How to win in 2008 ~ Support the RW equivalent to Ralph Nader, that's how.

[mzmolly]

While everyone has heard of Ralph Nader ~ leftist opposition to John Kerry/Al Gore. Virtually NO ONE has heard of Michael Peroutka. :freak: Why .... you ask? Because Mr. Nader was a threat to Gore/Kerry, while Peroutka was a treat to Dubbya, that's why.

However, we can counter this in 2008 by supporting a RW purist candidate. This way we could shave off enough fundie votes to win the election. :shrug:

But, in order for this to work we have to support such a candidate as the R's did Ralph Nader with money, time, etc.

Here is the Constitution Party website for those interested:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Here is an example of the rhetoric of the Constitution Party:

"With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?" ;) Sound familiar?

Read on:

http://peroutka2004.com/themes.html

And get this:

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=145

Now, what we need to do is start dropping the name/ideals of the party on RW blogs, "gosh, I really am discouraged by * and his lack of follow through on X so, I think I'll support the Constitution Candidate in 08." :evilgrin:

Then, we need to start thinking about drafting said opposition candidate, deal??

:hi:

What say you?

Keep it kicked :kick:

[brainshrub]

1. Another idea:

Run a Democrat this time.

[mzmolly]

2. I think we DID run a Democrat. But there's room for both, neeeeext...

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

10. Um...well...

:boring:

[mzmolly]

13. Lullaby, lullaby, go to sleep little demmie.

;)

:hi:

[LondonAmerican]

3. Outlaw electronic voting machines with no audit trail nt.

[mzmolly]

5. Idea # 3.

We need to work all fronts, just like THEY do.

[mzmolly]

4. .

[Skink]

8. What the hell. Nader 2008....

:headbang:

[mzmolly]

Neeew, it's Peroutka in 2008!

:headbang:

[hugo black]

6. Or...

we could just run a candidate that could beat Condy Rice without cheating.

[mzmolly]

9. Whatever that means? Thanks for kicking the thread.

:hi:

I assume this idea frightens you, thus the comment? :)

[hugo black]

11. Sorry..

I just think it is not productive to suggest something like that. Hell, even if it worked, i would not want to win that way.

[mzmolly]

12. Awe contraire' I think it's very productive.

:hi:

[hugo black]

16. OK

[hugo black]

17. OK

[librechik]

7. Ralph Reed for President!

(no one will ever know how homosexual he is!)

Alternative: "Judge" Roy Moore (I'll give you ten good reasons to vote for Roy; in your heart God knows he's right!)

[mzmolly]

14. I dig, so long as he/she is the opposition to the popular Reichwing Repug.

;)

[LoZoccolo]

15. In elections this close, every little bit helps.

Something I think will help us a lot if we can think of a good strategy to get around it is what the further-right conservatives see as being at stake in comparison to the further-left liberals.

Conservatism, ostensibly, is about preserving the status quo or going back to an earlier way, and a lot of conservative rhetoric works on peoples' perceptions that their way of life is being taken away or has recently been eroded. The further-left, on the other hand, often wants things we've never had in this country. Thus I think the sense of urgency found in rhetoric supporting the former position lends itself to a more practical sort of politics than the latter. The people that want things as they never were are willing to risk disappointment year after year, while the conservatives try to hold on to what they see as rapidly eroding.

I think maybe one strategy to counter this (even though it really only speaks to the further-left) is to point out that all the left-wing things we've had for 70 years are starting to erode, and thus we should work on holding on to them. This only works on the people who aren't hoping the entire country collapses so they can "rebuild" though (and I've seen them).

[mzmolly]

18. Actually the RW opposition sounds much like the leftist opposition

in their rhetoric. Check out the links above, you'd be surprised.

They both speak of "sacrifice now for the good of the future" :eyes: they have *cough* much in common.

[RawMaterials]

21. kick

isn't this already what happened with Perot pulled votes from *sh daddy.

[mzmolly]

22. Eh, kinda. Though Perot pulled votes from both me thinks.

;)

[zulchzulu]

19. Could you get someone with an even worse name to run?

Perhaps someone named Mollesta or possibly Pooftahhookah.

[mzmolly]

20. Well hell, he burned his bridges in 04, let's find an Anderson or a

Smith shall we? ;)

[dansolo]

23. What about Roy Moore?

If you want a third party candidate to siphon votes away from the GOP, why not go for the darling of the evangelical fundies?

[mzmolly]

24. Sounds good to me!!!!!

I'm open to suggestion. :)

[pamela]

25. I absolutely agree!

I was pushing Peroutka to the fundies big time and having a lot of success. When Catholic Answers put out their Voter's Guide it almost backfired on them because Peroutka fit their criteria better than Bush. (They are big Bush supporters though they don't admit it.) I used to check out their message board sometimes and I was amazed at how much support Peroutka was getting there. In Zogby's poll before the election, Peroutka was starting to poll higher than Badnarik. He was on more ballots than Nader and yet most people I talked to had never even heard of him.

I've heard so many people say that they wish there was a third party that would take votes away from the pukes and it has been here all along. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when the Constitution Party is 100% pro-life, anti-gay, pro-gun, etc. We should plaster cars in fundie church parking lots with Constitution Party literature.

[mzmolly]

26. Good job!

:toast:

"There is no need to reinvent the wheel when the Constitution Party is 100% pro-life, anti-gay, pro-gun, etc. We should plaster cars in fundie church parking lots with Constitution Party literature."

Exactly, I think I'll start distributing their literature. ;)

[GOPBasher]

27. Yeah, I'd love for one of these fringe nutcases to gain momentum

and garner lots of support. If they get just 3 or 4 percent of the vote, the Repubs are done.

[MAlibdem]

28. Peroutka?

Badnarik was a stronger candidate. But I think emboldening fringe right wing elements is probably a HORRIBLE idea. Nader represents a legitimate, if short-sighted, point of view on the left. Bush is so far to the right and republicans are so rank and file that his right flank was secure.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Another reason these guys give me the creeps

I was told by a guy at the pub, who called me a Communist, when I asked him if he was after a one-party system, that he wanted a two-party system where the Republicans were the left and some other party was the right. I would imagine he meant someone like this. I'm not sure encouraging these creeps is such a good idea, when it contributes to the demise of our own party.

[itwasfraud04]

29. Why can't we just win with better ideas?

Shouldn't we try to win the next election with better ideas in the national debate? Or is that just not possible?

BTW, great forum!

[mzmolly]

33. Why can't we do "both"

Welcome! :toast:

[calimary]

30. Deviously EXCELLENT.

But only for situations when you find yourself in Republicans-only circles. You don't want to give anybody from OUR camp any ideas. But YES. Divide and conquer.

[mzmolly]

34. Thank ya.

Of course we have to be cool about it. ;)

Now get those sock puppets ready folks!

[Dave Sund]

31. This is an excellent idea IF

Rudy runs. Imagine the fundie firestorm if a pro-choice Republican got the nomination. They'd almost have to stay home or vote for a third party candidate. Or burn in hell, according to their teachings.

[mzmolly]

35. Ooooooooh, I like the way you think!

First, we draft Rudy (the womanizer) Gulliani, pro-choice heathen that he is, we'll surely win with a purist third party choice. :freak: :toast:

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[LittleClarkie]

36. You're talking about supporting someone while we also support the Dem

right?

That could be interesting.

Sort of our own little pet Perot?

Meanwhile, the Constitution Party gives me the cold shivers. Social Conservative Libertarians. I read their brochure because someone at the pub was supporting him. There was Smear Vet crap in it. I was not amused.

[pamela]

43. Not really supporting them but...

getting the information about them out to the extreme right. Just like the pukes were doing with Nader this time, but in reverse.

I hear ya on the Smear Vet crap. I love John Kerry. The Constitution Party makes me sick and I felt slimey as hell every time I talked a fundie into voting for Peroutka. But these were people that would never vote for Kerry. Never, ever, ever.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. is Ross or Buchanan running again?

[mzmolly]

39. Who knows. But the Constitution Party will have a "candidate"

we can support. :hi:

[no name no slogan]

40. Good idea, but it won't work in 2008's environment

Unlike the left (which has always been fractured), the right wing is largely unified behind the Republican party. Due to the very nature of conservatives, there's little room for "creativity" in supporting alternative parties, and is much more disciplined behind the Repubs.

The only people attracted to the Constitution Party are the far-right racist/nativist/neo-Nazi elements who believe the Bible is the literal word of God. These are the people with tinfoil on their windows to ward off the Black UN Helicopters™ that circle their armed mountain compounds in the middle of the night. Those people probably don't even VOTE, much less vote Republican.

If you really want to be disruptive, go support the biggest right-wingnut in the Republican party at your primary our caucus. Work to get said wingnut onto the Presidential ticket.

Do that, and you'll make Johnson-Goldwater '64 look like a prance through the park.

:)

[pamela]

41. The Pro-lifers are attracted to the Constitution Party.

People who describe themselves as single issue voters on abortion were very attracted to the Constitution Party. I saw a poll on a Catholic message board right before the election that showed Peroutka at 10%. There were a lot of members of that board pushing Peroutka because they felt that the Republicans weren't pro-life enough for them! I personally talked a couple of single issue abortion voters into voting for him. These were people who said they would never, ever vote for Kerry and were just choosing Bush as a lesser of two evils.

I would never push the Constitution Party if I thought a voter had even a slight chance of voting Dem but when I'm up against an anti-gay, pro-life, pro gun fundie I always tell them about the Constitution Party. Sure it made me want to puke, but it took votes away from Bush. We had Nader, Cobb and Badnarik pulling votes from our guy and only Badnarik and Peroutka pulling votes from Bush. Too few people had even heard of Peroutka and I really believe that if he had gotten more attention he would have pulled a lot of votes from Bush.

I hope they run someone else in 2008, though, because Peroutka had some skeletons in his closet. Even so, I recently saw some stats that said that the Constitution Party was the only third Party that actually increased its percentage of the vote from 2000.

[messiah]

42. Lol

Bush jr is beyond the equivalent to Nader, Nader is'nt as pure as you think the democrats are a center right party and Nader is a capitalist so how is he (Nader) a socialist to Bush the fascist?.