Party Time

Hardnox posted, “Allen West: ‘Yes,’ He Would Lead National TEA Movement If Asked”

Please review the article here.

Hardnox’s commentary included the following statement:

“The republican base is looking for a rally point since the GOP has kicked the base to the curb. Now might just be the right time for conservatives of all stripes to form a third party since the GOP is bent on pushing moderates on us.”


So let’s speculate about a third entity reflecting the thinking of conservative folks who perceive they are not currently offered candidates for whom they can vote comfortably.

Recommendations for proceeding:

Don’t mention any other political party or individuals in those parties

Don’t focus on particular issues that raise your blood pressure

Do focus on principles of an organization/party with whom you would affiliate

Do focus on proposed ideas that would define this organization/party

This is an experiment.  Based upon the comments garnered here, I will assemble those ideas and put up another post with your ideas as the basis for further discussion and expansion.

Who knows, we just may create an organization/party right here!

Mrs AL

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Party Time

  1. Forget labels. Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, whatever, all miss the core issue we are faced with.

    DO or DO WE NOT have ANY candidate that Believes in the adherence to the Constitution of the United States??? AND has the Cajones to admit it, and fight for it?

    DO, or DO WE NOT, have ANY candidate that believes in the principles of the Declaration of Independence?

    Those, in my opinion, are questions that overshadow any political label, and SHOULD HAVE DONE SO since the time of Abraham Lincoln.

    NO OTHER questions are of such primary importance. Because if those questions cannot, or WILL NOT~!, be answered affirmatively and fought for with vigor, this Nation, Created Under God, will not, as it CANNOT, long endure.

    Reasonable men and women can disagree as to implementation. But the final arbiter must be settled by an agreed upon standard. And if that Standard is not the Constitution of the United States, AS WRITTEN AND AMENDED BY LAW, then this nation is doomed to the dustbin of history, along with “The Glory that was Greece, and the Grandeur that was Rome”, and the Halcyon days of the British Empire.

  2. Buck says:

    There is a viable platform for a 3rd party ready for consideration. See Crawfish’s essay on his ideas.

  3. Buck says:

    My own input would be the platform for a 3rd or any or either current party that desires to garner the votes of the conservative voters would be a party that would spend the first administration repealing both laws and Constitutional Amendments that run counter to the Constitution, setting term limits on all politicians and instituting a review for the Constitutionality of federal court decisions including SCOTUS…nay SPECIALLY SCOTUS..

    • Mrs AL says:

      Point of clarification, please – would you provide one or two examples of “repealing both laws and Constitutional Amendments that run counter to the Constitution …”?

  4. Kathy says:

    My idea of a third and conservative party would be one whose goals are to first and foremost abide by the Constitution, strengthen our military, treat the second amendment as sacred, downsize the government, address the excessive foreign aid, stop the spending, secure the borders, stop government intrusion and put in term limits.

    A huge plus for a third party is they will also be able to address the voter fraud issues.

    • Mrs AL says:

      Clarification needed, please – IF you HAD TO CHOOSE only 3 in your list, which 3 would you choose?

      • Kathy says:

        Gosh, I already left some out, and now you want me to narrow it down to 3? lol, I want it all.

        Okay, in no particular order, I’d go with downsize the govt., second amendment, and strengthen the military, because I think our new conservative party will do the other things anyway.

  5. CW says:

    Grouchy had a great comment and I, too, was tempted to say that I want a party that emphasizes the Constitution; however, history demonstrates that it’s easy for people to SAY they are for the Constitution, all the while interpreting it in a way never intended by the Founders. So I guess we could specify a platform based upon the FOUNDERS’ Constitution but that still leaves too much wiggle room for my liking. So I would take it a step further, back to what I believe were the principles of the Founders, and I would look to build a party that emphasizes:

    (1) Personal responsibility promoted by the laws of natural consequences;
    (2) Individual rights;
    (3) States’ rights;
    (4) Smart & responsible national defense
    (5) Strict limits on the power of the federal government.

    I’m sure I’ve forgotten something that one of these good bloggers will remember.

    • Mrs AL says:

      Clarification needed, please – what do you mean by “smart & responsible national defense”? Also, do not strict limits on the power of the federal government already exist in the U.S. Constitution?

      • CW says:

        >>”…what do you mean by “smart & responsible national defense”?”

        I think Brian summed it up pretty well, Mrs. AL.

        >>”… do not strict limits on the power of the federal government already exist in the U.S. Constitution?”

        I believe EVERYTHING I listed already exists in the Constitution, and that’s why I think we need to go beyond calling for a “Constitution” platform and clearly specify what the Constitution means to US.

  6. BrianR says:

    There’s a problem in trying to define such a party as based on a “belief in the Constitution as written by the Founders”. Even THEY couldn’t agree on what it meant.

    Hamilton and Jefferson were arch enemies over it. Burr killed Hamilton in a duel over it. Where is the distinct authority for the Monroe Doctrine? Under what authority did Jefferson send the Marines to Tripoli? What’s the authority for Hamilton’s idea of a “central bank”? Why did Washington use troops to suppress the “Whisky Rebellion” non-rebellion? On and on and on.

    Of all the comments here, I think I’d “amen” CW’s the most. The principles upon which I’d like to see a party actually FUNCTION, not just advocate — because all we have to do is look at the GOP to see how that can be just lip service — would be as follows:

    1. Strong emphasis on personal responsibility, both as to self-reliance and accountability.

    2. Fiscal restraint.

    3. Elimination of a government-funded “social safety net”.

    4. Eliminate government interference in, or dictating of, personal decisions as to health, religion, lifestyle, food, and other things of that nature.

    5. Strong adherence to the principle of federalism.

    6. Strong support of gun rights, and a commensurate dedication to the principle of self-defense, both against criminals and government tyranny.

    7. Border security and national integrity; no amnesty for illegal aliens.

    8. Strong military capabilities coupled with a dedication to avoiding foreign engagement in matters that don’t demonstrably affect America’s fundamental national self-interests.

    9. Energy independence fully utilizing our own intrinsic energy resources, INCLUDING fossil fuels.

    10. Complete government transparency with the complete abolishment of all secret government proceedings, to include “closed sessions” of congressional meetings and elimination of the FISA courts. The only exceptions would be for those in which classified material essential to national security would be revealed, and then only with the express and limited approval of the National Command Authority, a select committee of Congress with representatives of all parties represented in Congress requiring unanimous consent, and the approval of SCOTUS.

    That would be my “ten point plan” for a third, or alternate, party I could easily support.

    • The foreign entanglements issue is much harder to deal with now than it was a century ago. International trade is much more vital. Trade routes need to be kept safe and free, and who else would we trust to get the job done? While our manufacturing base is dwindling thanx to liberal labor laws and unions, we do still have goods flowing both ways around the globe. There are some people who want to start dominating their little corners of the world, and the islamists want to do so as a group. We maintain a doctrine of forward deployment for two reasons: a) To keep forces, supplies, and logistics capability where they can quickly meet any threat, and b) to keep adversaries over there instead of over here. They have to get through our forward forces before they can get over here.

  7. Mrs AL says:

    Points of clarification please – define “fiscal restraint” or give an example. Please eliminate 3 of your points.

    • BrianR says:

      Fiscal restraint can be illustrated by thinking about any monies being used to subsidize “alternative energy”. for example. An utter waste. Or farm subsidies, which counteract the free market. Pretty much any “earmark”, otherwise known as “pork barrel spending”. Like that.

      Eliminate 3?


      I don’t think so. Once you do that, you open doors that are already open and being exploited by the ruling class. Why would I want to leave them open, if this “alternate party” wants my support?

      That’s like asking me to design a house with no foundation under the back wall. It makes no sense, and is a waste of time, as the house will just fall down anyway.

  8. Hardnox says:

    Mrs. AL, I am flattered that you used my post for the basis of this conversation.

    The comments so far have been great.

    I prefer strict adherence to the Constitution including a reaffirmation of States’ Rights thus a massive shrinking of the feral government.

    Secondly, Term limits for all politicians.

    Regarding Brian’s comment regarding Jefferson’s sending in the Marines to tripoli; that would fall under national security in my opinion. The sand-nazis were enslaving our sailors thus we had a responsibility to rescue them.

    • Mrs AL says:

      Your post was quite thought-provoking, Hardnox. See what you started? haha

      Points of clarification please – how would you provide a “reaffirmation of States’ Rights” above and beyond what is already in the Constitution? Would term limits be handled by a law, or a Constitutional Amendment?

      • Hardnox says:

        States rights would be reaffirmed by elimination of federal agencies. Instant States’ rights.

        Term limits via Constitutional Amendment.

    • BrianR says:

      Actually, that’s incorrect. By the time Jefferson took office the Barbary pirates had released their American prisoners.

      • BrianR says:

        BTW, the point of my mention of Jefferson wasn’t to get into the rightness or wrongness of fighting the Barbary pirates. I should have clarified that the point was that Jefferson went to war without any war declaration such as the Constitution requires.

        In other words, even one of the Founders ignored the Constitution.

        • Wasn’t a full war, but rather a limited engagement, kinda like much of our current conflicts. Nowadays there isn’t really a nation to declare war against, but rather the ideologies surrounding islam.

          • BrianR says:

            Which is exactly my point, and the point about the Jefferson example.

            We have no business running around all over the world getting involved in “limited engagements” in which we have no national self-interest. And I don’t consider “nation building” an American national self-interest.

            Jefferson had no business nor authority to commit troops to Tripoli without a congressional war declaration.

            It’s no different from Obozo sending drones to bomb Libya, for example.

  9. Buck says:

    Mrs AL:
    ANY law that restricts, prohibits or otherwise infringes on the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional law dating back to the FFA of the ’30’s.
    The Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed.

  10. western guy says:

    I propose The TOTS Party (Tired Of This Shtuff)…the citizens are calling and want their country back!!

  11. Clyde says:

    Good, thought-provoking piece, Mrs. Al, Take a bow. I’ll be short and to the point, and I’m eliminating NOTHING. Adherence to the Constitution, as written, and amended up to this point. The Oath has GOT to mean SOMETHING again besides empty words uttered by empty suits.

  12. Pingback: Party Time – Underlying Premise - 'Nox & Friends

  13. While I agree on a Third Party until EVERYONE of a like mind, i.e., Constitutionalists, are on board, all a Third Party does it put a Democrud in office, for example, Virginia and Terry McAwful.

    The one thing WE need to do is vet the Hell out of a candidate and IF he or she meets our criteria, we support THEM and not the GOP as a whole. In fact, DEFUND the GOP.

    • Mrs AL says:

      Thanx for you input, GnnyG. If I am not mistaken you hold the same view of quite a few here abouts!

      IF you have a moment, would be interested in your reaction to the next post in the series, though I have a feeling I could predict your response — hehehe