More than 100 Republicans, including former governors and lawmakers, are threatening to form a third

The point Mike is trying to make I think is that they are not conservatives.

 

I have the perfect campaign song for this new "third party".

 

The "no true scotsman fallacy"? So where are they going back to?

Little Mike doesn't have a faintest clue who they are or where they stand politically, but we DO KNOW the big spending Republicans who are in Congress now, and we know they are not conservative (for the most part). Rand Paul was right saying there is no conservative party in US when GOP is in power.

If you don't like the idea of a conservative party, then that's fine. You have a home with GOP. You can cheer them on when they hike the debt by another 8 trillion in 4 years. If there is a new party, it won't be in 2022, but down the road, so there is a good chance your big spending friends win the house again next year.

 

Isn't that a song about the folks you voted into office? Sure seems that way. Or did you pull for Gore?

 

Nader/LaDuke

 

3rd party......? Ok.

 

It's difficult to have a discussion when we don't have the same vocabulary. You seem to think, or are pretending to think, that the split is between Reaganite Conservatives on the anti Trump side and ...what, pro Trump liberal Republicans? Frankly you seem rather incoherent. Which is understandable if you think the interparty split is about conservatives leaving the party.

The people who are wanting to split (if they can't take the party back which is probably their first option) are the neo cons. Not 100% but the majority of them. Liz Cheney is a neo con, and she's your new queen. So if you can't understand why she's a neo con than I think you are in a discussion that's beyond you.

 

Neo cons are neoconservatives who mostly used to be liberals who jumped ship from Democrats to Republicans if my understanding is correct.

True conservatives won't risk weakening the party because 100+ former suposed Republicans are making a bunch of noise.

 

If you have no idea how I concluded that it was more so those Republicans who wished to stay in the GOP that answered that it was time for a new party, 3&1/2 mos. ago, when that poll was taken, then you do not read posts very well, because I emboldened & highlighted the parts in my SNIP from your Gallup Poll, which supported that conclusion, e.g.:

It stands to reason that practically all of that 68% want Trump as their leader, i.e., want to stay in the GOP. And a good portion of the 31% who want a new leader for the GOP, would prefer to stay in the GOP, w/ that new leader (or else it wouldn't be so important to them, who the leader was, if they'd left the party). Now do you get it?

This poll was of VOTERS, not POLITICIANS. And there have been at least 40% of Dem voters that have wanted another party since 2003-- but we haven't got one in that time; not even come close. The interest among Dem voters, at the time of the poll, had fallen markedly over the prior 4 months and, w/ Biden's performance so far, I'd be willing to bet has fallen even more. Here is another huge flaw in your apprehension of those results: Dems wanting a new party represent ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY, THOSE ON THE FAR LEFT. The centrist Dems are the majority of the party (polling backs that up), so they are not the ones thinking of leaving their own house, to start a new party.

Here is more evidence to convince you of the need to read, and think, more carefully, if you are interested in an intelligent conversation. Your response to Lil Mike

In response to his post:

I don't know that his contention is accurate, but his meaning is manifestly clear. So it is really you, who is, "having such a hard time with this." FYI, me & Lil Mike are on different sides of the political spectrum, yet can understand what each other is saying here.

I, again, encourage you to check out the link to an interview with one of the ORGANIZERS of this movement, who makes it very clear that forming a new party is a last resort, which they are nowhere near considering, yet, despite whatever their letter said.

 

Besides "threatening" to start a tired party.......what are they actually doing towards that objective ??

 

Sure little mike. Keep repeating it. Maybe one day it'll sound just like the truth.

 

Its explained in the link, and their mission statement.

 

Lil Mike is one of the more intelligent debaters on this forum. You should try to understand what he is trying to say and even DEFinning disagrees with you and he is on the left based on his posting history.

Ready to raise a white flag?

 

I find that hard to believe. He just keeps parroting stuff without even trying to back it up with anything. Repeating "they are neo-cons, they are neo-cons, they are neo-cons" is not an argument, especially when he obviously doesn't have any clue who he is even referring to.

I'm not on the left, so his disagreement should not be a surprise.

The problem is that its irrelevant to the discussion where neo-cons came from when they became Republicans. Obviously they can't go back to a place which never existed, and obviously the claim "they are neo-cons" is nothing but a baseless claim. Look at the names on the list. Is Bill Weld a neo-con? Of course not. I get it that some people dont like they idea of a new conservative party, but why make stuff up? Not honest.

 

They don't need to start a third party. They have to persuade their voting constituents , who feel uncomfortable with Trumpism, the rank and file 'establishment' or traditional republicans have to be persuaded not to vote for any Trumpist politicians who supported and perpetuated the 'big lie'. If they decided to 'sit it out', for one election cycle. Trumpism would would lose its aura and its coercive power. Yes economic conservatives,, the GOP women, young and well education Republicans and even some of military vets for example that they need not vote democrat, they need only refuse to support the undermining of free and fair elections as a political tactic by punishing those who employed it or endorsed it. If they are as outraged by the insurrection and the 'big lie' and corruption, and the lack of focus on and energy on substance consistent with real conservative principles, They don't need to cast a ballot for some pro choice liberal in the General. They just need to sit on their hands through the midterms.

While state legislatures gerrymandered their districts to prevent blacks, the poor etc from gaining control, they could not gerrymander these districts against an intraparty boycott. The losses would in state and congress would be significant enough to send the message to Trumpsters that they are necessary for the coalition's success, without killing the party prospects in the long term.

They have to refuse to be part of Trumpism, refuse to be cowed into voting for an inherently cultlike devotion to this narcissist's vindictive games. If the person sitting on the ballot has been putting Trump ahead of country, has been trying to sell the same lies just to stay on the right side of the cult, he does not deserve support of patriots regardless of who gets that seat. Its less draconian, and a lot easier to sell because it is temporary, a shot over the bow.

Last edited: Today at 1:08 PM

 

Except that my pointing out the flaws in your argument has NOTHING to do with where I fall w/in the political spectrum, only based on FACTS, none of which you have addressed. 1) Co-founder of the movement claims that starting a new party is the,"Mt. Everest of political objectives;" makes clear their main objective is supporting, "non-crazy," Repubs, so they can constitute at least a viable coalition within the Republican Party. That's a primary source, on the movement. Your conclusions come all from your own perceptions.

Their grander goal, according to Miles Taylor, is to reset the entire party, back to traditional GOP policy roots, and to restore character, as their central asset-- a very tall ask. And that, he still sees as more practicable than starting a new party. And trying to make your own argument by somehow painting me as against a third party is as ludicrous as it is erroneous (I voted for Ross Perot in '92, and I supported Nader, all 3 times he ran). My personal views don't blind me to the obvious truth.

2) Any desire to leave the Democratic Party comes from the liberals, not the more conservative members. And right now that desire is low, even amongst the most radical. The Dems are happy to be finally in the driver's seat, & only a fool would leave that place; and it would be a stark raving mad fool who left it for a new, third party.

You, yourself, in your most reasonable, & honest, post, as much as admit that this is not what seems most likely to occur but, rather, only what you want to happen:

That is a different thesis from the charade you are presenting in this thread, that a schism is at all probable, at this point.

 

Famous last words. At best a third party wins; at worse they cause the republican party to lose the election due to the loss of members. Does Ross Perot (Reform party ring a bell?)

 

The problem with this third party presidential candidate, is that it does not reach the new targets, which are the enablers, the promoters of the Big Lie, the ones willing to risk the bedrocks of our democracy to protect their political hides. Trump may not even personally run. His control of the party comes from their fear that not appeasing him will lose them their seats. They need to miscalculate their risk/benefit assessment and lose their seats in state houses and in Congress - at least a sufficient number to punish the party and its voters for their loyalty to the carnival barker over the country.

I just don't think creating this third party out of never trumpers, is going to be successful. Its much harder to convince even sympathetic voters to abandon a party permanently, than it will be to convince them not to personally perpetuate or reward tactics locally that they find repugnant or counter to their own patriotic values in a few races for one election cycle. All you are asking them to do is sit one out, knowing that Pelosi with a gavel for two more years and Biden with the seal, is still not 60 votes in the Senate. The loss of seats in 2022 is a worthy sacrifice to regain control from the white nationalists and cultists who are running the show.

 

You'll have to ask Matthewths why he thought it was relevant to bring it up

No one said it would be easy, but if you read the mission statement which I posted they clearly say "That’s why we believe in pushing for the Republican Party to rededicate itself to founding ideals—or else hasten the creation of an alternative."

Obviously the GOP is not about the rededicate itself. On the contrary their recent actions demonstrate they have made a conscious/calculated decision to continue on the course they took few years back. If that course remains, then the alternative course (new party) is the only option.

I am sure they are happy to be driving again, but it seems clear they wont be driving for long. If you are a conservative member of Dem party, and see your party drift further left, while a new party is being created which is more in live with your conservative views, then why would you stay? I sure would not.

Of course it is what I want. I want a new conservative / moderate party, and I am glad to hear it might actually become a reality in my lifetime. They have my full support.

I don't know what you think I am "presenting", other than talking about the mission statement of the conservatives who are talking about this. I posted links to their own sites so people can read it for themselves.[/QUOTE]

 

At this point our remaining RINOs might still be able to throw a small intimate cocktail party, and they should do that.

 

If they want out of the party, then they are RINO's indeed (Republican in name only). They will find a more suitable name like "Constitution Party".

 

I don't think there is anywhere to go from here with this discusion. If you wanted a serious debate you would not have brushed off Lil Mike.

I can tell you this is probably never going to happen and if it did both parties would not be affected anyways.

Neocons, Rinos and never Trumpers are a very small majority with no influence with anyone except the media and people like you hoping this will weaken the Republican party.

I will leave this discusion and let you have your wishfull thinking.

 

The Cheney/Bush/Weaver/Kristol faction will try to keep servicing the DP, but the DP may be getting bored with all their grovelling.

 

Not sure who DP is, but none for those 4 names were on the list of those conservatives who are talking about this.

 

Look I've given you ample opportunity to make your case, and at this point it's obvious that you are driven more by wishful thinking than any sort of hard data. Frankly, if you are on the left, it does make a nice fairy tale, which is why a nothing story is such a prominently out there; it's a Democratic fantasy.

We'll know if you are actually on to something if even ONE GOP house or senate seat is lost to someone in this new "conservative" party. So you can get back to me after the 2022 elections and claim victory if that happens.