The Libertarian Party is hoping that public frustration with government and our political leaders may be a good recruiting opportunity. “Republicans are fed up with Bush’s big-government, big-spending mentality, while Democrats are continually disappointed with their party’s lack of a spine when it comes to Iraq and civil liberties,” said Shane Cory, chief of staff of the Libertarian Party.
He also said: “While we all hate to see our nation go down the wrong path under the two-party system, the good news is that Americans are starting to wake up and look for alternatives.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
17 Comments
What a three party system would mean is that in order to pass any close legislation, the major parties would have to get into a bidding war for the support of the minor party, which would give them far more power than their numbers. As many problems as we have with two parties, three would give us many more!
Or, now hold on to your seat, maybe only things that are good for the people of the United states would get done! Common sense and reason would rule the day. There would no longer be a system that is citizens be damned..I am voting blindly for my party!!
The idea for a two party system was that there would be checks and balances. Well that worked out about as good as communism.
I have voted Republican for the most part the last twenty years. Like most focusing on one issue and blind to everything else that they have done. Mine was the second ammendment other would be taking a stand for or against abortion.
I guess I need to thank G.W. for opening my eyes to how foolish I have been. Or I should say how foolish it is to have tunnel vision to the point that one loses all sight of what they are doing.I still have my guns but I am losing my country. Abortion is still legal, but wellfare is a trap and keeps those on it fix in a place where they can not go down farther but can not get up either.
Daily I read things from people that are hard left or hard right.As if those are the only ones that care about this country. Again hold on to your seat. BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME! It is a shell game with no ball underneath. And like voting a single issue, everything else that is done to be allowed or ignored.
So does this mean I will be voting Democrat? Not as long as they do no better then Republican. Except for the issue I supported above, I am and have always been a moderated. Perhaps there need to be a new party. The Moderate party, it would have to have a “Big tent” because their are a lot more in both parties then there are liberals or Neo-cons.
Jed! It would make it fun to watch at least. Yes! You have a point there, that power arrangements would be more complicated and confrontational, but it can also strike some balance in the political process.
The easiest way would be a one-party system and no real democracy system. But you probably don’t want that.
Government wasn’t meant to be easy, smooth, or decisions that it made to be made quickly. It is a constant battle of ideas and compromises along with spliting the money pie. And government basically listens to “Interest”, rather than individuals. So the only way to get heard is to join a cause or an interest group.
But I do hope that the Libertarians do gain strength and finally get a few candidates in Federal office. They would be the great moderate and mainstream party of America. It would be great. Although I do seriously doubt they would ever gain a majority, because people who are involved and follow politics are pretty much at the extreme ends of the ideological specturm.
“I still have my guns but I am losing my country. Abortion is still legal, but wellfare is a trap and keeps those on it fixed in a place where they can not go down farther but cannot get up either.”
Interesting points.
Ann Coulter says (something to the effect): “You have to be pretty stupid to not know if you are a liberal or a conservative”. Galahad says (something to the effect): “In the middle of the Road are yellow stripes and road kill.”
Politics are a lot of ranting designed to minimize the involvement of the opposing view. When in reality (my version of it at least), things get most screwed up when either of the two sides becomes too dominant (and, of course, when that tipping point is reached is a matter of debate). Conservatives are in the ascendency now, and I think the inherent problems with that will be balanced out soon.
I think that Ross Parot (sp? – Oh, how soon we forget) actually beat GHW Bush – so can a third party be all that bad?
(As an aside – one of my favorite stories from the ‘92 election)– GW Bush noted all of the luxury cars at a Texas Perot rally and told his father “Hey, that guy is talking to our people.”
The most attractive aspect that I see in the Libertarian Party is their devotion to smaller government. Not big government for big business (like the Republicans) and not big goverment for all social ills (like the Democrats). It has a philosophy of minimalist government, that our elected representatives are not elected to be nannies to take care of our every need.
Libertarians seem to offer a return to “personal responsibility”, something that sadly seems to have all but disappeared in our country.
Another attractive thing, I don’t believe I have ever seen an “extremist” Libertarian..do they exist? I get very tired of the extremist rantings (both right and left) and a voice of moderation would be a great relief.
Since when did the Wichita Eagle realize that there are more parties in politics than Democrats and Republicans? Based on their coverage of elections you would barely know that any alternatives exist.
This is an opening for Libertarians?
Yeah, you betcha, but not as big as for the American Socialist Worker party.
Just kidding.
We have a two-party system. Anything outside that system just screws up the will of the majority (as Nader voters did in Florida in 2000).
If you want a multiparties, then great, let’s re-write all the regulations and use a parlimentary system like England.
It’s never going to fly here. People need to pick a party and try to change it to reflect their views.
Galahad. Pick up a history book bro.
Did you know that there were four candidates for President in 1860?
There has always been third parties, and they do not spoil the will of the majority. They have every right in our system to run for office and if people believe in that candidate, they can vote for them.
Your aurgument makes no sense. You can also say that in a two party system, the people who voted for the other party is going against the will of the majority.
So everybody who voted for Kerry screwed up the will of the majority by opposing them.
Ray,If we’re going to get into a contest for smaller government, doesn’t that make the Anarchist Party the best of all?
I don’t believe I said anything about a contest or the smallest government. I believe I mentioned things about personal responsibility instead of governmental babysitting.
I think I also mentioned something about moderation.. instead of extremism.
Nope…wasn’t looking at any contest, was just making a comparitive observation.
Here’s the history–
John Anderson screwed Carter in 80, Ross Perot screwed HW Bush in 92, Nader screwed Gore in 00.
You can search the dusty history books all you want, Joe, but in the last 25 years, 3rd parties have done nothing but thwart the will of the majority.
That’s not always a bad thing, but it’s also not true democracy either.
Galahad,I don’t recall the percentages, but Reagan so overwelmingly defeated Carter, that I can’t think that Anderson did anything to hurt Carter. It was a totally unexpected rout – as I am remembering there were many closet Reagan voters and the polls were way off in predicting the race.
“If we’re going to get into a contest for smaller government, doesn’t that make the Anarchist Party the best of all?”
They appear to be in power, their called Neo-con.
ahh yes…the ‘neocons’…the same ones who are shooting American soldiers in Iraq. The same ones that force people to pull the lever for a particular party in the voting booth. The same people that daily order us around like robots. Yep, the “neocons” are in control and we are all but slaves. yep..yep.. sure.
Yeah the Neo-cons the same ones that had to lie to get those soildiers into Iraq. The same ones that knew as early as 2002 that Sadam did not have ties to terrorists or WMDs. The same ones that got in bed with the religious right to impose their own faith on those that do not believe as they do. Even though they themselves for the most part do not believe it themselves. But by themselves did not have the power to invoke their plans. So they teamed up and sold their souls. Thinking they could control the R.R. The same ones that the R.R extort backing from to get their will done. Threating to withhold their support unless those same one uphold their attempt to bring creationism into the class room.
The same ones claiming to be the saviors of this country only to be interested in their own reward.
The same one that control what the soilders get then deny them the simplist of armor to protect them from those shooting and blowing them up.
Yes those are the one!
More? Yes the same ones that used simple mind voters who tend to vote party lines and taken the Republican party over to promote their agenda. The same one that have taken any crediblity away that Republicans ever had.The same ones that have driven this Republican to consider voting independent. And I might add the same ones that will cause every other moderate to consider the same thing.
There seems to be two different “Neo-cons” Those that thought the Neo-cons were going to do something right after so much has been done wrong. Then there are the Neo-cons in the White house and cabnet that had no intention of correcting the problems in this country. They wanted to only install their agenda. Ed may well be a kook, but he is right that the “Neo-con” in power had long planned the invasion of Iraq. Why? Who knows it makes no sense to most. Lord knows if they were spoiling for a fight this country had enough enemies before 9-11. Ed’s rantings make as much sense as invading Iraq for no other reason then “It will be easy”. Or finishing Daddy’s war or God know what they were really thinking. ( OK God and Ed) One supported the other in a blind thought that it was the right thing to do. The other used those calling them selves Neo-con to get into office. Then it was “OH yeah, right Neo-con! sure brother! right after we get our agenda out of the way then we can work on yours”.
I feel for the dupes that thought they somehow was backing a saivor.I was fooled once into voting for G.W. But by the time he was up for re-election I knew he was only after his own agenda not for this country.
Okay, Steven E.,
You are correct. Anderson only took about 6 million votes. Even if Carter had gotten all of them, he still would have lost decisively.
Management regrets the error.
Carry on . . .