Left, right and centre

Is anybody not complaining about the present state of American politics?

See article

Readers' comments



Lexington has erred on this point. Third parties aren't dead. They enter one or both political parties and are constantly changing them like environmentalists, civil libertians and so forth. Then issues can also play a role. In the last century a Democratic coaltition of the South and industrial states formed an effective coalition which was broken by the issue of civil rights and the subsequent shift by the South to the more conservative Republican Party. The GOP in turn formed another coalition between moderate and conservative voters. It also left the Democratic Party too liberal and in need of a wider base of voters. Fortunately the GOP was growing more conservative with little room for others. In 1992 Bush should have been re-elected but too many conservatives stayed home on Election Day and Clinton won with the liberal and moderate vote. The Republicans rebounded with Bush but they left the country with two wars and a severe economic downturn. They also left the GOP with a deeply angry voter base. The Tea Party was a rebellion inside the Republican Party. How far can they go? Until they suffer serious defeat on Election Day in 2012 it may simply prove too difficult to deal with them. They don't hold the votes. They must find them on Election Day or make a deal and get what they can. You don't shut down the government. What's accomplished when al-Qaeda is cheering for you? The Republican establishment must be hoping that this faction drives itself over the cliff and discredits itself on the 2012 election. Right now we're witnessing a struggle for control of the Republican Party between the two conservative factions of the party. If the Tea Party should win the moderate voter inside the party will stay home or vote Democrat on Election Day.


"He has an avid following, but it is small, and he must know that he will never be president."

The polls are underestimating Dr. Ron Paul's popularity, he will become the Republican nominee and he will defeat Obama. Independents, disgruntled Democrats, and formerly-apathetic college students all around the country are registering as Republicans just to vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries. Conventional conservatives (including myself) have had Ron-Paul-epiphanies which have turned us into fanatical supporters. Our numbers are growing gradually and we will not abruptly abandon Dr. Paul like the ADD-inflicted supporters of Trump, Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. People reading this comment will mock me, but eventually they will also have a Ron-Paul-epiphany and they will regret not supporting him sooner.

This is a Youtube video of a Marine Corps Intelligent Officer who has recently had his Ron-Paul-epiphany; it foreshadows what will happen to all American voters in the upcoming months.



I have a question for those who support role the federal government has in matters such as social security, healthcare, and other government programs:

Why not let each individual state create and administer its own programs as state-run programs as per the wishes of its constituents' wishes? Why must these programs and even the funding for infrastructure and subsidies be done on a national and not state level?

Despite my seemingly conservative tone, I am personally a non-partisan independent American who generally despises this sort of rhetoric, but I must admit, I have not heard a convincing argument from anyone against this question raised by the talking heads on Fox News. They make a valid point; thus, I would like to hear the "leftist" justification for this argument.

PortuguesePete in reply to Jefevon

Jefevon, There really is no "leftist" answer to moving all those services to the state level. The states themselves are not very interested, even the "red" states for a very practical reason. They cannot afford it. (and even if the feds just gave them the money it would be a huge waste of taxpayer money) Heck they can't afford the state obligations they have now. The talking heads at Fox specialize is ginning up the public for ratings. That's how they get to be the highest rated TV news program on cable. Same basic technique as the tabloid newspapers. Sure there is an element of "right-wing" politics at Fox but mostly Murdoch is all about the money. So scaring people or hyping issues, and their favorite, building straw men arguments is how you get people watching.

Their latest non-issue is the "War on Christmas". There really is no war on Christmas. Even Jews like Christmas. It is so silly that it led comedian Jon Steward to mock them by "declaring" war on Christmas.

Most of what you see on Fox is tabloid journalism. Car chases, gory murder stories, any excuse to show partially nude women, and fake controversies that are not really controversial until they say so. Good example the "controversial" mosque in New York. The way they talked about it was the end of civilization and/or Christianity as we know it. But now its all over. Are they going ahead with the project? Yes, but Fox has moved on to fresher meat. Before you fall for one of these fake controversies it is important to check and see if there is indeed "another side". When you don't find one, or it boils down to two crackpots you can safely say that Fox is at it again - getting people riled up so they can charge higher prices for their commercials.




Despite my seemingly conservative tone, I am personally a non-partisan independent American who generally despises this sort of rhetoric, but I must admit, I have not heard a convincing argument from anyone against this question raised by the talking heads on Fox News. It is a valid point; thus, I would really like to hear the "leftist/left-leaning" justification of this argument.


The Americans Elect bylaws address the thorny issue of what to do if a candidate wins too few electoral votes to win the election but enough to prevent the candidate with the most votes from receiving the 270 votes required to be certified by the Electoral College. They state that if this occurs, the AE Delegates will be asked before the Electoral College is convened to vote to endorse the candidate of either of the two major political parties. The AE representative(s) to the Electoral College will then vote for the endorsed candidate.

In other words, if the House of Representatives selects the US president in 2012, it will be due to the inherent stupidity of using the Electoral College at all, not to the fact that a few million Americans decide to exercise their right to vote for the AE candidate.

Eddie Jineer

For all who think that the Republican and Democratic machines are too powerful and influential for this to actually happen:

People on Facebook:
More than 800 million active users
More than 50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day


exco in reply to Eddie Jineer

Eddie: Before you decide it won't work, look carefully at the bylaws and at the process being used to come up with questions that will be ultimately posed to AE candidates. (See Debate section of the website.) The process is open to all AE delegates and is doing what it should do: pushing the questions that most delegates want answered to the top of the list and those that few consider important or relevant to the bottom of the list.

The bylaws address many of the concerns people often have about whether the AE process will work. For example, this article includes the often-repeated suggestion that AE may simply be a stalking horse for a Bloomberg candidacy. There are controls built into the by-laws to prevent that. As I mention above, there are also controls to prevent the AE candidate from becoming a "spoiler" who causes the 2012 election to be decided by the House of Representatives.

The WE Solution

I like the idea of Americans Elect BUT where's the beef? Who has a plan? Where's the long-term vision for America? Check www.thewesolution.com They have some very bold, visionary solutions. We invite all Americans to review, refine, improve and implement our plan. Two of their solutions
1. The Fourth Option - a plan that will create 15 million new, good paying, private sector jobs in construction and manufacturing.
2. Involve the wealthy by giving a 1.10 to 1.30 tax credit to invest in MAINSTREET. As governments revenues decline we must make non-profits the front line of defense.

TJ OHara

I have announced as an independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States because I believe the current Party paradigm is the basis of our problems.

The Obama Administration has taken political polarization to an art form, and the Republican Party has responded by fashioning its own version of “extreme.” Yet, the Constitution begins with the words, “We the People,” and it is the President’s responsibility to represent the best interests of every American.

The Party paradigm precludes this. It has an insatiable appetite for power that it fuels with an enormous sum of money. In return, its bundlers and special interest groups must be repaid with access and political appointments rather than allowing the same to be merit-based.

The Party paradigm also precludes a thoughtful consideration of alternatives, since the ultimate selection must conform to a Party platform. We deserve a President who is free to select the best solutions for the People rather than for a particular Party.
In addition, the Party paradigm wantonly wastes time and taxpayer money because of the demands it imposes on its successful nominees. Party Presidents are required to squander a staggering amount of time and money traveling around the U.S. to raise funds for their Party, campaign for other Party candidates, and run for their own re-election.

I offer clear choice. I have over 25 years of experience as a CEO and turnaround expert. When I take over a position, I accept the conditions as they exist at the time and assume full responsibility going forward. I will do the same as President. It is time to fix the problems rather than fix the blame, and I have no Party to placate.

I will define our Nation’s challenges; identify their root causes; analyze the available alternatives; and select the best solutions regardless of which Party authored them. The American people deserve nothing less.

I will also be America’s first FULL-TIME President. I will not waste a minute of time or a penny of taxpayer money to fund-raise for a Party, to campaign for other candidates, or to run for re-election. The People will have a four-year record of achievement upon which to decide whether I have earned a second term. It is absurd for an incumbent to raise and spend $1 billion trying to “win” a re-election when his or her record should speak for itself.

The Parties will claim that an independent cannot win; they will try to create a fear that an independent will merely split the vote; and they will do whatever is necessary to try to suppress the People from having a real choice. Those strategies and tactics have served the Parties’ well in the past, but they should be distinguished from fact.

A pronounced segment of the “news” media will avoid acknowledging my candidacy. They will find time to provide coverage of Lindsay Lohan’s latest parole violation or a Kardashian divorce, but they will be disinclined to provide coverage of a legitimate Presidential candidate who doesn’t conform to the “rules” that convert candidates into “clients.”

The unspoken truth is that elements of the media have been seduced by the staggering level of “media buys” that Party candidates make. Those outlets have an allegiance to their “clients” (i.e., candidates who proffer attack ads that insult our intelligence but represent a huge revenue stream to the outlets).

Party candidates will also talk about their commitment to the environment while they kill a forest to print billboards, bumper stickers, and yard signs that despoil the landscape and suggest you may cast your vote based upon how many times you have seen a name.

Every time you see or hear one of those advertising gimmicks, think of me, T.J. O’Hara: the candidate who will not waste time or money to insult your intelligence but, instead, will use it to stimulate substantive discussion and explore viable solutions to our Nation’s problems.

I will utilize viral marketing and the element of the Press that still embraces the responsibility that is implicit in its First Amendment right. I have voluntarily capped donations at a level that is within the reach of every single American. There will be no $35,800 a plate dinners for my campaign. I will not accept money from PACs nor will I allow it to be laundered through other campaign committees (as is the common practice of Party candidates). At the end of the campaign, any residual balance of contributions will be donated to three worthy charities.

The Presidency should not be for sale. It should not go to the highest bidder.

America has a choice. It can accept the Party paradigm, or it can invest in a new future: one that recognizes that the Constitution begins “We the People” rather than “We the Republicans” or “We the Democrats.”

It is time to learn what a full-time President with real leadership experience can do. It is time to witness the impact of an unbiased Chief Executive. It is time to fix our problems rather than the blame. -TJOHARA.com

There are two initial ways to spread the word:

(1) Ask everyone you know to visit the TJOHARA.com website and encourage them to follow me on Twitter @2012OHARA and on Facebook at TJ O'Hara (Public Figure), which have just launched; and

(2) Encourage journalists at publications like The Economist to pursue and report on the story.

PortuguesePete in reply to TJ OHara

TJ: You sound like a nice guy and a reasonable guy to boot but I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world that allows you to think you have a snowball's chance of becoming President. Just ask Buddy Roemer, an ex-Congressman and ex-Governor of Louisiana who is actually a candidate with the Republican Party. Although he is a legal candidate he isn't even invited by his fellow Republicans to participate in the debates although they have invited a wacky lady and a pizza man. Buddy's main issue is trying to take the big corrupt money out of politics, an issue that both the Tea Party and the Occupiers should embrace. The Occupiers are too busy being anarchic and the Tea Party is under the thumb of the big money interests so the unfortunate Buddy has nobody supporting him because the big money types and the media like the role of money in the system. Buddy has the distinction of having been a Democrat and a Republican so he knows first hand how corrupt they can be. So if he can be set aside imagine what they will do to you. I wish you luck. Maybe start your own blog like I did: http://corporationsarepeople.blogspot.com/

and hope to be an influence on the election. But leave the Presidency to those who have made all the compromises necessary to get up that ladder.

Chanelberly in reply to PortuguesePete

Hello PortuguesePete,

It's a good thing our founders didn't just roll over and let the British rule America. Everything worth fighting for can be accomplished when people feel empowered. We have to change what is going on in this country...we owe it to the men that fought to found this country and fought in every war after that. Go read T.J.'s website and look at his background. This isn't someone that lives in a fantasy world. Go study your facts, he's been running companies in the real world for years. It's our current government that lives in a fantasy world.

PortuguesePete in reply to Chanelberly

Dear Chanelberly, I never said that TJ wasn't qualified. I'm sure he would make a decent President. My comment is that he has no shot at becoming President. Maybe that's not a good thing but please don't blame the messenger. You are the second person in this thread that told me to study facts. That's what I do for a living. You can check out my blog at http://corporationsarepeople.blogspot.com/ and tell me how many facts I violated. I do have strong opinions but they are based on pretty solid grounds. On November 2012 if he becomes President i will come to this site and personally apologize to you and the Genius guy, I might even take you out for drinks (on me). But I kind of doubt that will happen. Stay involved, get busy, but don't fall for the propaganda that Obama is a dictator, or Muslim, or Kenyan or socialist or whatever the latest idiotic slur comes from the propaganda machines. Criticize the guy for things you don't like, but please don't invent shit out of whole cloth. This stuff is getting very tiresome.

TJ OHara in reply to PortuguesePete

Thank you for comments. I assure you that I am not so naive as to not recognize the challenge, but every race begins with the first step.

Your assessment of what the Party paradigm has done to suppress the candidacy of former Congressman and Governor Roemer is exactly correct. The question become why such an experienced politician, who should understand "the system," would choose to run within it. Perhaps, he is still caught within the Party paradigm that suggests that money and infrastructure are required to "buy" elections.

I hold the hope that enough Americans see through the veil of legitimacy that the Parties have constructed, and that the People realize the the unalienable right of Liberty suggests that they have a REAL choice.

There is another choice that each citizen has: they may accept the current Party paradigm as inviolable (and, in effect, abdicate their right to complain); or they may choose to rise to the challenge of trying to return America to the People. The latter is not an easy path, but it is the one that I have chosen.

With the advent of social media, there is now a chance to provide an unbridled voice to those who are unwilling to concede to the status quo. I shall initially rely on knowledgeable bloggers like yourself to spread the word until the main stream media can no longer ignore the momentum of the message.

In the interim, I shall look forward to reading your blog.

Best wishes,

T.J. O'Hara
Candidate for President of the United States

PortuguesePete in reply to TJ OHara

T.J. I appreciate very much your comments and also your refreshing look at politics. I too, share your point about money in politics. The reason I highlighted Buddy Roemer is that it is so ironic that the one Republican who is running to rid politics of big money isn't even invited to the dance. This also rips the scab off the Tea Party which purports to want clean government but backs the biggest hacks or wannabe hacks in the bunch. The biggest one being Sarah Palin who not only is the queen of money in politics but is about nothing but the money. Politics was apparently just a means to get rich without actually doing anything.

I have a lot of ideas about what to do to fix our country and would be delighted to have a real conversation with you. I'm on Skype (Peter.Calvet) and we could talk when you have a chance. I also believe that we could foster a serious movement that does not necessarily propel you in the White House but could focus on some real achievable goals that would help someone like yourself to someday have a real shot at the White House. I am so used to listening to insults from people who barely understand the Constitution or history that I will dismiss them quite summarily. There are unfortunately too many people who are well-meaning and concerned about our country who become influenced by charlatans like Glen Beck and others who just profit from people's legitimate concerns. I believe that people who are rational and like minded should join forces as much as possible and try and change things for the better. I hope to have the opportunity to work with you.


The problem with American politics is not lack of choice (we have it in spades) Just read my latest blog entry http://corporationsarepeople.blogspot.com/

The problem with American politics is lack of positive results. If Obama had six more Senators he would have broken a record for accomplishment before 2010. Even without it he came close. The American system allows for divided government which Americans favor and then complain about it. The only way out of this mess is for the President to have a clear mandate and a clean way of governing without obstruction. If after his term, the voters were unhappy with his accomplishments then they would have the option to toss him out. This way, we elect a President and then make it as difficult as possible to govern and then when he doesn't do exactly as promised we complain. It's crazy. I say let the guy govern and judge him at the end of his term.

McGenius in reply to PortuguesePete

"The American system allows for divided government which Americans favor and then complain about it."

Most Americans don't complain about divided government... I would suggest most Americans don't care as they have better things to do. For those that do care, more want little goverment and so prefer that goverment is divided. Those that do complain are merely the ones that got bad educations and protesting in OWS and/or studied journalism.


I guess a dictator would be helpful. Mr. Obama has noted several times that he finds the Chinese model of dictating more convenient.


You mean after the president is done dictating?

PortuguesePete in reply to McGenius

A dictator is a leader than you cannot remove. A President is a leader that is required to produce the results he promised during the election. A majority voted for him and rightly expect him to deliver what he promised. Doing what what was promised is not "dictating". It is doing the will of the majority of the people. If the people don't like what he did then they have the prerogative of getting rid of him AFTER a proscribed period, like 4 years. The people who did not vote for the leader have the right to complain, to protest, to suggest, but NOT to obstruct, because they may have the same opportunity when they vote for the winner. Otherwise it is just a constant food fight and chaos that amounts to nothing and EVERYONE is unhappy. Also, if you obstruct the winner of the election from day one you are setting up a vicious cycle that when your favorite wins the other side will do to your favorite what you did to theirs and nothing ever gets done. That is the current nature of our dysfunctional government. Too many people don't want to play by the rules and constantly gum up the works and complain that we are not getting anything done. That is how a functioning government works. People take their turn at trying to solve problems and then the public democratically decide whether they like what the leader did or not. That is not dictatorship. That is the way democracy is supposed to work according to our Constitution and the way our Founding Fathers set it up.

McGenius in reply to PortuguesePete

"A dictator is a leader than you cannot remove."

I have no idea where you got that one from as a definition and I apologize to you for suffering a misleading education. I imagine that vast amounts of what you "know" is incorrect and, if you could accept your misunderstanding, someone would have to sit down with you and "reteach" you everything you think you know. My sincerest apologies- your explanation was simply wrong with no basis in anything.

I'll quickly address you misunderstanding of the word dictator but I sincerely suggest you find a new mentor of some sort.

According to Wikipedia:
"In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]."

The main point is that the definition of being a dictator has nothing to do with time as you suggested but rather extent of power. Dictators essentially "Dictate" what their desire is, and that dictation becomes the law of the land. Our Constitution is setup to prevent a strongman, or a single point of power in one man, which ironically is what your impression is what it establishes.

Again, I sincerely suggest you start from scratch, assume you know nothing, and then proceed relearning American history.

Best of luck!

PortuguesePete in reply to McGenius

To McGenius: If you wish to engage in thoughtful debate it would behoove you to start by toning down the ad hominem attacks and the personal insults. That is always a dead giveaway of people who have very weak arguments. Call your opponent an ignoramus and leave it at that. The only reason I am dignifying your non response with an answer is that you are illustrating one of the main problems with our politics today. People would rather call each other names than actually talk to each other in a civilized manner and possibly learn from each other and solve problems in a cooperative manner. I will limit myself by pointing out the obvious that dictators have nothing to do with American history - this is a world wide phenomenon. And consider yourself lucky you don't live in a country ruled by a dictator because I have and it is no picnic. It is easy to throw around words like dictator, and fascist, or communist, or whatever, but when you run into the real thing you realize how lucky you are to live in the USA, where the worse thing that can happen to you is to have a President you don't like and don't agree with.

McGenius in reply to PortuguesePete

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting but... your response was just so far off.


We'll see how much longer the US as we know it will last. The current president is encouraging division within the population at a time when he's spending the public treasury to the breaking point. There will be people in the streets demanding a dictator to make everything better. The current president has made several references to how it would be easier to rule by dictate considering his considerable difficulty, or even desire, to form consensus within the country.


A Third party candidate will really shake things up and the winner of the presidential election will be saying the truth when he thanks his opponents for making it a better campaign.

It does not matter if the third party candidate is capable of winning,
He/She can put the spotlight on issues that are avoided.

Any movement has to go through a time when it is considered to lack any significant influence. They can do what will turn out to be the ground work for future leaders of this movement, who will not be ridiculed as puny/ trivial.


That corporate titan might be correct about race, but I suspect he* was deliberately ignoring one significant fact. Any incumbent president who faces a competitor from their own party rarely manages to win the election and no sane Democrat wants to hand the presidency to Perry, Bachman, Perry, Romney or Paul. Even if Obama had been Caucasian I suspect he wouldn't have faced a challenge.

*Let's face it, corporate titans aren't likely to be women. Not yet.

Snakes and Ladders

For all the problems with American politics, it does make for better TV than the politics of most other nations, and the coverage never seems to end. Perhaps gov't system reform could be sold to the American people as a way to cut down on providing free entertainment to the rest of the world.


I think our government has a large problem with the system that is now in place. Most of the republicans have destroyed their own system. Each person is always attacking the other. I know that this is how it works but it is getting to a position where people are blaming others on no facts at all. I think they need to be more respectful of the other competitors. Obama is not facing any competition for the presidency. I would go as far to say that if Obama decided not to run again that it would be one of the tightest races in the history of the government.

An Drew

"...that the ideological polarisation of the political parties leaves the great bulk of the electorate unrepresented."

The lazy journalism of Lexington is becoming tiring. Lexington keeps on insisting (on various columns) on the factually-incorrect argument that BOTH parties are too radical. Either he is willingly imposing his version of events or he is living in a different reality.

How can anyone fairly suppose that the Democratic party is as far to the left as the GOP is to the right? If anything, I would argue that the Democratic party is at best a centrist one, or maybe mildly to the left.

Let's take a look at its major concerns: back in the 90's as the Gingrich gang were aggressively passing tax cuts, the Democratic party became the party of balance-budget, a role traditionally held by Eisenhower Republicans.

In 2009-2010, at the time when we thought the era of conservatism was somewhat over, it passed a stimulus package consisting mostly of tax cut (a formerly Republican favorite form of aiding the economy--of course at the time they did not view this as Communism). Then the Obama administration passed the hallmark of radical socialism which was a healthcare plan devised by people at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a Republican preference, always, to the European-looking system Democrats favored. Then came the financial reform bill and we all know how watered-down that was. And finally there was the last minute deal on the Bush tax cuts which the Democrats voted for, of course reluctantly but they still did.

Bernhard Euler

"Besides, third parties and independent candidates have had a lousy record. In 1992 Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but not a single vote in the electoral college. In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt, a former Republican president running as a Progressive, won 27% of the popular vote and outpolled his Republican successor, Howard Taft."

That's not nearly as much their own fault as the electoral system's.


Congress has pretty much shown that they're incapable of bridging the partisan divide. There's a fairly basic way to combat this - which means of course that we'll probably never see it enacted ... www.ombudizen.com


I'm so tired of the misconception that the system of government is somehow broken! It is designed to reflect the will of the people, which is not static and is sometimes schizophrenic.

The only reason why this idiocy persists is because the President, the media, and the rest of the left wing viewed the last presidential election as a monumental shift to the left rather than a referendum on President Bush. This prevents them from understanding why anyone dare oppose their policies. That's also why Obama and the Democratic congress overreached with Obamacare despite clear evidence that the public didn't support it.

Obamacare and the failure of the stimulus to achieve anything is why the Dems got trounced in almost every single election since--they lost Ted Kennedy's seat for God's sake!

This message has not gotten through yet resulting in President Obama and the Democratic Senate continuing to push tax and spend policies over common sense finances.

As long as republicans don't make the same mistake--i.e. try to introduce gay marriage laws, abortion laws, etc. rather than restoring sanity to the budget they should retake congress and the white house.

If some type of divided government comes back it will indicate there is no consensus in the country over which direction to take. In that instance gridlock is the answer given that either side would think the opposition's actions would be heresy. So voters get 2 more years to make up their minds.

Personally, I think that is too risky to allow but that is why I know who I would and would not vote for at this stage. Not everyone is that interested.


American politics are a joke. The water is lapping on the wheel house of the Titantic, and their talking about the "clown parade" marching to Iowa next month.


Politics are the same everywhere. All just a bunch of people lying. Some countries they are more blatant about the lying but that is the beauty of the US. Not that much corruption. in other countries there is so much corruption that the people have no say in anything. In the US there is not that much corruption so it is nice.

Torres F.J.

If the system appears broken now, just wait and see what happens in 2013 if there actually *is* a third-party challenger of any stripe (left, right, or center).

The most likely outcome of the three candidate race the media is salivating over (about as much as they salivated over the story value of "the first black president") is the exact same outcome as '92 and '96: a plurality president. But without *any* kind of firm Congressional support.

Only this time, the (lack of) legitimacy of the resulting regime will be exarcerbated by the polarization of the traditional parties and the resulting "stories" driving the losing factions.

After all, if a three-way race brings Obama down, the easy explanation for his supporters will be to attribute it to racism, probably starting with Mrs Obama. The third party candidate, win or lose, will be forever enshrined as the "racist" that brought the annointed one down. What kind of wreckage would that make of the democratic party? If there even is a Democratic party left.

If the winner of the 3-way face were the official republican he would face total hostility from left-fearing democrats and at best grudging support from whichever republican faction he *didn't* come from. Re-election would be a pipe dream as he would be facing an instant insurrection from the rest of the party. A classic, primary-challenged incumbent from day one. And since those never win: a lame duck.

Of course, if the third-party candidate wins, he would be an executive without a party *or* a majority mandate. Even a 51% "clean win" for the "independent" (as unlikely as that is) would not allow him to build any kind of governing alliance as, again, he could not count on the Black Caucus and any democrat that cooperated would be branded a collaborator or a racist. So, any elected "independent" candidate would have to govern as a republican or live by the veto or both. Just another breed of lame duck.

Finally, if a three party race results in a minority + union-fueled win for Obama, he would find himself a lame duck president without a party from day one as he won't even have the legitimacy of a proper re-election mandate. At best, he would face a three-way split Congress composed of fuming-hostile Republicans, the Black Caucus, and independent Democrats rushing to distance themselves from him in preparation for 2014 and '16. At worse, he would face a republican-dominated one daring him to veto everything at worst. And overriding him with alarming frequency. The lamest of lame ducks.

If there *ever* was a point in time when the Republic needed a *clear* majority win to empower its Chief Executive, 2012 is it. There are hard statesman-grade decisions to come in the next four years and an executive without unquestioned legitimacy will be unable to make those decisions and make them *stick*.

Ideally, the Republic would be presented with actual statesman-like behavior from the primary candidates and the incumbent but it is already far too late for either camp to veer away from their farsical, locked-in populist trajectories (of both left and right) so the best alternative remaining is for high turnouts and a clear Electoral College win for *somebody* even if the voters have to hold their noses while voting.

As disgusting as the idea may be, 2012 will be a time to vote for the lesser of two evils, and stand by it, not to cast "a pox 'pon both houses" symbolic vote. Definitely the worst possible time for a third party run.

Whoever "wins" the upcoming contest will be faced with the uphill task of actually *governing* the country while beset by dual howling populist hordes from the left and the right. Doing so with anything less than a clean win will lead to nothing good. Just a 2016 replay of 2012, four years too late to achieve anything.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

