The Answer To THIS Question Is YES.

For longer than I care to remember, the PSP has continually proving to me they NEED to go the way of the WHIGS.

I’m usually told it will never happen, a third party will never happen. The WHIGS thought the same way, and look what happened to THEM. Ben Shapiro from poses the question, and has an answer.


Will Republicans Go the Way of the Whigs?

January 29, 2015 – 9:23 AM  By Ben Shapiro

They did NOT think THEY could be defeated. WRONG.

Don’t think it cannot happen, GOPe clowns. The WHIGS thought it too. Worked out WELL for THEM, eh ?

In 1856, the Whig Party ran former president Millard Fillmore for president of the United States. Fillmore had last run in 1852; he’d been denied the nomination as the party fell apart over the issue of slavery.

In an attempt to bring the party back together that year, the party nominated General Winfield Scott, who promptly imploded in the general election against Democrat Franklin Pierce. “We are slain!” shouted Representative Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio. “The party is dead, dead, dead!” Free Soiler Charles Sumner wrote, “Now is the time for a new organization. Out of this chaos the party of freedom must arise.”

Most of the Whig leaders thought this talk overwrought. They insisted that the party would live on. Senator William Seward of New York said, “No new party will arise, nor will any old one fall.” Seward thought that if the party elided the slavery issue, it could hold together. But by the same token, without the slavery issue, there was truly no difference between the two parties. As future president Rutherford B. Hayes wrote, “The real grounds of difference upon important political questions no longer correspond with party lines. The progressive Whig is nearer in sentiment to the radical Democrat than the radical Democrat is to the ‘fogy’ of his own party; vice versa.” The party had become a party of convenience rather than principle.

Between 1852 and 1856, as author William E. Gienapp discusses, the break came: Southern Whigs joined the pro-slavery Democrats, while northern Whigs joined the newly formed anti-slavery Republicans. In 1856, the Whig candidate won just one state, while the Republican candidate, John C. Fremont, carried 11 states. James Buchanan carried 19 states. By 1860, the Whigs no longer existed. Abraham Lincoln won the presidency with less than 40 percent of the vote.

This is what happens to parties that lose their reason for being: They disintegrate. The modern Republican Party may be in serious danger of falling into that trap. That’s not because of the Republican constituency, which reflects, as it has since the 1980s, the three-pronged approach of fiscal conservatism, foreign policy hawkishness and social traditionalism.

It’s because the Republican political class seem to reject those unifying factors as divisive.

How else to explain the GOP House’s decision last week, in the aftermath of a massive electoral sweep, to table a piece of legislation banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy? This is an issue upon which most Americans are united — the vast majority of Americans find late-term abortion morally abhorrent. And yet Representative Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., removed her name from the bill, stating, “We got into trouble last year” over issues like abortion. If Republicans won’t stand together on such a basic moral issue, over what issues will they unite?

Certainly not illegal immigration, where Republicans divide from their base, pushing a softer approach to President Obama’s executive amnesty. Certainly not foreign policy, where President Obama’s devastation of the military has been met with Republican resistance but not Republican intransigence. Certainly not Obamacare, where Speaker of the House Boehner recently provided full funding for the last year.

The Republican higher-ups assure us, as Whig leaders did in 1852, that if Republicans nominate someone with name recognition, an old warhorse perhaps, the party can unify once again. Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney fill in for Winfield Scott.

But just as Whigs were only able to win two presidential elections over the course of 23 years, both times with military heroes at the head, Republicans have won just one popular presidential election in the last 27 years, that time with a commander-in-chief incumbent during wartime.


The comparisons are eerily similar to today’s GOPe. Stuck on stupid, believing a “moderate” is the ONLY way to win elections, and EVRY.  DAMN.  TIME.  they try it, it fails. MISERABLY.

Dole in ’96. McCain in ’08. Romney in ’12. And, the way things are looking, ’16 is going to be a repeat of ’12. I’ll make a prediction here and now, although most would call it premature: The GOPe, along with the leftist mainstream media, are going to once AGAIN try to tell us a moderate like Bush, Romney, Christie, et al, is the ONLY way to win “hispanics and independents”.

Got a news flash for the GOPe morons. I AM an INDEPENDENT, and NONE of the possible candidates they are trotting out as the “Great Savior” has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against Hitlary, or, the MORE likely candidate, IMHO, Fauxahontas Warren. Nor do they stand a chance of winning MY votes.

Next year, IMHO, the primaries will be our ONLY chance of knocking off ANY establishment GOPe pick. We absolutely MUST get out the 55 gallon drums of Whup-Ass on the liberal GOPer’s running.

It is the ONLY way to go. Someone like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Allen West, along those lines, will be the ONLY type of GOP candidate I will support.

The ONLY thing these “moderates” proved was HOW the GOPe loses. Keep it up, GOPe, and you WILL meet the WHIGS in political party purgatory.


IF the GOPe has ANY dreams of filling the White Mosque, they MUST get this moderate shit out of their ENTIRE thought process.

Otherwise, Mr. Shapiro’s scenario WILL play out. I don’t think the nation could survive ANY more hard left potus screwing up what Obozo HASN’T.


CLYDE. We shall see if the GOPe has ANY sense left. I doubt it.

Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Answer To THIS Question Is YES.

  1. CW says:

    Very interesting history lesson, Clyde!

    >>”The party had become a party of convenience rather than principle.”

    Yep – I’d say we’re there.

  2. Hardnox says:

    Good post. There’s a lot of truth in this piece and your commentary. Unfortunately, after Perot made his ’92 run the D’s and R’s closed ranks and made it damn near impossible to make a third party run for POTUS. Not saying it is impossible but it would require mega bucks and the defection of ALL conservatives in Congress and in State Houses. Only then would it happen. The Libertarian party has been around for 50 years and the only candidate they could get elected was Ron paul and he ran and won as a republican.

    Back to the piece… the R’s are stuck of stupid. Only a smug bunch of bastards would alienate their base. The democrats don’t do that.

    • Clyde says:

      Thanks, Boss. You and I have discussed this many a time. Amazing we still speak to each other !!! bwahahahahaha Seriously, though, I do understand where you are coming from. I tend to think nothing is impossible. Well, except to get democrats to quit lying, and follow the law.

    • Bullright says:

      Amen…the Dems don’t do that.

  3. Liz entrekin says:

    Given Kock brother interests it Could happan. But …. they are for big industry. Thats a tad scary too

    • Clyde says:

      You mean the Koch Bros. ? Don’t want anyone thinking you had a Freudian slip here….. In all seriousness, the Kochs SHOULD be for industry. Any poor guy ever give you a job ? The Kochs are probably the MOST misunderstood guys out there today. The ONLY reason is because they screwed up, much like Romney, and they let the LEFT define WHO they are.

    • Liz entrekin says:

      sigh. Yes Clyde. And I am not anti Koch brothers. I actually applaud their efforts on behalf of free enterprise and country. Blame my typing here. I try to catch errors. I actually have worked in oil and gas . However little tiny keys and anger seem to be defeating me.

      • Clyde says:

        I understand your anger, Liz. Ask anyone here how many computers I have gone through since starting this little endeavor. I KNOW you are on the right side. Otherwise, you’d have been blasting us by now. ha ha

  4. BrianR says:

    I’m with ya, Clyde. If the PSP is stupid enough to once again nominate one of their standard-brand “moderate” jagoffs — especially Bush or Christie — then I’ll once again vote third-party.

    Screw them.

    Crispies forever!

    • Clyde says:

      Thanks, pard. You, of anyone, know EXACTLY where I stand. Viva la Crispies indeed. No matter HOW much shit our “detractors” try to toss on us.

  5. Bullright says:

    Has “become a party of convenience” sure looks like what we have today.

  6. Bill says:

    If “MODERATE” is the way to win elections, why don’t Democrats run moderates? Each tiem, their guy is further to the left.

  7. Kathy says:

    Kinda reminds ya of the definition of insanity, doesn’t it? Doing the same thing over and over, only this time we’ll throw more money at it – yeah, that’ll work.

    Until they change their thinking AND get rid of that consent decree, nothing will change.

    • Clyde says:

      Indeed it does, Kathy. What special kind of idiots would agree to tie their hands behind their back in a fight ? Did it EVER occur to the PSP’ers that democrats would A. NEVER agree to anything like it, and B. if they DID, they DAMN SURE would not live up to it.

  8. captbogus2 says:

    I believe the problem is the GOPe doesn’t give a damn about winning an election just so long as they retain their place at the table. After all, the salary for a Senator or Representative PLUS the perks equals the new world version of the old world nobility and privilege.

  9. tannngl says:

    Great piece, Clyde! I have always thought the Republican party was going the way of the Whigs. This gives me more history on the subject.

    My hopes for a conservative presidential candidate got lower when I realized the decision Romney made to quit came from the fact that the huge donors, the persons who have the big money had moved away from him and decided to “move on”. And I remember from many of the primary campaigns that one person would pull away from the others (almost always a RINO) out of the blue. And that was the backing of the big money.
    I think these donors actually pick our Republican candidates. How depressing…

    • Clyde says:

      Thanks, tannngl. Good catch on your part. The big donors are wanting someone MORE liberal than Romney. The proof of that will become clear when you see who they are “moving on” to.

  10. Bullright says:

    Here’s an unpleasant video to watch from Loopy Debby waha Schultz:
    What is important to remember is what she says about Boehner is exactly the way it is on the left. “The Extremists drive their party agenda.” But they define conservatives as extremists, I digress… and it is nothing of the sort.