Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

Chuck, Jr. Follows Up On His ‘New Party’ Post





We here at C4P have a lot of respect for the Governor and her family and appreciate their contributions to commonsense conservatism. 

I was thrilled to post Chuck’s brilliant post from a couple days ago where he questioned whether or not the time for a third party had arrived or not. 

Well, through reader discussion, he has followed up a couple times with his readers since then.  Please join in the discussions here at C4P or at Facebook.

On Monday, he posted the following:

This is the second half of the piece about a new "American Party" I posted last night. Many of your comments were great. Keep the suggestions coming.

"This party’s platform would be a conglomerate of the best ideas from the existing parties, plus a few new commonsense ideas. It would adhere to the tenants of our Constitution and be Christian-based.

Under the new party’s platform, term limits would be adhered to. I suggest that any representative be limited to three consecutive terms and senators two. They would be free to serve again in the future, but only after sitting out another two terms. If the opposition won’t play by those rules, so be it. The people will decide who stays and who goes.

Under the American Party, a senator or representative would not be permitted to go to work for any corporation that he has been involved with as a member of government for a period of two years.

Campaign contributions would be limited to individuals and be completely transparent. No more “corporate politicians”!

This would be the party with solutions, not just talk. It would be a party by the people and for the people.

If not now… then when?

This is just the beginning. I am just one man expressing my opinion. I’m hoping that there are more of you out there that share it. Something has to be done. Our country cannot and will not prosper unless something drastically changes."

Then even more recently, Chuck was nice enough to post the following words from Democrat Pollster, Pat Caddell.  Chuck said the following:

This is kind of eerie. As most of you know I wrote a post two days ago about the possibility of starting a third major political party that could seriously contend for high national offices. I’m not a politician and the only reason I wrote it was because I am so frustrated with the bickering between our two established parties and the direction our country is heading. Anyway, someone sent me a video today of a speech that Democratic pollster Pat Caddell delivered to a group of women in Austin, Texas yesterday.

Pat is much, much more politically savvy than I am so I’d like to share some of what he said in his speech. He mentioned that he is speaking out for the sake of his own grandchildren.

-75-79% of Americans believe government in Washington governs without the consent of the people.

-83% think the system is rigged by lobbyists, unions, banks, and special interests.

-77% (recent Gallup poll) believe the power play between our two parties is a threat to the survival of our country.

Regarding the Fiscal Cliff: Mort Zuckerman recently stated that the unfunded liability of government is 87 trillion dollars. The new bill that was just passed: for every dollar in spending cuts there will be 41 dollars in new taxes. On top of this, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks will be given to special interests.

Mr. Caddell then said that we currently have two political parties: the “corrupt” party and the “stupid” party (he didn’t stipulate which one was which).

He said that not only did the Senate pass the Fiscal Cliff bill, but they caved and gave Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling.

He called Obamacare a crime against democracy because Obama promised it wouldn’t be linked to new taxes. Since then 19,000 new IRS agents are being put in place. He said that congressmen on both sides of the aisle helped it pass because they are in cahoots with the insurance companies that will profit from this new legislation. “Congressmen will talk but will not act.” He mentioned that 30% of Obama voters want Obamacare overturned.

He said that the role of government is supposed to be to protect the people from power, not impose power on the people.

He concluded by saying that regardless of what party people belong to, when you are elected you swear an oath to the constitution, not a political party.

It’s anything but a mystery.  Frankly, for my own reasons I bit my tongue through most of the election cycle in 2012.  But serious discussions must move forward and the movement required to create such an alternative has to be consistent.  Right now, we do have decent members on both sides of the aisle who feel cut off.  But then it becomes easy to sell out to special interests when people are showered with media attention.  That is why a new platform should be presented to the people.  They need a place to go and I frankly believe they are willing to take that step.  A couple folks powerful enough are required to at least begin the discussions on the possibility.  We’re not going to determine the direct course overnight, but if the people know we’re working towards bypassing both machines of the left and the right, they’ll be ready to grab on once its developed.

People really are that sick of our government.

The fact that Huffington Post is picking up Chuck’s words means that even they know that people are waiting for something new.  The threat of a new path could not only accomplish the task of giving the people a viable choice, but it could in fact get the two parties we are currently stuck with to sit up and take notice.

I thank Chuck Heath, Jr. for having the courage to put this thought out there.  Gov. Palin has always contended that at the end of the day most of us agree more than we disagree.  And there needs to be a choice for ‘most of us’ in future elections.



Tags: , , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • DocBarry1

    Thank you, again, to Chuck Heath Jr. – I just continue to hope and pray that Gov Palin jumps right in and takes up this cause – because our Coutry is already at risk – we need her now!

    • patnatasha

      Amen to that.

      • DocBarry1

        we need everyone that supports Gov Palin - start praying and sending out the message that we need her – more than ever!

        • patnatasha

          yes we do.

        • Guest

          *** start??? praying…..
          IMHO…..some of us have never stopped…just sayin…

          • DocBarry1

            You are absolutely right to correct me – I agree 100% – I haven’t stopped and thanks for adding your words to mine

            • Guest

              :-) we’re in this together….

              • DocBarry1

                absolutely

          • lyndaaquarius

            never stopped…

  • patnatasha

    chuck sounds like sarah makes you wonder if he and sarah haven’t been talking about this.

    • StandProudNow

      Naw….  {wink}

      • patnatasha

        i am waiting for another fb post from sarah she just sent out a tweet about  the left and their bullying tactics.

  • daisy_mae

    Thank you so much for posting this Steve!  Thank you Chuck Jr. for being such a visionary and putting forth truthfully our frustrations and the answers to them.  I’ve long been a believer in simple solutions for seemingly complex problems and the American Party is it!  I’m ready to rock and roll! 

    Palin 2016, the American Party, the party of the people, by the people, for the people :)

  • RightMom

    Chuck is saying what many of us have been saying for years.  The two party system is destroying our country.  Every 4 years we witness the ascension of the moderate republican and we are told that he is the only one who can win.  Never mind that history is replete with failed RINOs, like Ford, McCain and Romney.  And after every loss of these sure fire winners, we go forth to nominate another democrat-lite the next time around and an ignorant electorate falls for the false premise of electability again, and again, and again…   All the while, our children’s futures are being flushed down the proverbial toilet. 

    Crony capitalism, payouts to unions and special interest groups, the deconstruction of the Constitution, denying people their religious freedoms, stripping society of moral values…all this and more is the result of two party rule.  

    So, tell me again why we can’t form a third party? And please don’t say because a third party can’t win when the Republican party can’t win.

    • lanahi

      The Republican party reminds me of a Linus:  Sucking its thumb and hanging on to the old dirty blanket,  the Status Quo, for all it’s worth. They would fight hard to keep their blankie until it falls apart and nothing is left of it.  Trouble is, the blanket is our nation.

  • Guest

    Few notes:

    1). " ….it would adhere to the tenants of our Constitution and be Christian-based."

    *** Judeo-Christian*** based is better

    2). " a senator or representative would not be permitted to go to work for any corporation that he has been involved with as a member of government for a period of two years."

    Definitley want to include ex-military personnel with this stipulation as well…..yes they are just as political in the upper eschelon, yet still be able to use their expertise and talent.

    3). Need to develop a method to detect fraudsters in new party….and deal with those people properly ie expose and boot out. Without this, a repeat of the current regime will occur once again.

    4). Mentorship is a must so as not to lose values, and encourage new ideas among young.

    5). Strategically list "needs" where folks know where they can join in

    6). Defined leadership….only those who are trustworthy, with integrity…..if out of step, have a council/cabinet for correction or excommunication (ie leadership role not necessarily party)…

    7). Open communication venue for voice and involvement

    8). Explicit support of Israel that is aligned with consrvative values

    9) publicize all donations (to/from) & expenditure of party on website monthly

    Keeping it short for now….

  • 2C714

    Thank’s, Steve.

    I appreciate your posts, Chuck, and I agree with the ‘platform’.
    Getting the best ideas from the existing parties will be a ‘hunting expedition or a search & find,’ but it is a good eclectic approach. 

    As some conservatives in NC [who are in favor of a third party]  have said, "We will welcome your Constitutional conservative ideas, values, and standards, but we will will not beg, cajole, bribe you, or ‘offer you the moon’ in order for you to like, approve, or appreciate our party and what we stand for."

    God bless the Palin – Heath families. 
    Praying that Gov. Palin will be the leader for this one!!

  • lanahi

    It isn’t just another third party we need. We already have a few dozen third parties, including at least four "right-wing" ones, that no one has ever heard about.

    What we all know in our hearts is that we need another REVOLUTION.  We will soon have one, violent or nonviolent, IMO.  Executive orders to curb guns might be the spark of a violent revolution, which probably Obama actually would like to see happen.

    What would be better is to have a nonviolent revolution which restores our nation as it was meant to be.

    Yes, a third party could be a vehicle for that nonviolent revolution, but we also have to have a REVOLUTIONARY LEADER at the head of it.  We need someone with the fire that will stir us all from the grave, the fire that will burn deep into the fabric of our society, one that will make the "silent majority" silent no longer.  Anything less is a waste of time, money, and effort.

    Sarah Palin will have to agree to lead this revolution because no one else will or can.  She would have to be the head of that third party and its lead candidate for the highest office.  It isn’t enough to be a commentator or to give a stirring speech now and then.  It isn’t enough to make pleas from Facebook.  The people have to know that we’ve got a true leader who will take the helm and go the distance with us.

    Yes, it IS about Sarah, and it IS about a title.  Our country is dying because we have a few small voices here and there trying to make a difference, but they are hardly heard by the average man in the street.  The Tea Party has been largely pre-empted by fakes and some who are willing but unable to lead.  We need someone whose voice will break through the media and reach the people.  The people are dying without hope.  We cannot get through to our present leaders.  Levin, and West, and Cruz, and others are trying to get through, but they are not heard loudly and clearly.  They cannot light the fire and keep it going by themselves.

    Sarah Palin is the only one with that fire and the faith from the people.  She can get through the media silence, and the people listen and will join the cause.  Is she willing?

  • SteveBayrd

    Steve, I’m going to re-post here what I posted on Chuck Heath’s Facebook page. We need a LEADER, and here is why:

    Chuck, there is a reality of human nature that says a "movement" doesn’t happen without leaders. A dear friend from the Special Ops community, after reading your article, said this: "A grassroots ground swelling needs someone to stand out and take charge of the group.  It can’t coalesce unless this happens. As in the military, I think we need a leader to step up and put out a call for the troops to rally.  We need a rally point before we rally.  The Tea Party was a ground swell without a leader and it seems to have lost some traction after a few years of infighting. That’s what would happen again if we simply started a "movement" without a leader again." What he means is: we need Sarah or Allen West to step up to this challenge and be a rally point for the "American Party!"  Sarah has been a balm and inspiration to us. I know she has given so much more than most. And her family has suffered. You all have been brave. I compare her to the heavy burden George Washington carried when he uttered, "Have I not yet given enough for my country?" But he rallied and saved America. We need her. Divine Providence once again calls.

  • MarkRNY

    "The fact that Huffington Post is picking up Chuck’s words means that even they know that people are waiting for something new."

    The fact that HuffPo is picking up Chuck’s words means that they know his sister is the only thing that’s "new" out there, and that she’s the one to lead a 3rd or take back the GOP. 

  • Jim Wagner

    Until Chuck’s suggestion of a third party I admit to being at the point of giving up. I was so hopeful that this last election cycle would be a continuance of 2010, with Gov. Palin gaining traction in the Republican party. Obviously, I’m too naive. The "third party" suggestion is not only a great idea, it may be commonsense conservatives last chance to make the needed difference.  I hope that Chuck will continue to advance this third party notion and that it will become a movement. While Gov. Palin is hands down the best person to lead this nation, a movement totally uncontaminated with either of the existing political parties may be the only way for that to become reality.

  • excopconservative

    The question is how to form a third party without making the same mistakes that have caused the dissatisfaction with the existing parties.  Can a party be formed that is inclusive without being unsubstantial?  Can a party be made up of former members of other parties without bringing along the politics, rivalries, and worst of all, the power structures from those parties?  

    Can a party be populist without being chaotic?  Do our leaders look to the people or do the people look to leaders to determine public policy?  One of the major problems now is that our leaders make policy and they get that policy from donors.  The Democrats have their constituencies and the Republicans have theirs and if you are not in one of them, you are out of luck.  Most of us are out of luck and don’t know it.  Billion dollar Presidential elections will quickly become 2 and 5 billion dollar elections.  How do we stop being priced out of the next election?  The donors get their will and we get Obamacare and California’s bullet train to nowhere and yes, the bill. 

    Do we have a conduit to reach the majority of American voters?  They are not all on Facebook or Twitter.  Which of the networks will, if not champion our cause, at least expose it to the masses? 

    Maybe we should call it the Honest Party.  A party based on being honest.  Obviously, no current politicians would qualify.  No one who has taken a big donation in exchange for his vote would be allowed.  No one who has voted on legislation that they haven’t read would be allowed.  No one who has lied to justify his or her actions would be allowed.  We would not have many politicians but such a party could gather lots of votes. 

    We need basic principles that most people will agree on, a framework of procedures that insure honesty and selflessness in our leaders, and a methodology for reaching voters with those principles and leaders.  We also need a party framework that will prevent us from degenerating into the mess we currently have.

    • lanahi

      If Sarah Palin would form that third party, she would make it work as long as she is in charge of it.  All movements deteriorate sooner or later into a semblence of the new status quo, but, for a time, they have fire in them and are able to make the changes needed because of that fire.  We need that purifying fire now.

    • Patriot41

       I do believe that battle was over finding Perot’s son who had disappeared during the Vietnam war.  G.H.W. Bush was not willing to pursue the issue of missing vets.  From what I have heard, it was that very issue that Perot swore to defeat Bush.

    • Patriot41

      Some very astute observations excop.  I well remember some exercises conducted back a few years ago, when both the Christian leaders and Conservatives met, to come up with a new party platform.  For lack of better words, it was histerical to say the least.  Most advocates of such a party, were extremely critical and unyielding, making demands that not even their advocates could agree with.  At that time, it was an exercise in complete futility.  Back then there was still some sense of an acceptable govt., and the nation was not being threatened by a Marxists takeover.

      Times are different now and political ideology has become a major divisive factor in destroying any sense of unity within this country.  It is no longer a matter of choosing either political party that exists today, as there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two.  Leaders of both patries, are responsible for bankrupting this nation and driving it’s citizens further apart over political ideology.  It is sheer madness beyond civil comprehension.

      There should be no doubt in any sane mind, that what has been happening over the last four years and will continue to happen in the next four years politically, will have a major detrimental effect on this nation’s bearings.  Even those citizens who have been brought up with the socialist’s mentality in our educational system, are bound to realize that our country is headed in the wrong direction.  When they start losing their rights to speak freely, to come and go as they please, to arm themselves for personal protection, and to have to turn over half of all of their income to an abusive and uncaring govt., they most assuredly will begin to wake up and understand the error of their ways.  If not, then this nation will no longer exist as a sovereign country.

      To date, the grassroots movement has adopted the Constitution as it’s foundation, demanding a smaller and more representative govt.  It has been a fiscally conservative movement, in an effort to keep this nation from going bankrupt.  It has also been a movement, to uphold the freedom and individual rights of the citizens of this nation.  It has supported moral, ethical and religous values as well.  It is basically a very sound movement in this country, which few could find fault with, if they have any regard for a decent and prosperous society.  However, it’s detractors have done everything possible to sabotage this movement, because they know it destroys the political ideology agenda that now exists.

      If the Tea Party activists want to successfully make a difference, they are going to have to bring the many different factions of this grassroots movement together and solidify a platform, that has been outlined above and then bring it to the people as they awaken to what is going on.  This can be done with movement leaders, if they realize what is at stake for our nation and are capable of being less demanding over individual desires of their leadership.  One only has to take the time to see what our forefathers were faced with, when they met to draw up the Constitution.  They each had their own ideas and beliefs, but for the benefit of a new nation, they were willing to work out their differences and the results was one of the greatest Constitutions ever worked out in the history of mankind.  Such actions take time and that is why it is necessary for this unification process to start taking place right now. 

  • Christopher H Fromme

    Just for fun I posted both of Chucjk jr  FB notes on the GOP Facebook page in one of the comments.- Wonder if it stays there a while.

    • blueniner

      I wonder if Chuck Jr. gave the Pat Cadell speech link to Sarah?

  • imo123

    Sounds like we need someone with principals that has a title!  It’s that old dicussion we had after an "On The Record" just before Oct. 5th about if you need a title. You may be able to make a difference without a title but like I’ve said before to effect the most change a title would help.

    "… as every Iditarod musher knows, if you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes."  ~~Sarah Palin.

  • CharterOakie

    (Let’s) build it and they will come.

    Keep on thinking, praying, and speaking out.

    Keep on supporting true leadership:  that of Sarah Palin.

    God bless and keep her and all near and dear to her.

  • cbenoistd

    John Anderson, H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader; that’s not a Jeopardy box you want Sarah Palin on. I know the Republicans blackballed Chuck Heath’s sister last August, but a third party won’t cost David Axelrod or Karl Rove any sleep. And please don’t link to Huffington. That’s one Englishwoman I’m not taking an Indian blanket from.

    • lanahi

      Truth can sometimes come from unlikely sources, even Huffpo.

      There is considerable difference between Anderson, Perot, Buchanan, Nadar, and Palin. Even Perot managed to get 19% of the votes, but he wasn’t a Sarah Palin.

      • section9

        Bear in mind, Ross was a billionaire in 1992 dollars.

        However, his movement was designed to keep George H.W. Bush out of the White House, period. He was a spoiler.

        Perot and GHWB had a vicious falling out over something highly classified when both served on Reagan’s President’s Foreign Policy intelligence Advisory Board in the Eighties (PFIAB). It is a highly secret board of very connected men who know where the bodies are buried.

        Needless to say, Bush and Perot became lifelong enemies, and Perot helped Clinton take Bush the Elder out.

        • lanahi

          The point was Perot got a huge vote for a third party, and he wasn’t Sarah.

          • section9

            Perot self-financed up to a point in 1992 dollars, and your point is valid. Palin would have to work very hard to get his resources, and would have to work early and often.

            • dmac8889

              Ianahi, I read your comment to state that Palin could draw a much larger voting block than Ross Perot did.  If she matched up against a Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie, I believe she could draw 30% of the National votes.

              • section9

                Perot drew the same kind of voter Palin would: people frustrated with how Washington worked. The problem is, Washington still had a lot more credibility in the Nineties that it does today. The weakness of a Third Party is that you have to win state-by-state and you have to set something up really new, which has kept the Losertarians as something of a spoiler role.

                Frustration does not a national movement build. You need something more.

                • lanahi

                  With Sarah Palin, it would be "something more", something "really new".

                  I posted this in another thread and it bears repeating, IMO:

                  "We are in need of a RESTITUTION, which is a REVOLUTION.  Do you really think you can have that WITHOUT RISK?

                  Yes, every movement eventually degrades into the new status quo, no matter how much fire it had in the beginning.  But it moves the goal post and creates change in the right direction while it has that fire.  When there is a lack of fire anymore for it, it means it is no longer needed because it has accomplished its goals…or that too many have given up before that.  We certainly need it now.

                  We did not win a revolution with patriots saying, "Nah, it’s too risky."

                  The GOP has lost their way and doesn’t seem to want to find it again…status quo is fine with them.  You can’t do much with that. A few gains, a few losses, but not much change.  Why keep insisting that they wake up when they just want to sleep?  They want to hang on to their security blanket of Status Quo and won’t be moved. Let that sleeping dog lie while we and Sarah shake things up and get on with the Restoration without them…their time came and went, OUR time is now! 

                  That’s what we did in the first American Revolution…less than 10% actively supported it because the others thought it was too risky and probably was an over-reaction anyway, kooky even.  But what a 10%!!  They knew the risks and did it anyway. 

                  I am 69 years old, and never in my life have I seen this climate for change as strong as it is now.  NOW is the time!

                  And Ross Perot (who won 19% of the presidential vote even as third party) was not a Sarah Palin.  Not even close.  Her time has also come, and we can do it together, despite the risks.  We MUST do it, despite the risks, if we want to save this nation."

              • lanahi

                In a three-way race, I believe she would win the majority.  As a candidate, the people would get to know her as she really is, directly through her own words, not as she has been painted. Her message resonates with Americans of all kinds, and they’d respond joyfully.

        • dmac8889

          That was Iran/Contra and the enormous drug running and money laundering that was conducted in Arkansas, by the group Bush set up, that was led by Oliver North.

  • Patriot41

    Having been involved in politics most of my life, I have always been leery of a multiple party political situation.  Having traveled to many countries on this planet that had more then two parties involved in politics, I was relatively positive that more then two political parties in this nation would spell disaster.

    However, after several years of frustration trying to deal with both of our political parties in a sane and honest fashion, my mindset has changed.  The primary reason for this change, is the fact that the citizens of this country no longer have representative government!  The ideological mindset of leaders in both political parties is such, that they no longer listen to the majority of citizens in this nation.  Instead of serving the citizens of this nation, they have embarked on a course of dividing our nation through political and ideological persuasion.  Their primary goal has been to build political power over the opposition party and in so doing, both parties have neglected the needs of our people.  Hence they now have a political montra of party first, nation second.

    For several years now, I have embarked on a mission to convince major conservative influences in this country, to consider a third party movement.  I speak of people like Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie, known conservative political stalwarts and others as well.  None of these upstanding conservatives, wanted it known that they would support such a movement for fear that they would lose their political status with the media and the GOPe.  They consistently maintained, that conservatives should consider taking over the GOP instead of bolting from a losing party.  I reminded them that conservatives have rarely had a voice in either political party and that has been the case over the last fifty years.  With the few exceptions that the GOP has been the ruling party, it’s leadership has constantly tried to ignore any and all conservative influence.  They even gave Pres. Reagan, more resistance then the opposition party.  One wonders, will conservatives ever learn?

    Since 2008, there has been major disillusion for our citizens, with both political parties.  Radicals have taken over the democrat party driving many conservatives from that party.  At the same time, establishment crony capitalists, have taken over the GOP.  Independents have had one hell of a time, deciding which party they will vote for and that is a serious problem when middle of the road voters cannot figure who would be best to lead the nation?  Registration figures started to show a major trend of party support weaknesses, in that for the first time, citizens were divided into three different political categories of equal proportions.  Neither political party, showed support of forty percent of registered voters in this country.  To me, this clearly indicated that there was room for another political party in this country, with near equality to the two other political parties.

    I firmly believe within the next four years of this Obama administration, there are going to be a lot of citizens who are going to wake up to what is going on politically in this country and there is going to be some major changes occurring in our political system.  We are either going to lose control of our govt., by force, or the citizens of this nation are going to wake up and put an end to the madness that is taking place.  Should this happen, there needs to be a Constitutional party that is ready to absorb those citizens, who want to protect our nation from a tyrannical take over, by the marxists who are in the process of destroying our form of govt.  It needs to be a unified party, that appeals to the majority of our citizens, including all elements of our society.  Freedom, Justice and Liberty, needs to be the major building blocks of such a party and above all, it must support representative government in this country.

    The grassroots Tea Party movement over the last seven years, has given the citizens of this nation an opportunity to form a third party in an effort to save our Republic.  It has been a fractured movement to date, because of a lack on unification leadership.  Democrats launched an effort to destroy the Tea Party movement, by sending in a bunch of radicals in their own movement on Wall Street and in the big cities, billing it as part of the Tea Party, for the purpose of discrediting the true Tea Party efforts.  That distinction has to be clarified before the public, so that the democrats are not successful in convincing the voters that the Tea Party members are merely a bunch of radicals.  The Tea Party leaders need to settle on what they stand for and then get their message out, nation wide.  They cannot do this, if they remain as separate entities and they must now unify their efforts. 

    The Tea Party has been quite successful in electing good conservatives in both the House and the Senate and that is a good sign that they can be a successful movement across this nation.  In fact right now, they are the only positive sign for political change in this country.  Conservatives need to fully get behind their efforts and take part in the leadership of that movement.

    • dmac8889

      Patriot41,  well thought out words, that I have happen to state myself from time to time.  I don’t know a soul in the political world, in fact Sarah Palin is the only politician I have ever been interested in meeting.  However, for forty plus years I have followed politics very closely (as if it were a Soap Opera), and the moment has arrived for someone to simply state:  "No one in that Political Party speaks for me."  Those words will be thunderous and get immediate response not just from the National Media, but from all those like myself who are an "Informed voter" ready to move away from one of the two Parties..

      Sarah Palin is uniquely positioned for such a statement and in fact declaring she no longer is represented by the Republican Party, she will gain support over night, and there is not a thing a Karl Rove, or anyone else in that Party can do about it.  Does it mean almost certain defeat for the political RIGHT?  Maybe, but the Democrats have their own problem, and a split by them, balances the field immediately.  I see the Far Left searching for a candidate now, just like a Pat Cadell searching for a Moderate Democrat to leave the Party.  Nothing begins until after the 2014 Congressional Elections, when the playing field is laid out before us.  Then the migrations begin.  If it Sarah, she must be ready to hit the ground running on the day after the midterm elections.

  • angeleno

    Thanks, Steve. I’m thinking more and more that we need a third party, anything to upset the Dems and RInos. If not a third party, then a direct challenge to the RINOs now controlling the GOP by Sarah or someone like Ted Cruz.

    Also, Chuck Jr.’s post, while very good, needs a little editing/revision. He meant "adhere to the TENETS of the Constitution," not the "tenants."

    More important, in America we do not base party platforms or governments on religion. We have complete freedom of religion, whether the Left likes it or not, but our platform should not be "Christian-based" nor any other religion. It should be based on American moral values which include freedom, especially of speech, religion, conscience, etc.

    • lanahi

      Moral values is the heart of religion.  That is what "Christian-based" means.  Our whole Constitution is "Christian based", set up by Christians based on their Christian values, making the individual greater than the masses and recognizing GOD-given rights.  It doesn’t mean preaching doctrine or insisting on religious fidelity but rather practicing their highest values.  You cannot separate religion from its resulting moral values.

      I am not a Christian but I recognize that we could not have the Constitution or the nation we have had without the faith that gave it to us.  I also recognize that taking God out of our nation destroys our nation and the values we gained from faith in a power greater than ourselves.  Our troubles begin when man places faith only in himself and seeks his own self-interest at the expense of others.  A man of faith is recognizable by both his works and his words. 

      There is a great difference between a Sarah Palin and an Obama, and the difference is their faith in something greater than themselves, or lack of it.  Neither of them go around expounding on their fundamental beliefs, but it is obvious in everything they do and everything they are.

      • $35927229

        You have such good insight, I really always love reading your posts. 

  • goldenprez

    Steve Flesher stumping for an "alternative Party?"

    Steve Flesher "bit his tongue" through most of the 2012 election cycle?

    Dealing with the second premise first, it would appear, at first blush, that the constant editorials (almost daily) stumping for Newt Gingrich doesn’t really qualify as "holding one’s tongue." Nor the constant reminders (almost daily) that Mrs. Palin wasn’t running and we had to go with the least offensive candidate qualify as "holding one’s tongue." Nor the stumping for Romney (almost daily) after he secured the nomination that was actually given to him in 2010 by the GOP establishment qualify as "holding one’s tongue."

    I could be wrong.

    As to the "alternative Party," it is about time people here are waking up to the fact, as I have been pointing out for 2 years, that the GOP is just another spoke in the wheel of the establishment. That not only are they no different than the socialists/statists permanent political ruling class of the "other" Party, but that they loath any/all conservatives with a visceral hatred that is palpable.

    Timing is everything. Momentum is the turbo engine of timing. Reform must, by definition, be "sudden and relentless." From whence did that proposition derive?

    Having a "platform" is superfluous. We already know what principles should be foremost. The problem is simple, but complicated simultaneously. What we now have are politicians who will say anything to get elected. Then, after they betray all the principles to which they gave lip service in order to get elected, depend upon their incumbency and the power of the state and local GOP officials to get them re-elected.

    The vetting of individual candidates is much more important than their exclamations of fidelity to any "platform."

    We also have to be prepared for the fact, not possibility, that we are going to be fooled now and then. And we have to be prepared to show our "muscle" when it happens.

    The bottom line, as all here know, it is going to take a charismatic politcal figure, with unfailing constitutional conservative principles, and unquestioned sincerity to serve We The People, who resonates with We The People to bring an "alternative Party" to reality.

    However, if that person makes their aims and goals known too soon, every gun of the establishment and their Ministry of Propaganda will immediately be trained on that individual. If anyone thought the last election cycle was one of the "dirtiest" in history, let an "alternative Party" candidate surface too soon, and you will understand fully the phrase, "You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!"

    Once again, I say that a major, if not "the" major, part of the strategy of an "alternative Party" candidate for President, is going to have to include "out of the box" overwhelming doses of components to neutralize the establishment and their Ministry of Propaganda.

    And it is all going to have to be "sudden and relentless."

    Throw them all out! The status quo must go!

    Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

    Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Barracudas Maximus.
     

    • patnatasha

      sounds good to me.

    • lanahi

      Party platforms are like the Constitution these days…ignored.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F6WP57ET6FUO7LRAPPM45P2RFI Gary

    Yes, we… you betcha!

  • Bill__Hughes

    I am ready to form a third party if Sarah is going to lead.  I’m tired of the GOP and no longer interested in helping their nonsensical cowardice and cronyism.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets