to reach that threshhold, a candidate would probably need to have or raise $100 million.

A third party candidate who polls less than 15% and is excluded from the debates will likely get less than 5% in the general election. There simply are two many people who aren't willing to "waste their vote" on a candidate they're convinced is going to lose.

 

[Smoky]

Koo-Koo Katchoo Mrs. Robinson

It's like a work your way up from the bottom rule, which is sort of what is happening with the campaign... The MSM dominated polls like the primaries are hard to win since they slobber all over neo-fascits & flip-floppers (gotta make sure there is a very weak "Republicrat" to ensure an Obama Rodham Barack win), and since (as super Tuesday has proved) its still somewhat up for grabs, the campaign is working on a delegate based campaign, sort of working from the bottom up.

In the mean time, to continue the Revolution, I say check out who is running for congress & the senate in your area. Read their websites, find out what they stand for, and vote accordingly, and encourage others to do so as well (the MSM always says put corrupt incumbents back into power to continue the lousy job they've always done...)...the sooner we vote in liberty based congresspeople (whether it be Dem, Rep, Libertarian, indies, etc.) the harder it is for for neo-fascists & neo-socialists to continue wrecking our country.

I mean could you imagine if the 2008 election resulted in liberty based congresspersons taking 2/3rds majority in congress, Ron Paul becoming speaker of the house, and Hillary/McCain having temper-tantrums & nervous breakdowns (worth the price of admission alone!) because congress reasserted its dominance and put them back in their cage, their big government agendas keep getting rejected, and their veto's for fiscally conservative/socially libertarian legislation overridden constantly by congress.

 

[colin1]

While ballot access laws are an obstacle, they aren't one of the major ones. The LP got on the ballot in every state and DC in 1992, 1996, and 2000. They fell short in 2004 because the LNC was unwilling to make ballot access a priority. The same situation is likely to occur this year unless Paul decides to seek their nomination. For an organized party like the LP, getting on the ballot is a matter of appropriating enough funds (less than $1 million) and managing the project to make sure all deadlines are met.

The real hurdle for third party success is the "wasted vote" syndrome, which in turn is related to getting into the fall debates, which in turn relates to raising enough money (or having enough personal wealth) to be competitive.

You need 15% in national polls in the fall to qualify for the debates. To run the necessary national advertising and attract the necessary media coverage to reach that threshhold, a candidate would probably need to have or raise $100 million.

A third party candidate who polls less than 15% and is excluded from the debates will likely get less than 5% in the general election. There simply are two many people who aren't willing to "waste their vote" on a candidate they're convinced is going to lose.

Good observations Steve. I wasn't aware that they had gotten the ballot access situation so under control. I was still under the impression that it gobbled up a significant amount of money and manpower.

 

[MalcolmGandi]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=114029

I think this newspaper idea would really help in the case of a third party run (or someone else running). Cheap and effective!

 

[Elliott]

the Constitution Party is the best name. The "Conservative party" alienates leftists.

I've been saying "Conservative Party" for a while now. That's the name. It's clever actually because most people that call themselves Republican also call themselves Conservative. The existence of the alternative name might make some people take notice, and eventually realize that the republicans ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE anymore.

If people who called themselves republicans actually understood what's going on, 90% of them would be with us. We have to teach them. ...even though half of them are practically retarded imbeciles. At least Hellen Keller could reason right?