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

The Call for American Renewal

WHAT'S THE CALL?
A Call for American Renewal is a rallying cry for pragmatists everywhere. Our nation’s future should not be dictated by a single person but by principles that bind us together. 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.

WHAT'S NEXT?
We cannot stay quiet in the face of rising political extremism. We must stand up and defend our republic. Sign up for updates about how we’re taking action, and join us for our upcoming nationwide town hall on renewing America. Details to follow.

PRINCIPLES
1. Democracy
We seek the preservation and betterment of our democratic republic and the endurance of our self-government, free from interference and defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We support reforms that make our system more accessible, transparent, and competitive, oppose the disenfranchisement of voters, and reject populism and illiberalism, whether of the right or the left.

2. Founding Ideals
We reaffirm the self-evident truth that all persons are created equal and free, having the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that it is the prerogative of all to make personal decisions in accordance with their free will. We, therefore, condemn all forms of bigotry such as racism, religious intolerance, sexism, and persecution based on sexual orientation.

3. Constitutional Order
We uphold the Constitution as the inviolable and collective contract protecting liberty and justice for all, and honor the essential separation and balance it establishes among coequal branches of the federal government and the states.

4. Truth
We recognize truth and reason as essential to a free and just society, and expect our leaders, citizens, and press to seek and promote them. We oppose the employment of fear-mongering, conspiracism, and falsehoods and instead support evidence-based policymaking and honest discourse.

5. Rule of Law
We maintain that the impartial rule of law is essential to a free and just society to protect the rights and property of all people. No one is above the law, and our criminal justice system must treat everyone equally without discrimination based on race, status or other unrelated factors.

More in link
https://www.acallforamericanrenewal.com/#sec2

 

Never say never....

Personally I like the idea. the whole political scenario would be a lot less binary. (Polarizing).......and ergo potentially less divisive.


Particularly if the third party included the best of both the R and D.

 

I'll get it if the McMullinites ever become large enough to become a spoiler.

 

That first principle seems a tad conflicted. 'We like voters and democracy but "reject populism". WTF do they think "populism" is?

Here are their "founding signatories". How many do you recognize without having to Google them? I was able to pick out about a dozen, and I didn't have a particularly high opinion of most of those.

 

lol. Scaramucci looks like a has-been porn star or a used car salesman....

 

That's my question: who says they care? How many people?

I'm not making the claim that "no one cares". I'm asking you what evidence you have that "lot of people do care".

I don't think I'm calling anyone a liar. Did I do that in this thread? I said I wouldn't just take MSN's word for it. I'd like to see the names and judge for myself. It's possible MSN is right (broken clock and all that) and they're all rock-ribbed conservative stalwarts. I doubt it, but I'm open to the possibility. You should be open to the possibility that MSN is attempting to mislead you via propaganda though.

I wouldn't say I'm "in love with it," just realistic about the odds of supplanting it, and loathe to see the conservatives fracture their power base and lose political power for multiple election cycles.

I don't even know what National Review said about it. Is there an article you could link to?

 

At least that is the story the MSM is selling. It's a long time until election day. At this rate, gas will be $10 a gallon, we will be hoarding pesos and Chinese Yuan for inflation protection.
A lot can change in four years. Obama lost us Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea, I'm sure Joe can one up that!

 

No worries, no one is trying to recruit party loyalists like you. Its for those who are tired of the two party system.

Populism = whatever happens to be popular at any given time (as opposed to standing by principles).

They say the same thing. The link to their principles is from the National Review site.

 

You don't see the inherent contradiction there? In lionizing "democracy" and then dismissing the voters' choices as merely "whatever happens to be popular at any given time"?

 

I dont see it as a contradiction.

I am sure there will be lots of loyalists who think the stars quo is the gold standard, and that it fine. They will remain with the current GQP or Dem parties, while the conservatives and moderates will gravitate towards a 3rd party (hopefully).

 

I don't know why you keep trying to brand me as a "loyalist". I have, for many years, said I consider myself far more of an ideologue than a partisan. This new party, allegedly loyal only to the Constitution, could win me over, but I think they're unlikely to. I'll give you a specific example: one of their founding principles is "Constitutional Order" and they say "We uphold the Constitution as the inviolable and collective contract protecting liberty and justice for all, and honor the essential separation and balance it establishes among coequal branches of the federal government and the states." Ok, so lets talk about what that means to this new party. The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Are they prepared to hold that as "inviolable"? Oppose any and all gun control, including laws that have been in place for many decades? Well, I don't know for sure, because they don't say, but I somehow suspect it's unlikely that they're the new RKBA freedom-fighting firebrands that a statement like "We uphold the Constitution as the inviolable and collective contract protecting liberty and justice for all" suggests they ought to be. They seem more likely aligning themselves as moderates who will split the difference between R and D's, and violate the Constitution sometimes to support gun control because they think it's the popular (dare I say populist?) position. But what do you think? Would my assault rifles be safe with Evan McMullin and pals in power?

 

Maybe Liz Cheney should start the third party to reflect the "conservative " values she speaks of. Or is she a bit to radio active??

 

I saw being interviewed on Fox, took some tough grilling and seemed very level headed and well spoken. I don't agree with all her policy ideas, but she seems smart and seems to want to make wise decisions.
Suprising she's Dick's daughter! Although, he too was smart, but evil.

 

She is very articulate , composed knowledgeable. I too, don't agree with all her policy ideas....... but she does seem to have readership qualities. She has handled this highly stressful (and quite ugly ) situation with dignity .In fact she could be a force to be reckoned with. I don't think we have heard the last of her. .

 

If they do form a third party they will have considerable resources. They probably won't do much in the next election cycle, but the one after that or the next one...who knows?

 

I would hope they will be conservative leaning moderate party. That would be ideal. As for the 2nd Amendment, - it has been debated ever since the bill of rights was added to the Constitution, and staunch conservatives like Scalia have said it is not absolute. It would be foolish to say "oppose any and all gun control" in order to appease a small segment of the citizens who see things that way. There will always be debates on certain issues, as has always been the case, and people will have to make the decide if one or two issues is enough to reject the whole idea. They can stick with GOP, even thought they don't "oppose any and all gun control" either.

Three parties, as opposed to two, will force all participants to negotiate with each other and try to build bridges (alliances) as opposed to two parties disagreeing with everything across the board.

 

I have a feeling that in the end of the day Liz Cheney will emerge as the winner from this assault, because her cancellation seems to have been the last straw for many people.

 

You realize that's the populist position, right? From the new party that claims to reject populism. It's also a far cry from upholding the Constitution as "inviolable". I agree with you that the GOP doesn't "oppose any and all gun control" either, but if the 'sales pitch' for this new party was 'we're going to be better than the GOP at adhering to the Constitution' and right out of the gate neither one of us really believes that they're going to follow through on that, that's a problem for them. We know they're politicians and they're probably lying about their founding principles.

 

For "many" people? Who? Where are you getting this impression from?

 

The new party has not offered any position on that matter, it was justice Scalia and it was a long time ago.

You think Scalia gave his option on that matter because he thought it might be popular? On the contrary, he knew it would be unpopular among those who think 2A is absolute. He gave his professional opinion based on his understanding of the Constitution. You don't have to agree with it, and insist 2A is "inviolable", but that is simply your take on it. The 2A text leaves it open for debate.

From what people say (quotes provided in the relevan thread), and from the fact splitting off from GOP is becoming very popular.

 

Apparently Trump saw it as newsworthy enough that he felt it required an entire blog post dedicated to the issue. Usually, he doesn't bloviate about people who are of no threat to him...

 

You have made claims like this throughout this thread, and you haven't provided evidence to support them. A few quotes from people are anecdotes, not data. There's no data that shows "many" people are supporting this new party, or that it is "becoming very popular". AFAICT, this is just you typing out your fantasies and wishing they were true.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what he does.

 

Why are you asking others to spoon-feed information to you, when you can just look it up for yourself? I am not here to persuade you to agree with anything. You are more than welcome to promote the status quo.

63% of Republicans think a 3rd party is needed (62% overall in US), and that was in February. Based on what people say, there are lots of people who are disgusted about what happened this week when the GOP publicly humiliated Cheney.

Support for Third U.S. Political Party at High Point
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329639/support-third-political-party-high-point.asp

• 62% say a third party is needed, up from 57% in September
• Highest support for a third party by one percentage point
• A record-high 63% of Republicans favor a third party

 

Go ahead and help the Democrats. No self-respecting conservative or Republican would support a third party.

 

Apparently 63% of Republicans do support the idea, especially conservatives, like the 100+ conservative leaders who are trying to create one. Let's face it, the GOP threw conservatism out the window and embraces populism.

Talk about being out of touch...........

You are stuck with the party name, even thought the party has mutated to something totally different. Reagan would have been canceled by these people too, just like Liz Cheney was.