Strictly As A Thought Experiment

Posted on | October 15, 2011 | 95 Comments

by Smitty

Say there was a dynamic candidate with a, call it ‘reasonable’, shot at a major party nomination.

Say that candidate got the impression that a fix was in already for that nomination, and all of the debates and polls and flesh pressing were really just so much dog and pony.

Say that candidate mounted a third party run.

What is the over-under on head ‘splosions among the Ruling Class Overlords?

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

95 Responses to “Strictly As A Thought Experiment”

Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

Joe, Simply being a little better than Obama isn’t good enough. Sure many of us will hold our nose and vote for Romney as a vote against Obama. There won’t be enough to win. We need a candidate that people will be enthused to vote FOR not just a guy people who isn’t the incumbent. Consider 2004 DEM’s ran a dullard from Massachusetts with a vote against Bush campaign. If you discount vote fraud, Kerry got waxed.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

Joe, I think you’re referring to 2008. And you’re right in 2008 Romney would have been better than McCain. Problem is it isn’t 2008. Now, that Obama pushed through a hugely unpopular national health care legislative package, Romney-care is an albatross that kills Romney’s chance of unseating the incumbent. A key issue to hammer Obama about is automatically taken off the table.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

That’s because real conservatives love that Constitution thingy more than political capital/bribery.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

The lifetime tenures of federal judges does make that a slightly more compelling argument, but as you rightly point out there are no guarantees of getting a judge who will adhere to the U.S. Constitution. I will say Bush 43 did a better job on picking SCOTUS nominees than his dad.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

We are not against Romney just because of Masscare though his pathetic rationalization attempting to defend the mandate based on the tenth amendment, extrapolated to other issues is telling. He may be a very decent man and I’ve no question of his personal morality but he has no principles, none. He’s less conservative than Dubya, he’s another Big Government Republican and electing him is at it’s very best is a holding action. Making Romney president will perhaps slow our descent into Serfdom and Darkness but will surely not begin to reverse it. Just suppose he manages to inflate another economic bubble, and puts the people back to sleep, sooner or later that leads to another Clinton and/or Obama. Romney believes in Big Government just as much as the SDs he just thinks he can do it right. That’s not just bad policy it’s a character flaw.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

“Food for thought. Another thing that’s bothering me, is the LSM is
pretending that Romney would pick Cain as VP (to gain his camps support)
when we all know that Christie would probably be his choice. ”

You lose credibility when you confuse opinions with facts. We don’t KNOW anything about who he might choose as a running mate. Most likely Christie is someone he likes but can’t pick. Geographical balance is not as important as it once was, but balance is important. Young balances old, legislator balances executive, conservative shores up support if top of ticket is shaky on conservative issues, etc, etc, etc. Another NE governor who is considered somewhat shaky on a few issues is the last thing Romney would pick as it doubles down on his negatives without bringing much to the ticket. It is way too early to focus on running mates, but for Romney the most likely are J Bush, Barbour, Rubio, Ryan types. With no government experience, Cain is not a likely pick. Especially since Romney only has 4 years as a governor which means he needs an experienced Cheney type. Gingrich could even be a surprise choice.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

The Perot movement wasn’t a third party movement it was a third man movement.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:11 pm

I’m sure we will hear a lot about O’Donnell & Castle over the next year or so. They will attempt to make the point that we have to go with the “electable” (meaning liberal) in the primary. It will be done with a false assumption that Castle would have won. I’m not saying he’d necessarily lose, but that it is false to say as a fact that he’d have won. If ya can’t win the primary against a woman every one is mocking my confidence isn’t high you can win the general. The other problem is the false belief that you can extrapolate results from one weird little state to a national election.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

The courts below SCOTUS don’t have to be lifetime appointments, the ninth circuit is not constitutionally mandated. With the correct radical restorationists in congress and the WH, a reform of the tragically overworked Federal Court System would best serve the interests of Justice. To achieve that, the 12 circuit and 94 district courts would be abolished and replaced with 15 or 20 circuit and 117 to 156 district courts. The number of Supreme Court Justices isn’t mandated by the Constitution either. In 1789 there were six justices, in 1807 seven, in 1837 nine and ten in 1863. The court was back down to seven in 1867 and back up to nine 1869 where it has remained since. All of these changes were determined by congressional statute.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

Wombat, did you read that article I linked earlier? Any of it? The only difference between these two can be found at your local beauty salon on the makeup color matching chart. Oh, and one calls himself a Republican.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

Bullshit. On all counts.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

Four more years of Obama will be sufficient to give us what this country desperately needs: a reset, a chance to look at how statists got around the protections the Founders envisioned and re-implement the original design with safeguards from what they came up with.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

Considering that I am willing to accept the responsibility of working to take down the current government and the penalties if I fail, your list is pretty damn small potatoes.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 4:57 pm

What makes you think we are Republicans? What makes you think the opposite of Democrat, Social Democrat (SD), Progressive or Bolshevik is Republican? Your obvious pride in and commitment to being a Republican is almost as admirable as it is puzzling. Even more puzzling is your inability to comprehend why and your denigration of, many of us, who are sick and tired of the false notion that our choices about governance are and must be limited to the two big government parties. Either the Republican party will become the party of conservatism or we WILL abandon it to wallow in it’s own shit.
That your dire predictions are likely to come true will be the fault of Republican’s greed for status and elitist acceptance, not our refusal to settle. If being a Republican requires compromising our principles, it becomes not the lesser but the greater of two evils. It is our duty to vote for those who will represent our beliefs not those who betray them. What part of not conservative enough escapes your grasp?

If that makes us a minority then so be it. If the voting public consciously and deliberately votes to run the ship of state upon the rocks of our current course so be it. It will be entirely appropriate that the left be at the helm.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

I agree that line of argument is a pile of crap for all the reasons you point out. In addition, the Establishment better find a clue and quit reminding us how they shivved O’Donnell in the back early and often after she beat Castle in the primary instead of closing ranks and giving Coons a run for his money. Otherwise, I suspect that even if Romney gets the nomination, a lot of Tea Party types are going to sit this one out, and that would be a disaster.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

What difference does that make? Perot split the fiscal conservatives from the social conservatives, and Clinton won. Any third-party conservative would do the same this time around, except that Obama is orders of magnitude worse than Clinton.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

You’re delusional. Four years ago people like you were telling us that conservatism needed Obama to defeat McCain in order to get the movement fired up. Well, that’s what we got, all right. The movement is fired up, the economy is in flaming ruins, and now you tell us we need FOUR MORE YEARS of this so we can rebuild the republic from scratch? GTFO. I don’t know about you, chumley, but I’m not in a position to wait another four years for the Millenium to arrive. I need a damn job, and for that, we have to get the Chicago mo b out of the White House.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

Agree with this, but disagree that people should go around claiming he’d be worse than Obama.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

Excellent.
Jim22
October 15th, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

What if Palin changed parties and ran as a Green – or a Democrat and forced them to primary Obama?
ThePaganTemple
October 15th, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

Not even I would vote for her if she ran as a Democrat, or a Green either.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

I’m opposed to a third party or a third person run this cycle, as there isn’t time to build a viable third party this time. Perot did not launch a third party he rented/hijacked an existing third party and left nothing behind. He certainly divided the conservative vote which led to Bush’s defeat. If Bush had been a conservative that might not have happened, if Bush had been a conservative Perot might not have run at all. IMHO the premise that Clinton’s victory was a long run defeat for conservatism is debatable. Neither here nor there.

Perot’s “party” won no seats in congress, if it ran any candidates that I’m aware of, yet his race did effect or at least influence votes in congress. I recall reading in the WP about Clinton summoning a handful of Dem Congressmen to the WH for some old fashioned arm twisting, perhaps regarding the health care battle. Clinton was citing his “mandate” from the election when he was cut short by one of the congressman who retorted that his district went for Perot and that Clinton didn’t have a mandate there. Perot’s legacy is a footnote in political history and the animosity of many Republicans. He only created a third choice for chief executive not a lasting, viable third choice of governing principles for this country and that’s a pity and perhaps a squandered opportunity.

That’s the difference.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

Defeating Obama is a fight for ones principles, it is not a principle.
Defeating Obama may well be the last chance to avert a national tragedy, it is not a principle.
Voting for whoever is running against Obama no matter what his or her principles may be, could be a principled decision but it is not a principle.
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

You are in good company in terms of your employment situation I haven’t worked since 09 but was fortunate enough to be able use the substantial “profit sharing” I’d earned to live on. You are also correct that another four years, if not 14 months of Obama will surely destroy this Republic and it’s economy. The question is will nominating Mitt Romney assure Obama’s defeat. If so the question becomes will electing Mitt Romney president save the country. Many of us have grave doubts that the answer to either question is yes.
DaveO
October 15th, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

Smitty:

Establishmentarian heads exploding: 75%

Campaign finance law scrapped by the RNC and DNC: 100%

Federal Judiciary stepping in to ensure untainted elections: 0%
Steve in TN
October 15th, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

Romney will at least have a competent foreign policy.
Steve in TN
October 15th, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

I can’t seriously give consideration to the opinions of one who thinks Obama and Romney court picks would be the same.
Shawn Gillogly
October 15th, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

I’m not telling you we need 4 more years of Obama.

I’m saying if we can’t get a Conservative elected with a conservative electorate because the Establishment is insistent on gaming the system, then the best thing for the long-term health of the country is to turn back the clock and use this campaign to launch an all-out war on them. If that means 4 more years of Obama as a result, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve been unemployed my fair share too under Chicago-on-the-Potomac. But getting a job isn’t a valid reason to let the country slide for another generation.

And for the record, I held my nose and voted for McCain, because I think Palin is legitimate. But that’s the last time I’ll ever do it. And his campaign staff showed me the pointlessness of supporting ANY candidate because of the VP choice.
Shawn Gillogly
October 15th, 2011 @ 9:16 pm

I didn’t say the same. So don’t put words in my mouth. But the Bush judicial selections didn’t do a whole heapload for Judicial restraint and Conservatism. So assuming that Romney would ADVANCE our cause that way is a leap of logic I see no evidence of, given Romney’s experience as a chief executive at the state level was to promote social liberal ideology.

My point is a RINOs idea of a Conservative judiciary is different from a true conservatives. And ‘better’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘enough to matter.’
Anonymous
October 15th, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

People keep bringing that up, as if Romney was a clone of Stacy’s Crazy Cousin John. He’s not, and acting like he is is a good way to set yourself up for massive fail. I’m no fan of the man myself, but you people who go around moaning that Romney can’t beat Obama are getting on my last nerve, because you NEVER GIVE ANY SOLID REASON WHY. Polls this far out from the election are B as in B, S as in S, and about as reliable as a wet paper grocery bag. By all means, let’s slug it out in the trenches right up until the convention, but let’s not decide that we’re going to go home in a snit if our favorite candidate doesn’t get the delegates. Nobody deserves four more years of Obama, least of all us, and anyone saying Romney will be as bad as/worse than Obama needs to get their head right.
Anonymous
October 16th, 2011 @ 3:56 am

Romney can’t use Obamacare as an issue period, he simply can’t make a credible case that it’s different. He argues that it was a state solution that shouldn’t be considered as a national model. Obama will argue, correctly, that it is the model for Obamacare. It’s funding was augmented by extra medicaid funding from a deal Romney got Ted Kennedy to secure specifically for Massachusetts. Sounds like one of the special deals used to pass Obamacare.

At some point the voting majority that isn’t paying attention now will wake up. When they do start paying attention they’ll wonder why the folks who’ve been condemning Obamacare for three years nominated the guy who invented it. Romney asserts that the mandate is constitutional. What happens to that argument when the Supreme Court says it’s not. I suspect the nuanced argument Mitt makes on that issue won’t fly, largely because it’s horseshit. As soon as the Obamacare mandate is struck down the Massachusetts version will be challenged in court. That’ll be when, next summer? How’s Mitt gonna explain that?
smitty
October 16th, 2011 @ 7:48 am

The case that Romney can make is the Federalist one: that Massachusetts can be as socialist as it wants to be.
Whether that amounts to a fart in a thunderstorm to conservative voters is another matter.
ThePaganTemple
October 16th, 2011 @ 8:19 am

I think what Shawn is saying is that the Republican establishment is doubling down on the stupid because they think we’re so desperate to get rid of Obama we’ll go along with them. He has a damn good point.
ThePaganTemple
October 16th, 2011 @ 8:22 am

Exactly, a RINO’s idea of a conservative judge is just another example of their go-along-to-get-alongism. Appoint a moderate like Kennedy so you can brag that your judicial appointments had “bi-partisan support”, and the hell with the actual long-term results on our nation and the constitution.
Shawn Gillogly
October 16th, 2011 @ 10:49 am

I never said he’d be worse than Obama. I said I believe the long term consequences of Romney would be worse than 4 more years of Obama.

Why? 1) The Conservatives would have to endure 4 years of being misidentified with the GOP=Con meme from the left and Dino Media. Just like under Bush. No matter what big gov idea Romney gives us, it would be ‘conservative.’ The Tea Party would be dead, and I don’t think it would be able to revive.

2) The disheartened rank and file would stay home in 4 years, and a socialist would be elected, again. Probably with a sweep of power into both Houses of Congress.

3) With no opposition in Gov. And no Tea Party on the streets, the socialist democratic experiment would be locked in for good, and our conversion into a Germany-style nation would be completed.

Romney may be a better President in the short-term. But the long-term would be worse. Much worse. Romney’s “Waivers” to Obamacare could be repealed by the next President. And he has no real alternative to suggest, since HIS plan was the Mass Plan. So in the end, Romney won’t end Obamacare either. Merely postpone the date of its inevitability.

So the best thing to do is punish the Establishment for gaming the system.

The Country can survive 4 more years of gridlock. It can’t survive a generation of Socialists in power.
Anonymous
October 16th, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

No Smitty he can’t. The states can’t deny us the right to free speech or the right to bear arms or the right to be secure in our persons and property. The federalism and tenth amendment arguments is defense of the mandate are nonsense, in point of fact the states are not permitted to be as socialist as the want to.
ThePaganTemple
October 16th, 2011 @ 2:34 pm

I think there should be an even number of judges myself. That way, the only way there could be a ruling would require majority if more than one vote. If there were ten, it would have to be 6-4, or if eight of them, 5-3. It would make it more final, plus maybe make people pay more serious attention to the judicial nominating process. As far as I’m concerned judicial appointment are THE number one issue, which is why I’m not exactly overjoyed at the idea of nominating a Romney.
Anonymous
October 16th, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

The problem with that is in the event of a tie the lower court would stand, for good or ill. While the 9Th Circuit routinely has rulings sent back or overturned by all nine justices (the judicial incompetence this demonstrates on the part of the ninth circuit should be reason enough to abolish that court) a tied SCOTUS would likely leave Obamacare intact.
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 7:54 am

Don’t be too sure. He’s a WIMP in everything. Even when he got tough for a New York Minute when the Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse happened, he soon went back to being wimpy.
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 8:02 am

Well put, Elaine. The only reason Grumpy got as many votes as he did is because many of us voted for Mrs. Palin.
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 8:13 am

When Governor, Mandate Mitt’s judicial nominees were, to put it mildly, a major disappointment.

One tidbit: “Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to
Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered
Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.”

– Boston Globe 7/25/2005

Source: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 8:21 am

Exactly.

The time is ripe to make our stand. We can’t let our moment to do this without violence pass us by.
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 8:23 am

They will never step aside. This is why we must STAGE THE COUP and take over the Party. Otherwise, as Adobe has said, we must be prepared to leave it on 07 November 2012 and let it go the way of the Whigs.
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 8:28 am

And it will be entirely appropriate to effect a separation.
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2011 @ 8:33 am

Actually, not quite…

From M. Joseph Sheppard:
C4P later amended their posting and advised that in fact there had been no such change, and Palin’s Facebook bio had always had “Conservative”

Here is the truth of the matter. Palin’s bio had, as shown below, party designation as “Republican”.

The current bio has had the party designation removed and “Political philosophy; conservative” (with a large letter C it must be noted) substituted, as below.

Source: http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/10/palins-facebook-bio-did-change-from.html