Look for the MSM to continue to ignore antiwar voices on the left and the right.

I just hope that the new parties will pick up some seats in the legislatures and make a huge racket in the legislatures. Barring a Ron Paul miracle, that’s the best we can hope for.

2010, however, looks really interesting, especially out west…

1) A conservative alternative, almost certainly to be centered on immigration. This scenario is likely to come about if Giuliani, McCain, or potentially Romney, become the GOP nominee. If Giuliani or McCain win it, look for social issues to be added to the immigration gripe that is dividing the Republican party. This is currently THE biggest problem for Republicans. If they want to win future presidential elections, they have to win over a large portion of Hispanics, which arguably, means that they have to be more lax on the border issue. On the other hand, if they aren’t tough, they’ll lose conservatives.

Most likely trigger: The Republicans nominate a more moderate candidate who does not support a border fence, wall, or minefield (yes, that was a joke, but the intensity of anger by the base is extremely high).

Most likely candidates: Tom Tancredo, Chris Simcox, Jerome Corsi.

How to avoid this: The Republican nominee must straddle both sides by supporting a guest worker program along with a border fence. Ideally, the Republicans would nominate a Hispanic candidate, but none that I know of exist, except for George P. Bush in the future, although his last name might end him. The only other option would be to put a real immigration hawk in the VP slot, like Duncan Hunter, although that’ll result in losing key Hispanic votes.

2) An anti-war/pacifist alternative. This could be of a conservative, liberal, or bi-partisan nature.

Most likely trigger: Continued war in Iraq causing popular support for a withdrawal or at least a major drawdown; and neither presidential candidate must rule out action against Iran (and must give “tough talk”). This is likely because in hopes of winning the general election, it’s probable that nei! ther can didate will rule out force against Iran. Hillary Clinton, for example, is not viewed as “anti-war” enough by her base.

Most likely candidates: Chuck Hagel (touting his conservative credentials to win Republicans who tire of the war), Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and possibly, Dennis Kucinich. It is extremely likely that a far-left anti-war candidate will rise to challenge Hillary if she is the nominee.

How to avoid this: Hillary Clinton must win the praise of the anti-war left (or the right-wing candidate must be so hawkish that they’ll accept her); Iraq must turnaround; the nominees must choose anti-war VP candidates; or Iran must scare the daylights out of the electorate.

3) A bi-partisan ticket, either both pro/anti-war, or strictly anti-war. This may be a subcategory of #2, accept this would be more about bi-partisanship and fighting corruption in the parties. These candidates must be seen as outsiders, and take a page out of McCain’s 2000 playbook.

Most likely candidates: Chuck Hagel with an anti-war liberal Democrat or pro-war Republican; or some sort of dual ticket with a Republican who supports the war in Iraq, and a Democrat who opposes, but somehow finds common ground. In the last case, it’s hard to see that striking a big constituency. However, a Hagel candidacy with any combination (a pro-war Republican, an anti-war Republican, an anti-war Democrat) will draw some attention due to its bi-partisan nature, combining the isolationist Republicans and conservative Democrats.

5) The least likely combination is a pro-war independent ticket that puts national security above everything. Due to some small rumors currently without substance, I had to include this. It’s possible that John McCain and Joe Lieberman would team up, as the two are great friends. This ticket would combine socially moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. The problem with this ticket is that even conservative Democrats are against the war, and if this ticket was created, a similar anti-w! ar ticke t would compete with it. I will not even get into the mind-boggling dynamics that would then take place in that four-party match up.

posted by TDCAnalyst at 10:21 AM

http://www.ovaloffi ce2008.com/ 2007/03/could- 3rd-party- arise-in- 2008.html

I was excited to hear of the possibility that Rick would be going to speak at the meeting in Boise, but this announcement, without his knowledge, that he is going has created some unfair pressure on Rick which even makes me uncomfortable—let alone him!

I hate to be negative, but to be honest, it really smells of manipulation by someone in the chain of command, and he has enough to worry about these days without having to worry about people taking advantage of him without his knowledge.

Does anyone know who was responsible for turning “might go” into “will be going”? Was this a case of information being passed through a sequence of people and gradually being changed by the time it reaches the end of the line?

Cody, I had intended on getting some comments from Rick Jore at the Boise meeting,regardsless of if you were there (but definetly if you werent). I’ll have detailed notes on Boise.

I’ve read the charges, and they look more like character assasination than anything else. Chapman doesn’t have a lot of gravitas to begin with, but these comments are tailor-made to ensure that he doesn’t show his face anymore. My guess is that they are exaggerated or untrue.

HOWEVER, if Gene happens to get arrested because of these allegations, THEN I’ll report it.

However I’m not sure if I can attend, so I guess Trent will give me a heads up on what happens there.