I’ll tell you, I’d LOVE to see both parties split so there’s more than two choices in elections — and so the Congress has NO majority but instead has to build factions!

Indeed. Unfortunately, you won’t see that until we pass some election reform.

Under the current system, the candidates that build the largest coalition prior to the election will win every time. If you want to put an emphasis on post-election coalition-building, you have to toss out the “plurality voting” nonsense.

See “Approval Voting” for the simplest way to make it happen.

For example, say Rudy gets the win. What will the abortion foes do? Will they hold their nose and stay Republican, or will they try to find another home like the Constitution Party?

Or what if Huckabee wins — what will the fiscal conservatives do? Will they join or form the taxpayer’s party?

I’ll tell you, I’d LOVE to see both parties split so there’s more than two choices in elections — and so the Congress has NO majority but instead has to build factions!

Mitt Romney talks about the three-legged stool – fiscal, social and military conservatism, and how they are interdependent. BUT – no one leg or faction is better than or has veto power over the others. #14, Streamliner, has a pretty typical attitude – “What happens if a Democrat wins office? Well…guess next time Republicans should field a better candidate.”

To me, such a person is not a Republican and is barely a conservative. That kind of take-my-ball-and-go-home attitude has no place in GOVERNANCE, which is, after all, the end result of politics. The horse race is less important than the result, and many lose sight of that.

In MY experience, social conservatives are more likely to sit on their hands and give liberal Democrats a victory if they can’t find somebody more Catholic than the Pope. Fiscal and Defense conservatives tend to be more pragmatic, as they are interested in government instead of morality.

All three factions need to arrive at a consensus, and support a nominee – it is too dangerous to do otherwise.

In the statement above–and its expansion at the link, Thompson out-Reagans Reagan and becomes the ONLY modern candidate to seriously ponder moving the U.S. back toward the Federalism of the Framers.

I’m very aware that he speaks a good game on Federalism, but you haven’t addressed the challenge offered in #21.

Name one federal program he would abolish in his crusade to return power to the states.

We saw the same thing recently with the Democrats. Their base is all riled up, too, and they are very unhappy with their elected leaders and candidates.

The choice is either voting for a republican who is not perfect and will only give us some of what we want, or voting for a democrat (or not voting), and getting none of what we want. And actually getting a lot of what we do not want.

We will never agree fully with 99.9% of what elected officials stand for or do. That is life. It has been going on for as long as politics has existed, and will continue. The difference now is that we have multiple outlets to express ourselves that we never had. Would we have been able to have this conversation 20 years ago?

Reagan was as close as we got, but what would have been the conversation had we had these forums when he gave those illegals amnesty?

The National GOP used to be the party of conservatives, but it is no longer. So I think the “crack up” is because there’s a lot of people who consider themselves conservatives who cannot find a party to support.

There are plenty who support the Democrats and plenty of others who agree with Republicans — but none of those are conservatives. So yes, there’s a breakup — and I think in the end it will benefit Democrats and socialism, at least in the short term.

Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom. (More on Federalism)

In the statement above–and its expansion at the link, Thompson out-Reagans Reagan and becomes the ONLY modern candidate to seriously ponder moving the U.S. back toward the Federalism of the Framers. (Yes, by my inclusion of the word “seriously” I am deliberately removing the nutjob, Paul, from my considerations.)

Jeff, either get some facts on your side or continue opening your mouth to remove all doubt as to your nature.

Your choice.

Have a merry Christmas.