What's up with al the 3rd party BS?

[John_H]

My idiot highschool footbal coach/american history teacher used to tell a story like this, which we used to laugh at, but it seems perfectly applicable to people wanting to split the dem party.

1862. As confederate forces make their final preparations to launch the decisive assualt that will overwhelm union lines and shatter the union Army for good, three union generals are having a discussion.

General One: "I'm sick of all this wishy washy bullshit coming from Lincoln on slavery. I'm taking my radical abolitionist soldiers off the line, create our own army, and have 'em fight for what's right against both North and the South if need be."

General Two: "Well, I've got a bunch of border state guys in my brigade. Want to start an independent army. 'Guess I'll just tell 'em they can fight half of the time with us and half of the time with the rebs if they want to."

General 3: "You guys are nuts. We've got to win this one or that's it! Look at line of rebs coming at us! Thousands of them marching shoulder to shoulder. They're dead set on winning."

Colonel 1: "Winning? What's important is that we fight only for those we agree with 100% of the time."

[Bridget Burke]

1. Republican strategy....

It worked with Nader.

[emulatorloo]

2. Divide and Conquer

is Rove's favorite game. . .

[Zynx]

4. And Democrats love to divide themselves.

[emulatorloo]

13. some of these people calling for third party ain't Democrats

of that I am certain.

[googly]

15. Because us dems are not robotic kool aid drinking repugs

[spooked911]

3. Yes, well the Democratic party has to start listening to the grass-roots

again. It seems like they are getting some of the message now, but the last election left a LOT of dissatisfaction. As long as they fight for real Democratic values, they have my vote.

[n2mark]

6. Dem party may be listening, begining.....

Dean as chair --- yes!

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Interesting story, especially considering Lincoln was elected

president as the representative of a "third" party. He'd served in congress as a Whig, run against Douglas the Democrat and lost and then won the Republican party nomination after a round of ballots or two.

We haven't always been just the Republicans and the Democrats. Historically speaking, parties can and have come and go. Granted, at this point I'd like to see the Republican party be the one to go.

[beyurslf]

7. We may not have always been Republicans and Democrats but we

have pretty much always had 2 strong parties with 3rd parties that came and went.

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. Yes, but....

on occasion that third party became one of the 2 strong parties while one of the 2 strong parties faded away.

[John_H]

8. The whigs were something more than a 3rd party at least in

the sense that the "3rd partiers" of today are advocating, since they actually had people elected and appointed to all branches of the federal government.

I'm glad you want the GOP be the one to go--but they won't be if some Dems break away from our party.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. That wasn't what I was implying at all.

I was just commenting on the use of a Civil War story considering that was a time when three parties were competing for power and two different parties emerged from the struggle with the Whigs fading into history.

I agree with you and I have no interest at all in either starting or joining a third party. My priority is ensuring the Dems regain focus, organization and prominence.

[KissMeKate]

10. Republican party was once a third party

should we just go back to being the tories and the whigs? would that suit you?

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. *sigh* Whiz!!!!! Point flying over your head.

It was just an observation about the illustrative story, okay??? Did I ever say I was interested in either the Tories or the Whigs? Sheesh people, get a grip! I'm a Democrat down to my bone marrow and don't see that changing any time soon.

ETA: I am soooo sorry. I thought this was a response to my comment. I see you posted it under the OP.

[John_H]

14. No. We should

take a hard, tough-eyed look at what, in the world we live currently in, will do the most good for the most people. When I do that, I come to the conclusion that starting a third party would make it much easier for the people we're fighting to achieve their goals.

To me, it's a straight up choice and a party whose platform that exactly matches my ideology just isn't worth the likely real-word result of joining it.