A third party to take the place of the Republican Party has long been discussed by social conservatives and Buchanan style conservatives, if not publicly at the grass roots. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Boy was it good to hear Rush back on the air. No offense to his substitutes, but Rush can't be replaced. We as a nation are blessed to have him. I once called his show, and actually got through. It was after we defeated the armies in Iraq, but before pacification. America was hearing alot from the anti - war left. But Rush was sticking to his guns, rallying America to the cause. I told Rush in my call that he was a "national security asset" and that if we had him during the Vietnam War we would have won! And I meant it.
Let me give you an example of how important one individual can be. During the War in Vietnam most historians would credit the Tet Offensive with signaling or causing America's defeat. The images of the war in the living room, the inconvenience of the draft, etc all affected the American national will. At the end of Tet Walter Cronkite went on the air to say that Tet signaled Vietnam as an unwinnable war. Now do you have any idea what the casualties were for Tet? Any idea? The US lost somewhere around 1500 dead, maybe a little higher. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong lost over 40,000. Yep, over 40,000. Let's see 40,000 to 1,500. And we took back every inched of ground they took losing 40,000.
But Cronkite defeated America in the living room when he pronounced the war a stalemate. We lost the war in the American living room, not on the battlefield. It is an historical fact that America lost not one battle in Vietnam.
It is the national will which must be defeated in war. Usually that is done by defeating the military forces, but not always, as in the case of Vietnam. The national will is composed of the government, the military and the people. The communist strategy was defeat the people and they did. Americans lost that war, not the military.
Rush is a national security assed, because he rallies the people effectively. He is a solid thinker, well grounded in America. If the left hates anyone more than Sarah, it’s Rush.
Speaking of Sarah, went to see her movie "The Undefeated" this weekend. You should see it, especially if you are a woman. All my life women have told me how hard it is to be woman. Its so much harder to be a woman than a man. And a white man, well you have the life of Riley.
So if its harder to be a woman, than go watch hw this woman handled it. Go watch Sarah, and consider all you have heard about her from the media, what's the motive? Does her record indicate she is not intelligent? Does it indicate she has no character? Does it indicate she can't handle the toughest problems? Watch the movie. And don't tell me about paid advertising. What is in the movie is verifiable. All you have to do is research the news paper headlines in the movie.
But as I sat there watching the movie I thought to myself, Sarah may run for President as an independent.
Never thought of that before. A third party candidate with the base being the Tea Party...oh my. Starting a new second party is a very difficult undertaking, something right up Sarah’s alley.
America is very clearly at a cross roads as divisive as the years leading up to 1860.
There are two America's. There is one that is socialist - communist. It is the people who support Obama. And while some might deny they are socialist - communist, they are. They see government, and world government as the next step as progress. They want national health insurance. They see human rights in material terms. Everyone deserves an education, health care, a home, a job, etc.
Then there are the traditional Americans. They are the majority, but not by as much as you would think. And many of those traditional Americans are supported in some way by government money, whether it be Social Security, government pension, Medicaid, WIC, unemployment, etc.
The recent polls are clear. Obama has lost the majority of people. They don't believe he is helping the economy, and they believe America is headed in the wrong direction.
Should be good news for the nation, right?
Wrong.
What? The problem is, of the Repu blican candidates, only Sarah sees a different course for America! All the other Republicans are a part of the problem. Romney created Obama Care in Massachusetts. Perry did nothing about illegal immigration and has never been the conservative he pretends to be now. Look at polls in Texas to see if he could even win his own state against a real conservative. The rest of the field is just versions of the major players. Not one calls for the repeal of Obama Care. Not one calls for withdrawal from the Middle East, except Ron Paul and he was butchered for that. Not one condemns globalism and calls for the re-establishment of a Fortress America economy. All of them talk about development of US energy resources, but only Sarah and Perry have any real knowledge of that industry and how to facilitate as a government. Perry has done nothing in Texas. Sarah record on energy development literally dwarfs anyone else.
But why do you say Sarah should run as an independent? Because winning the Republican Primary is fraught with electoral gimmicks and traps. The Republican Party is as corrupt as the Democratic Party. Lawyers, special interests and money saturate the GOP and control the primary process. Look at 4 years ago. McCain? and before him Dole? The people didn't chose those men, the Republican leadership did, and they set up the primaries so that the conservatives voted last...they placed primaries which allowed Democrats to cross over into the Republican Party and the liberal states first...building an image if invincibility into the nothing candidates.
But if Sarah runs independent she avoids all that.
Could she win? Well when you have two candidates you need 50.1% to win a state. But when you enter a third candidate it drops to as low as 34%.
If Sarah doesn't win, it could still be good for America if it drives a stake in the GOP. America has changed since we won the Cold War. America needs time to rebuild America and to discover its place in the world as one of more than 200 nations. We are no longer the leader of the Free World, the Free World doesn't have a leader. Like spoiled children who graduated high school, the Free world is in a state of chaos. Every nation looks out for its own, except America, and its time for that to stop. There needs to be an America First Party.
So let’s see if this little known political writer and theorist has stumbled upon where Sarah is headed.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: August 31, 2011 05:10:50 PM
Walt, your comment demonstrates you have not studied the war. When you do, I would love to hear which one. I wonder if it has to do with the name...Walt, Walter...could be.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: September 1, 2011 05:43:01 AM
I remember this idea being floated, by Rush Limbaugh IIRC, a couple of years ago when the libertarian Republicans began challenging the GOP social platform; the idea being that if they got their way, Palin and the socons would run third party in 2012. Meanwhile, there was another buzz going around the media that, if the socons won, Ron Paul and the libertarian Republicans would go third party.
Palin actually has a good chance running 3rd party. About 25% of Americans would follow her off a cliff; and while many more would throw her off, the anti-Palin vote would be split. Mathematically, Palin needs only 34% to win - a swing in her direction of 10 points - and she might pick that up from female voters alone.
But it's risky. The most likely result of a third party run by a Republican would be to elect Barack Obama, and any Republican that caused that would quickly learn why Democrats spit when they say the name "Ralph Nader."
