Would you support a moderate third party?

[Moderate Dem]

Last night I saw Christie Todd Whitman on Dennis Miller, talking about her book "It's My Party Too". They were talking about the extreme ends of both the Republican and Democratic parties pushing out moderates. Dennis suggested that maybe moderates from both parties could form a new party from the middle, as they would have more in common than they would with their respective parties.

Would you join such a party?

Also, how would you judge the chances of such a party? Who might run for President?

[lutherj]

1. I'm not sure what the middle ground is. What is the middle between

the basic principles that our country was founded on - democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, the separation of church & state - and a corporate/christofascist right?

[MisterLiberal]

54. NO

But I would support a liberal third party

[JI7]

2. Whitman supported Bush and only spoke out AFTER the election

so she is not really a moderate.

she is looking to profit off of the Bush haters who she hopes will buy her book where she is critical of Bush and her party.

[Donna Zen]

4. My thoughts as well

Christy T, is trying to convince people that she's not a rightwing nutcase just in spite of the fact she hangs out with them and mostly agrees with them. Could be a senate run.

[leyton]

11. I think it's out of deference.

It's one thing to openly criticize the guy who selected you as EPA chief, and it's another to endorse the guy who's running against him. We on the outside place issues over personal loyalty/personal relationships, but for her to come out for Kerry would be the equivalent of y'all quitting your job and taking company secrets to a competitor. For most people, that's over the line.

[JI7]

13. i don't expect her to endorse Kerry or any other Democrat

but she could have at least spoken up before the election.

but she wanted to profit off the Bush haters. i just hope they don't go out and buy her book or pay to attend any of her events.

[bunkerbuster1]

21. For her to come out for Kerry would be like Zell coming out for Bush!

oh, wait...

[leyton]

39. Well, Kerry never gave Zell a job.

And Zell is really no better than a bag of fleas, and Whitman probably has more class than he.

[On the Road]

3. It's a Bit Like What Ross Perot Was Trying to Do

with the Reform Party. It's not a bad idea, but it's too hard in this country to get a party off the ground. I might join one if it had a chance of succeeding and "moderate" meant more than "Dem-and-Rep lite."

A third party can only succeed if (1) anger with both parties became very widespread, and (2) it started at the grassroots level with local elections.

Fusion balloting would help, meaning that a third party could list the name of the Dem or Rep candidate on a separate ballot line, but most states other than NY prohibit it, and the Supreme Court wouldn't mandate it.

However, at the local level I don't think politicians are as ideological or the public disenchantment is as high. Which means it could only happen in a crisis.

[denverbill]

8. Ross Perot might well have won in 1992 if he hadn't suddenly quit.

He was the ONLY candidate against NAFTA. He was a plain talker. He didn't have Clinton's sexual baggage. Unlike Bush II, he was a successful businessman and served his country honorably at war.

When he abruptly quit the race with almost no explanation, and started talking about threats against his family, then got back into the race, it looked crazy. Knowing the Bush family values better, I can now see pretty clearly what happened.

Yes, I'd vote for a moderate third party. I would've voted for Perot in 92 if he hadn't quit the race.

[American Tragedy]

38. It would have still been extremely difficult for Perot to get majority

of electoral votes. I agree that he was phenomenally appealing, and part of the reason why we had a balanced budget at the end of the twentieth century, but I strongly doubt that he could have won. At best he might have gotten a plurality.

[denverbill]

56. You may be right. It's tough to say with the electoral system.

If he won 35% of the vote in 1/2 the states though, and Clinton/Bush had won 33/32%, he might have won. After all, winner-take-all electoral votes skew election results that way. Nixon only won 43% of the vote in 1968, but won 301-191 in the EC.

However, if he hadn't gotten a majority of the EC, the House surely wouldn't have let him become President.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. We already have one. It's called the Democratic Party.

And, far from "pushing out the moderates", just the reverse is true.

That said, I'd love to see a real "moderate" party emerge to attract the "moderates" from both of the other parties. It would give a much provide a real alternative for those who believe in the "third way" so beloved of faux liberals.

And, perhaps then, the Democratic Party could start standing for something other than "not as bad".

Would I join such a party? As a socialist/anarchist, I think not.

[lukasahero]

7. You beat me to it. eom

[LittleClarkie]

9. Why do you assume that moderate is automatically DLC

See! Look at that. You try to redefine us as "faux liberals" like we don't really belong. I am moderate, NOT DLC, not the "third way".

I am for common sense. I am NOT for wingnuts on either end of the political spectrum. When folks on the Dem side start sounding like a Democrat version of a Freeper, there is something wrong.

Yes, sometimes I'd like to form a Common Sense party. When I posted the Moderate Republican primer yesterday, someone said they sounded more like Progressives than Republicans. Yes, they did. There are certain factions in the Republican Party who are not happy, who worked for Kerry this year and continue t fight to get their party back. I would be proud to stand with them.

It is the attitudes like yours that make me feel like forming such a third party. And that would be a shame considering your last line. Are you trying to tell me you're a Socialist/Anarchist/Democrat? If you're someone outside looking in, and hoping the Democrat Party slides far enough to the left for you to hop on, I hope you are waiting a long, long time.

I love something Harry Reid just said at the DNC winter meeting. "The Democratic Party will on be big enough to lead when it is broad enough to include us all. "

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. A bad attitude.

Well, I've been a Socialist/Anarchist/Democrat for a long time. 30 years. So, I guess that doesn't make me "someone outside". At least not yet.

What are you squawking about? The "moderates" already have control of the party, as they have had since, at least, 1992.

However, if you do form a "moderate" party, I would seriously consider a diffent name than "Common Sense Party". The author of "Common Sense" (Tom Paine) was hardly a moderate.

"The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security." --Thomas Paine

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." --Thomas Paine.

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." --Thomas Paine

Sounds pretty much like an Anarchist to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Addendum: I didn't mention the DLC in my first post.

[LittleClarkie]

25. "The Third Way"

is a "New Democrat" term, hence DLC.

I'm not a Clinton Democrat. Moderate in that I want to look at each situation on it's face and decide what would be the best course of action, rather than kneejerk based on ideology what I'm "supposed" to say. Rethink. Challenge old ideas, even the trademark "liberal" ones. Consider, reconsider, keep what's good and reject what ain't working and keep things fresh.

By Moderate, I don't mean Centrist. I don't mean compromising. I mean considering good ideas even if they come from a direction you wouldn't normally listen to. Open-mindedness. THAT is what I'm talking about.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. I think what you're describing could more accurately

be termed "pragmatic" rather than "moderate". I don't think of myself as a moderate, more as a liberal pragmatist, but I mostly agree with what you're saying about rejecting rigid ideological formulas and looking at what really works.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Ah, I like that word

The Pragmatic Party. Hmm.

Yes, that probably more accurately discribes what I'm talking about.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

An interesting response.

Open-mindedness? Unless they come from "wingnuts", "socialists" or "anarchists"? Challenge old ideas?

How about challenging this one? The "moderates" (or if you prefer, centrists) have told us that we must appeal to the "middle" by compromising on issues such as abortion, separation of church and state, gun control, affirmative action, the environment, health care, in order to win. You say you are willing to "reject what ain't working". Well, judging by the last 6 elections, moving to the middle didn't work in 5 of them. '94, '98, '00, '02, and '04. Are you ready to reject that "old idea"?

[RealDems]

46. The DLC had planned to form a third party...

years ago, before Clinton came along. The group was formed in 1985, and were very disappointed with Dukakis' nomination in '88. They decided to stay with the Party when their Chairman, Bill Clinton, became a superstar after their '91 National Conversation. Any group that prepared to leave the Party barely even earns the Democrat label, let alone my support.

[sarahlee]

28. Exactly Correct

The Dems ARE the Moderate/Middle party now.

[BlueInRed]

6. I'd rather work in the Democratic Party & also, define moderate

First off, please define moderate. It means different things to people. If you mean "DLC" I'd never consider it. I consider myself a moderate but I am not DLC, at least as of 2001. I believe in a fair shake for both workers and small business owners, but not in advancing big corporate interests. I believe in reasonably priced health care for Americans while allowing doctors to make a reasonable profit. I believe you can encourage technological advances while still protecting the environment. I believe in fiscal responsibility AND a safety net for those who need it. I believe in allowing people personal freedoms to live their lives, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the safety of other people. I believe taxes should take into account the ability to pay (to whom much is given, much is expected). This is how I define moderate.

The Democrats have a real chance to become a dominating force if we can just get our campaign strategy together and learn how to run locally in purple states. I'd rather focus on that.

Anyway, this seems an odd question for a Democratic board.

[txaslftist]

10. NO NO NO!

Damnit!

When you hear a Bush shill like Whitman talking about the formation of a "moderate" party, she means a "moderate" democrat party to oppose the "radical" democrat party that actually has a chance to beat the republicans. This is classic divide and conquer tactics.

Duh!

[Moderate Dem]

12. What do you mean by "radical"?

I would bet that over 90% of Democrats do not consider themselves to be "radical". I most certainly do not, and I would not support a candidate that I considered to be radical.

Also, I only mentioned Whitman in passing, this has nothing to do with her. She did not even make the suggestion, Dennis Miller did.

[txaslftist]

33. Dennis Miller?!?!

AAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!


that's the same thing!

[lojasmo]

15. Dupes! EOM

I was going to say "we already have one...the democratic party" LOL

[cestpaspossible]

16. No, but I would laugh heartily at anyone

who was so blind to history as to think a 'moderate' third party could be a path to electoral success.

It's probably the funniest thing Dennis Miller has said in years.

[Moderate Dem]

19. Actually, the funniest thing...

Dennis has said in years was "The time when I'm the most pro-choice is when I'm stuck in traffic".

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Honest answer: Yes, with a humungous IF

If we lived on a planet where goodness prevailed, and where there were a chance in hell of a party such as that being imagined could be viable, where we could work together for the common good of our nation and the planet and sing kumbaya, well of course I would.

It's just a little silly to imagine such a thing happening, that's all.

[Bridget Burke]

18. Hell, no.

Although I'm sure the Republicans would love for Democrats to abandon their party.

[EST]

20. I will support anyone who:

Emphasizes integrity over loyalty.

Chooses truth over falsehood

Chooses responsibility and accountability over power and prejudice

Chooses reality and facts over magic and faith

Chooses direct confrontation over mindless optimism

Chooses people over things

Recognizes the fallibility of people, but demands accountability and service

Truly sees the values of majority rule with protection of the minority

Uses compromise while demonstrating (and explaining) principle

Is willing to learn from experience and toss out unworkable solutions-no matter how attractive they appear on the surface.

Always recognizes that government is and must be strictly secular and has no business meddling in anything else, except as a referee when non-secular matters spill over into reality.

[mrgorth]

22. How much more "middle" can we get?

The current democratic party IS the moderate party.

[jonnyblitz]

24. no kidding. I am still waiting for a viable "left" party.

screw "moderate". YAWN.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. I think we already have a moderate second party

I don't see what good adding a third party would do, other than further divide those who stand against the radical RW agenda of the Republicans. Of course, some of the so called "moderates" seem to support that radical agenda themselves. I wouldn't really classify them as moderates myself.

[Javaman]

29. Needs a catchy name first, something like...

The kick ass in washington and take names party...maybe a little wordy.

[American Tragedy]

30. I would have to read the platform, but I probably would not.

What is the extreme end of the Democratic party, anyway?

[Moderate Dem]

32. Cynthia McKinney springs to mind...

...and I would call those who press for the most radical side of an issue extremists. This would include those who would alienate 70% of the electorate by screaming about partial birth when most of America agrees with everything else about the issue, those here who post that we need an income limit, and those (sorry, I DO NOT understand this one) who opposed even the invasion of Afghanistan.

Keep in mind that there are also many (probably more) examples of extremism on the right, but this post was about "the extreme end of the Democratic party".

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. And where is...

Osama now? Whole lotta good invading a country to find one man did...

[American Tragedy]

37. But even those are an extremely marginalized, narrow minority of the party

I don't agree with collectivists, particularly those who seek to abolish private property and other bizarre Stalinist superstate ideas. There will always be a few members who stand outside of the mainstream - I've been accused of being pretty far out there myself. Still, that's hardly reason to justify starting an entirely new party!

[Bridget Burke]

41. Please--list current Democrats who want to abolish private property....

I was unaware that we harbored that many Stalinists. Or even ANY Stalinists.

(I always preferred Trotsky, myself.)

[American Tragedy]

50. My point exactly, they're pretty much non-existent.

I actually have spoken to a few in the past, but true radicals remain extremely rare in American politics at every level.

Hence my confusion at this thread. What cause is there, then, to break away and form a so-called "moderate party" as the OP suggests?

[Bridget Burke]

51. Breaking away to form a "moderate party"

Would help the Republicans even more!

[American Tragedy]

57. Naturally, which is why that smug bastard Dennis Miller suggests it.

[Telly Savalas]

34. Extremist Democrats pushing out the moderates???

That's about the dumbest thing I've heard all week. The left wing of the party (folks like Kucinich) are hardly extremists by any rational definition of the word, and even if they were, they're the ones being marginalized by the rest of the party. Or is Whitman claiming that Kerry, who voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, NCLB, and whose platform contained neither provisions for universal health care nor a living wage, is an extremist??? If so, what planet is she from? In most EU nations, Kerry would be considered a conservative.

American politics is about 500 miles to the right of every other industrialized country. We only become more entrenched in this when some goof like Whitman tries to claim the far right as being a moderate foil to the out-in-hyperspace right. And it doesn't help either when people here wax nostaligic for reactionaries like Barry Goldwater. Yeah, Mr. Goldwater is a voice of reason when compared to the Bush Administration, but so is Charles Manson.

[BlueInRed]

45. I have to agree with you :)

I don't think Democrats are pushing out moderates. THAT is what the Republicans are doing.

[leftofthedial]

35. isn't that what the Dems already are?

What we need is a progressive party, one that represents the environment, workers and peace.

[moggie12]

40. I saw that, too -- and yes, I might consider it

According to latest numbers, 21% of voters described themselves as liberal, 45% as moderate, and 34% as conservative. A "middle" party would do very well, I think. Most of my friends can't figure out who to vote for in elections -- they are neither left, nor right, but somewhere in the middle.

I would hate not to vote Democratic, but might consider it if a credible moderate-party candidate came along who had a chance of winning (the only scenario I can see this happening under is if the Repubs run some RW nut and the Dems run someone very much to the left).

[fujiyama]

42. No

To actually compare the two parties as being morally equal is nonsense. The republican party is pretty much a fascist party at this point. They have shown that they have a great authoritarian streak which is a hallmark of any fascist party.

There are few extremely liberal Dems as it is. I would say there are more conservative Dems than truly liberal Dems in power.

What is wrong about liberal policies like advocating good schools, universal health care, fairer trade, holding corporations and those in power accountable, and a sensible foreign policy?

It seems as though once a republican is pro choice, all of a sudden they are a moderate. I never understood that. Someone should actually look at Spectar's record, whom people often call a moderate. He votes party line on almost all major issues. There is little really moderate about him.

Christie Todd Whitman is a pathetic hack. Her cover up of the air quality near ground zero is absolutely inexusable. If she had any sense of decency she would have resigned right then and exposed what the president was trying to do.

[Bridget Burke]

43. Please define your ideal "moderate third party"

What does it involve, besides "Michael Moore and his ilk need to be kicked to the curb, at least publicly."

Which Democratic issues should be abandoned? Which Republican issues really appeal to you?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

44. Not a realistic option IMHO...I'll support good Democrats.

And the occasional liberal/moderate Republican in the primaries...of course, they will never make it out of the primaries as long as the right wingnuts are still in charge.

[RealDems]

47. No, I wouldn't join, and no I don't think it would succeed.

Moderate is very different than Independent. Independents usually have a variety of different opinions on each side of the political spectrum, but they are not necessarily in the center. For instance, a person could be 100% opposed to abortion, but also practically socialist on economic policies. Definitely independent, but hardly moderate. I'm a strong Democrat, but I find quirky indpendents much more appealing than bland moderates who can't decide which side of any given issue they stand.

[no name no slogan]

48. No-- still waiting for a REAL 2nd PARTY right now....

I would only encourage a 3rd party once the Dems become the REAL opposition party they're supposed to be.

However, due to the way our system is set up, a third party doesn't last beyond a couple election cycles. Third parties typically form around a single issue or set of issues that are either outside of the mainstream or are not being discussed by the major parties. However, if the issues are important enough to either major party, they will get co-opted, usually by the next presidential election cycle.

You can trace this back all the way through the 20th century, from Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party through Ross Perot.

[BlueInRed]

49. LOL!

[applegrove]

52. It is all starting to fall apart for them - eh?

[blm]

53. Dean is a CENTRIST. That's as far to the right as I can accept. I'm not

going any further than that.

Why would any real moderate Democrat not be overjoyed that Dean is the new Dem chair?

[RadiDem]

55. I support a Christian Right party ! ! ! >

If Rudy runs in 08, the American Taliban will form their own party and run their own candidate.

This will siphon off 30-40% of the repuke vote, and we will be assured the presidency.


SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE TALIBAN TO BREAK OFF FROM THE REPUKES !

I even thought of starting a Roberston 08 campaign !