Clinton had Perot and Bush had Nader. See where I am going with this?
Let's stop letting Fox and MSNBC tell us who the presumptive nominee is? Even those of us with great respect for Sen. Clinton recognize that there is no way she is going to get elected. She has zero crossover appeal. Whether warranted or not, she is perceived as an ultra-liberal. Hey, did you know that she was President of the College Republicans at
Without suggesting who the nominee should be (think southern democrat who once won the popular vote BEFORE people were all pissed off), I think the DNC should pony up and finance a moderate-conservative third party candidate. There are a couple of people I'd like to see that I know won't do it (Sec. Powell or Sec. Cohen). But what about one of the many Republican Governors that are expected to be out of work this November? Or, better yet, a retired military man. The republican equivalent of Gen. Clark. I believe such a person would do more to split a Republican ticket than a Democratic one.
Do you think I'm on to something? Or maybe you have a better idea? Hey, I'm all ears (eyes?). Much love.
3 comments:
I think you could be on to something here. There are a few problems, but they can be worked out. Let me just put a few of them out there. One, it will depend on who the Republicans pick to be their nominee. If they pick a religious conservative, like George Allen, this strategy would work well. If they pick a moderate, like McCain or worse Guiliani, perhaps encouraging a religious conservative into the race would be even better (peel off the fundies and a moderate Republican hasn't got a chance).
The DNC will never part with money to support a Republican third party candidate (they're working with less to start with), but there are other ways. We can all start second blogs supporting the candidate and courting Republican voters and raising money, start a real grassroots groundswell. Kind of diabolical, but these are desperate times.
I love the thinking outside the box on this though. Keep it up! And I'll keep pondering it as well.
I think letting each party vote for their own candidate is a preposterous idea in the first place. Not that letting the other party vote for the candidate is a better idea, but the fact that, as a registered _________, one cannot vote for someone in another party to be elected. The fact that each party can have ONLY one candidate is idiotic--what happened to true democracy? Just because just over half of 'my' party (depending on how I am feeling that day) wants to elect some idiot to presidential candidacy doesn't mean that I want them to be president. There is no room for people to stick to their guns--everything is following a party line of some sort after a certain point. Perhaps I would have voted for McCain in the end, but that vote was stolen from me long before I was allowed to see the voting booth. I think the system needs to be revamped--why not start with a list, and keep having votes until someone wins?
Post a Comment