Should we engineer the emergance of a Perot-like candidate?

[tedoll78]

I've just spent about 2 hours over at Free Republic wading through the b.s, and I've learned something:
it seems like there is a HUGE segment of the conservative voting population that is seriously considering sitting-out in this Fall's elections.

This leads me to conclude something fairly obvious: Bush is very ripe for an attack - from the Right.

So.. is there some way we can covertly encourage a high-profile Libertarian candidacy to take-hold? Or perhaps the resurgence of Perot's old party? Or maybe we can nurture the Constitution Party (gag)?

The bottom line behind this thinking is that if we can get this new candidate to skim-off a minimum of 3 or 4% in each state nationwide, our chances of winning in the Electoral College skyrocket.

What are the chances of this, and what can we do to maximize them? The discontent of conservatives at this point is palpable. Immigration proposals, token NEA funding boosts, missions to outer space, Medicare entitlement spending.. it's taking a huge toll on the Right.

[xray s]

1. What we need is

Ralph Naders evil twin :evilgrin:

[porkrind]

9. Pat Buchannan?

:dunce:

[David Dunham]

2. Get Bob Barr to Run Against Bush; Freepers love Barr

[jfxgillis]

7. Actually, they're begging for Tom Tancredo ...

... which I thought was freeper pipedream at first, but now I'm thinking it has a tiny chance of happening.

[mot78]

11. They're planning to write him in for the Primaries as a warning

but they all say they'll still vote for * in November.

[adamrsilva]

15. Run him!

He could make immigration reform the center piece of his campaign and get the racist con vote! He can really hit Bush on the defecit too.

Interestingly, he's against NCLB and for the SS/Medicare lockbox...

[jfxgillis]

3. No no a thousand times NO

"We" shouldn't do it, and we should neither discourage nor encourage it.

BUT .....

The main reason why I say that is attempts to synthetically engineer such movements usually fail and frquently backfire. If they grow ORGANICALLY out of a a sincere and deeply-felt need, then they have a much better chance to

a. Grow, and

b. Grow stronger.

Nixon didn't help George Wallace. He just let Wallace do what he did, then Nixon exploited the outcome. And since we know Nixon was ethically challenged, why do you think he didn't try to "engineer" the movement?

[pacifictiger]

4. bad idea - this election

it is too important to split the vote. Better that the Bush loses more to non voters than than the Dem candidate gains, and risk siphoning off some Dem votes too.

[mot78]

5. My response

The Reform Party is virtually dead, and I doubt Perot wants to run again...he's also in his 70's now. Related to that, a Buchanan run seems unlikely, because I've heard his only motivation for running in 200 was to pay off his debt from his last campaign. He'll sit this out.

The Libertarians seem conservative, but their social liberalism will keep conservatives voting for * because of "God, Guns, and Gays". * would have to dad something really stupid to alienate the Club For Growth, Office-Park Dad contigent, and that's about as likely as Nader becoming President.

The Constitution Party is possible, but we'd need for it to build up by 2008, just in case we lose this year (the Greens weren't a problem in '96 because they weren't strong enough). They won't be a serious threat in this election, but if * continues spending like a drunken sailor, and continues his amnesty programs for illegals, and to an extent, abuse the Patriot Act, then the Constitution Party will be ready to wound the 2008 Repug nominee (most likely Jeb).

[MikeG]

6. Barr is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

They'd hurl.

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. If "a HUGE segment of the conservative voting population"

sits out the election and doesn't vote, there is no need for 3rd party candidate to split the Republican vote. (Although it would be nice icing on the cake) I think it's good enough news to know they are apparently so dissatisfied with the status quo that they are not going to vote FOR Bush, even though they aren't going to vote against him.

[stevedeshazer]

10. Sure. How? n/t

[On the Road]

12. It Would be a Good Development

A year or two I was rooting for Jesse Ventura to run on the Reform Party ticket or as an independent. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. And time is running out for getting a candidate on the ballots.

I don't know there's a lot we can do here other than speculate and hope. Could Free Republic influence Nader to run again?

And it may be preferable for Republican voters to simply stay home. That way they won't be casting votes for Republican senators and congressmen as well.

[mot78]

13. They're already Freeping his "should I run" survey

so if Nader runs, they would of had some "say" in it.

[cryofan]

14. No need to be so ambitious! Only needs to run in KEY STATES

All we need is a anti-immigration independent candidate to run in several key states. All this guy would have to do to ENSURE Bush's defeat is to get on the ballot in 5 or 6 key states (e.g., Florida) and run TV and radio commercials.

He would not even need to campaign, in the true sense. Maybe some interviews, etc. That alone would be sufficient. Of course, to avoid the obvious media uproar, he would have to get on more states, or at least try to get on more states.

This candidate could even state that he knows he cannot win, but he wants to teach the GOP a lesson and bring them back to the right. Many GOPers would vote for him just to send a message.

Now if Soros really wants to beat Bush, there ya go....