Mr. Beat: The American Presidential Election of 1980- John Anderson For President

Source:Mr. Beat- A 3-way presidential election?

Source:The New Democrat

"The 49th episode in a very long series about the American presidential elections from 1788 to the present. I hope to have them done by Election Day 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan seems unstoppable as he tries to "make America great again."

The 49th Presidential election in American history took place on November 4, 1980. As President, Jimmy Carter faced quite a few obstacles, and things just weren’t all peachy. The country faced low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and an energy crisis, in which the prices of oil went way up since supply went down in certain areas. This shortage was partially caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which a new Islamic government hostile to the United States overthrew the old one. "

From Mr. Beat

There are political Independents and then there are political Independents. Independents tend to get stereotyped as liberal or moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative. Which just isn't the case in a lot of if not most cases. There are Socialists who are Independents. There are Conservatives who are Independent. There are Libertarians who are Independent and I could go on. A political Independent is just someone who who is not associated with the two major political parties and in some cases not associated with any political party.

Source:Political Matters- John Anderson For President, 1980 

When Representative John Anderson from Illinois, ran for President in the general election in 1980, he ran as a political Independent, but he was a progressive-conservative Republican ideologically. And I know that sounds like jumbo shrimp, or fuel efficient SUV, a Libertarian-Socialist and I could name a tone of other terms that sound like Oxymorons and sound like they were invented by morons who don't realize that these terms don't go together.

But back in the 1970s and well before as far back as perhaps the 1940s, there was a Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. People who would be called progressive on social issues and believed in civil rights and commonsense regulations when it came to business, civil liberties, but who also believed in fiscal responsibility. Believed in balanced budgets and lower taxes, a strong national defense, who are anti-Communists and didn't like authoritarianism at all whether it was communist or some right-wing authoritarian ideology. Believed in the rule of law and being tough on crime.

Representative John Anderson, ran for President in 1980 as an Independent, ( meaning not as a Republican or Democrat ) but ideologically he was a progressive-conservative Republican. He was part of the Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican. George H.W. Bush at least before he ran as Ronald Reagan's Vice President in 1980 was from this wing of the party as well. And governed this was as President himself. Ideologically he was very different from President Ronald Reagan while at the same time sharing values with President Reagan as it related to national defense, anti-communism, lower taxation, and other issues. So if you want to know where someone stands politically, don't look at their party registration, but look at their politics and what they actually believe.

Reform Party USA: 'Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley'

Source:Reform Party USA- Ross Perot's creation. 

SourceThe New Democrat 

"The National Reform Party Secretary, Nicholas Hensley, has been making the rounds. His recent interviews have been highly rated by his peers, and were well received by anti-establishment activists. After some consideration, we have decided to post a sample interview on the National Website.

What is the Reform Party?

The Reform Party is a moderate, centrist and populist party that is neither liberal nor conservative. It sits in the middle of the political spectrum as opposition to the Democrats and Republicans. It was formed in 1995 by followers of Ross Perot. Perot won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election.

It was founded on the basis that the political establishment was corrupt. It seeks to reform government by getting special interest money out of politics, and limiting the power of lobbyists. We also want to ending the practice of gerrymandering, and open ballots for third parties and independents. As far as ethics reform, we want to force lawmakers to adhere to a set of laws – not just a set of rules.

Before the Republicans passed their Contract with America, the Reform Party already proposed a balanced budget amendment. We want to reform the government’s accounting system, stop the practice of keeping some items off the books, and create a plan to get America back into the black in the next four years.

Economically we want to reform trade deals, so that the manufacturing sector becomes a job creator for the working and middle classes. Even though we advocate for tax and regulatory reform on the manufacturing sector, those issues are minor compared to the need for stop trade by reforming NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO." 

From the Reform Party

When I was growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Democratic Party was supposed to be the left of center progressive party in America and the Republican Party was supposed to be the right of center party in America. The Democrats and Republicans have always had their fringes, but not to the point where they could decide who the party nominates, especially for governor, Senate, and certainly not President. Perhaps in gerrymandered U.S. House districts, but not where someone would have to run statewide or nationally, in competitive, diverse states. 

The reason why we have a Reform Party USA, is pretty much the same reason why we have a Libertarian Party. The Democrats moved left in the mid and late 1990s and especially 2000s. The Republicans have been moving right at least since the late 1960s, but by time the mid 90s comes around, the Christian-Rights was no longer a fringe part of the party, but a core portion of it's base. Which meant Center-Right, more fiscally and economically minded, conservative voters, who aren't interested in the culture wars, were left without a major political party. 

Reform Party USA might call itself a centrist populist party, but that's not Ross Perot's movement. That's really no one's movement. American voters regardless of political philosophy, like to know where the candidates and politicians stand on the issues, even the controversial ones, before deciding who to vote for. And if you are a so-called Reformer, but you don't know what you think and your position is: "Elect me, because I'll do what's best for the country and figure out what the right policies are once I'm elected." you are going to put the voters asleep into a deep coma before they even have a chance to vote for you. 

Ross Perot was a pretty conservative guy, at least economically and fiscally, and even when it came to national security. Most of the people who voted for him in 1992 were either Republicans or were once Center-Right Republicans. Not mushy-middle centrists, who didn't know what they believed on the issues. 

With the Republican Party as far to the right as it is today, the center-right in the country is a great place for the Reform Party to be and for real Conservative Republicans to make their new home, especially the Never-Trumpers who've left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump and his movement.

C-SPAN: The Contenders- Ross Perot Preview

Source:CSPAN- Political historian Carl Cannon.

Source:The Daily Times

“C-SPAN continues its series “The Contenders” LIVE on Friday, December 9 at 8:00 p.m. ET with Ross Perot. In this clip, Presidential Historian Richard Norton Smith, Goucher College History Professor Jean Baker and Washington Editor of Real Clear Politics Carl Cannon discuss Perot. More information on the series can be found here:CSPAN."

From CSPAN

Ross Perot not that he ever had a real shot at being elected President of the United States, but his style of politics and what he believed in and the people he represents and spoke for and represents how Independent Center-Right political candidates can get elected in America.

And I put Ross Perot on the Center-Right in American politics because he is a true fiscal Conservative who believes in fiscal responsibility, not running up debt and deficits.

Ross Perot believes in limited government and that everything that government does has to be limited to what we need it too. Not do not what we want it to do and that all government including entitlement programs have to be efficient and affordable. But someone who was tolerant to moderate on social issues. Who didn’t push those issues and didn’t believe the Federal Government should be involved in them in most cases and would probably leave the states to deal with them.

He was sort of an Eisenhower or Ford Republican whose philosophy was based around accountability. And limiting government to doing the things that we need it to do and do those things well. Who represents roughly forty percent of the country and how people of this mindset could do well in the future especially if they put together one party that represents this whole movement.

C-SPAN: Political Humorist Molly Ivins- Talking About Ross Perot (1992)

Source:C-SPAN- Political humorist Molly Ivins.

Source:The Daily Times

Ross Perot is classical version of take the good with the bad. As Molly Ivins I believe was explaining that there is a lot to like about the man. And had I actually been old enough to vote in 1992 instead of sixteen years old, I probably would’ve at least considered voting for him. But his weakness’ in a lot of way outweighed his strengths. Because he’s got a Texas sized ego in a New Hampshire size body who thinks a hell of a lot of himself.

And whenever he’s doing something, he tends to give people the idea that what he’s doing is about him. Even as much as he couldn’t stop reminding people in 1992 that he was running for president for the good of the country and I’m sure part of that was true, but he tended to give people the idea that he was the only one who could save the country.

I believe a good way to describe the Ross Perot was that he was a great visionary, but not someone you want quarterbacking your team or a government kinda like a good head coach who didn’t have enough skills to play quarterback very well or play other positions. But someone you might want on the sidelines calling the plays.
Source:C-SPAN

Samuel Wilson: Ronald Reagan Debates Representative John Anderson For President- September 21, 1980

Source:Samuel Wilson- U.S. Representative John Anderson, I, Illinois.

Source:The New Democrat

It seems strange to me that President Jimmy Carter would turn down a chance to debate Ronald Reagan in 1980. Even with a third-party candidate like Representative John Anderson in the debate. Because Jimmy Carter was the underdog in this race even though the polls were close for most of the election. But with the situation of the country with the economy and the Iranian hostage situation with all of those Americans being held hostage in Iran and Russia on the march in Central Asia.

President Carter was the underdog in this election simply because of the situation of the country under his watch. And the fact that millions of Americans were looking for new leadership and taking a long look at Ron Reagan and perhaps even Representative Anderson. President Carter needed to take advantage of every opportunity that he had to convince Americans that he deserved another opportunity as President similar to George Bush in 1992 and he didn't take that shot.

Source:Samuel Wilson

The Centrist Review: Solomon Kleinsmith- The Centrist/Moderate False Equivalence Deception

Source:The Centrist Review-

Source:The New Democrat

The problem that I believe that Centrists have and my question would be what is a Centrist, but the problem that I believe they have is exactly that. What is a Centrist? I believe that is a question that American voters tend to ask as well. And you can give you all you want about forty-percent of the country that are political Independents. Fine, but that doesn't mean they are all Centrists. It just means they don't like the Republican Party, or Democratic Party and perhaps the two-party system as a whole.

Americans as much as we get stereotyped as being divided politically tend to believe in similar things. We tend to believe in free and unregulated free speech at least in most cases. We tend to believe in the Right to Privacy and personal freedom as long as we aren't hurting innocent people. We believe in the Right to Self-Defense as long as it is regulated. We tend to believe in the Freedom of Assembly and being able to associate with whom we please. We believe in property rights and the ability to make a good honest living and live independently. We tend to support the Freedom of Religion. And I could go further.

These aren't centrist values at least in the sense they came from some centrist philosophy. These are bedrock classical conservative or classical liberal values that the United States was founded on. And I could add another one which would be Americans tend to believe in equal rights for all Americans. These are the liberal and conservative values that made America great. They didn't come from Centrists, but Liberals and Conservatives who wrote the Constitution.

Where would a Centrist be on these key core issues? And if they believe in all of these things the way they are would they still qualify as Centrists? Since these are liberal and conservative values that come from the center-left and center-right in America. Not the dead-center or the mushy-middle. Or would they reform these key individual rights and make them less liberal or conservative and more moderate. Perhaps the Right to Privacy, but only on the first floor of your home and only inside of your home.

I wonder how the civil rights movement would've gone in the 1960s had there not of been a Progressive President in Lyndon Johnson who had served twenty-four years in Congress and eight in the leadership. And instead we had a Centrist Independent instead with no clear record when it came to civil rights because that person was perhaps stuck in the middle. Or if we had a Centrist President during the Civil War, or World War II. Maybe we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but not respond to the Nazis in Europe murdering all of those Jews. Or perhaps just supply our allies with equipment and hope for the best. Or in the Civil War's case Africans can be free in America, but just not in the South.

These might be slight exaggerations and poking too much fun at centrism (or not enough) and I'm not saying that centrism doesn't have it's place. I believe divided government is where it is useful to take the best from the Democrats and Republicans. Throw out the garbage from both sides and take what is good from both sides and put it in a final package that can work. But my point is there are times when right is right and wrong is wrong. Meaning those things are clear and that you need to take a stand whether it is the liberal or conservative thing to do. Which was my point about those examples I laid out in the previous paragraph. And you need to take those stances for the good of the country. Which is where centrism doesn't seem very useful or evident.
Source:The Moderate Centrist

Reform Party USA: 'Core Principles of the Reform Party'

Source:Reform Party USA- the official logo of RPUSA.

Source:The New Democrat  

"We, the members of the Reform Party, commit ourselves to reform our political system. Together we will work to re-establish trust in our government by electing ethical officials, dedicated to fiscal responsibility and political accountability." 

From Reform Party USA

I hope the title of this post is long enough, otherwise the hell with it. But I agree with the notion of this blog post from the Reform Party that governing simply shouldn’t be about compromise. That even with a divided government with two parties that do not like each other (which is putting it very mildly) and certainly do not trust each other that both sides at the end of the business day still have a responsibility to not only govern, but to govern well.

And in divided government like today that means taking the best from both sides and putting into a package that works. And throwing out the garbage from both sides instead of just splitting the difference on each key issue. As if that is governing even when trying to go half way on each issue may not and in most cases does not result in a good end result. 

There are plenty of examples going back to the early 1980s when the Federal Government became very partisan with a new Conservative President in Ronald Reagan, with a Conservative Republican Senate. To go with a Progressive Democratic House where they managed to govern very well with divided Congress’s.

It is not so much the art of the compromise that should try to be reached. But the art of the consensus. What do both sides want and on a lot of key issues both sides tend to have the same end goals. And after that has been established now where are both sides, what would each side do if they were completely in charge. In other words: what is the opening offer from both sides so we know where both side is. And after that has been established you look to the common ground.

You find that and you put that in the final package and then after that you look for victories from both sides. The good from each side and put their ideas alone on certain key issues. For example the 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example. Republicans wanted time limits and work requirements in the new Welfare system. Democrats wanted job training, education, and childcare for people on Welfare. What happened is both sides won and the final bill had job training, education, childcare, time limits and job requirements.

You take the good from both sides and throw out the things that probably wouldn’t work. Or that both sides simply can’t live with. Meaning both sides get their victories, but do not get everything they are looking for. Instead of just splitting the difference and running for the middle on the key issues. And that is how you get good government in a divided government.

Samuel Wilson: Ross Perot- 'Balancing the Budget & Reforming Government (1992)'

Source:Samuel Wilson- Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot, in 1992.

"One of several Ross Perot Infomercials that ran during the 1992 General Election campaign."

From Samuel Wilson

The main contribution that Ross Perot brought to the American political system was that he showed Americans how serious our debt and deficit situation was and how big of a threat it was to our economy. 

Without Ross Perot, President Bill Clinton probably doesn't take the debt and deficit situation as seriously as he did in 1993 and drafting the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act and getting it through that Democratic Congress. And even in 1992 as presidential nominee Bill Clinton and making deficit reduction a big part of his economic plan and message. Not saying he wouldn't of done anything about it in 1993 but the comprehensive approach of budget cuts basically all over the Federal Government and new revenue with tax hikes on the wealthy, reforming the Federal Government so it's more efficient with fewer employees. 

So without Ross Perot the United States Government doesn't get its fiscal house in order as early as it in the mid and late 1990s.

Samuel Wilson: C-SPAN- '1992 3rd Party Presidential Debate'

Source:Samuel Wilson- Howard Phillips: 1992 presidential nominee for the Tax Payers Party.

"This was a very interesting debate held in 1992, which featured Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party; John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party and Howard Phillips of the United States Taxpayers Party." 

From Samuel Wilson

This is one of the reasons why I love C-SPAN, because they don't just cover Democrats and Republicans, but all of the political party's that have a voice and message. Now, they obviously cover the Democrats and Republicans more, because those are the party's that are always in power. At least until a third-party emerges and knocks them out-of-power.

The main problem with a two-party System in a country, thats as politically as diverse as ours and is as big as ours, both in land and in population, is that Democrats and Republicans aren't simply big enough to speak to the concerns and politics of the whole country. 

40% of the country is not a Democrat or a Republican and are either not registered or a member of a third-party that better represents their political beliefs. Whether they are more to the right or left than Democrats and Republicans or are in the center. And they are the largest voting block in the United States. And I believe C-SPAN recognizes this and has decided that other voices should be represented, especially in a liberal democracy, thats as big and diverse as ours.

What C-SPAN did back in 1992 and I believe they still do, at least to a certain extent today, is something that I wish other networks (broadcast, cable or whatever) if these third party's, even if a third party is fairly strong, for a third party, like the Reform Party back in 1996, aren't able to get into the presidential debates, these party's should comes together and form third-party debates between the Socialists, Libertarians and Independents and so-forth and give them about the same amount of time as the major party presidential debates. 

If third-party debates did well, you see if C-SPAN, PBS, maybe CNN, picks them up or tries to get them up. And you would see our entire political spectrum in this country represented. That goes from Far-Left, to the Far-Right and everything else in between. Americans are looking for other voices in American politics and a system like this would give it to them.

Buddy Roemer: The Last Word- 'Special Interest Money Controls Washington'

Source:Buddy Roemer- talking to The Last Word, on MSNBC.

"2012 Presidential Candidate. Fair Trade. No Tax Loopholes. No Special Interests. Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit. Buddy Roemer." 

From Buddy Roemer

I like a lot of Buddy Roemer's message when it comes to corruption and limiting special interest influence. The problem is a lot that he wants to accomplish, isn't currently constitutional. It would require a constitutional amendment or amendments to pass a lot of what Governor Roemer wants to do. Because it would get thrown out by the current U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. 

Passing constitutional amendments at this point to pass a lot of these progressive reforms that Buddy Roemer, Dylan Ratigan, whether they are good ideas or not, are at least five to ten years away and that's starting after you get a constitutional amendment out of Congress.

So my approach in all of this have been practical but aggressive: do what we can now that would hold up to constitutional scrutiny. And if that's not enough, try to pass constitutional amendments down the road. And my approach is more of a liberal-libertarian approach, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Yes, I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud of it. 

Has anyone ever asked why we have thousands if not tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lobbyists in Washington? ( To use a Billy the Kid line )  because that's where the money is. So force those people to disclose who they do business with and when and who they contribute too. 

And force all members of Congress and the executive branch to do the same thing within 24 hours of talking to these people and giving or taking their money. In other words: full-disclosure of campaign contributions, campaign and lobbying activity. 

My other reform would be to get a lot of of the money out of the Federal Government. But do it in a way that holds up to constitutional scrutiny. Reduce the size of the Federal Government. It currently has a Federal budget of 3.7T$ by far the largest Federal budget in the world. Pass that money down to the state and local government's and private sector. Especially as it relates to social insurance: turn those programs over to the states and locals. And design them to help and empower the people who need them.

Cut the the defense budget by 200B$ a year or more and pull our troops out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves. And by doing this we would be able to lay off a lot of defense contractors and cut a lot of pork out of the defense budget. And a lot of defense lobbyists as well and reduce the influence the defense industry has on the Federal Government.

Milton Friedman made a documentary movie in 1979-80 called Free to Choose. And in one part of that movie he had a segment about special interest influence in Washington. And one of his solutions had to do with the size of the Federal budget. Back when we were spending 18-19% of GDP instead of today where we are spending 24-25% of GDP.

I like a lot of Buddy Roemer's message about limiting special interests as I already said. But he has a couple of problems. Some of his ideas are currently unconstitutional and he's running for President in the wrong party to get done a lot of what he wants to do. 

If Buddy Roemer runs for the Reform or Independence Party, he might have a better shot at getting his message across. Also if he made his message about fiscal conservatism, limiting the special interest influence on the Federal Government by cutting back on the power of the Federal Government, he would get a lot more play in the media.

Buddy Roemer: 'Reform America Ad in New Hampshire'

Source:Buddy Roemer- for President (2011-12)

"A Buddy Roemer for President radio ad to air in New Hampshire." 

From Buddy Roemer

An Independence Party, or an Independence movement, isn't exactly about centrism, or running to the middle on most if not all the major issues, or splitting the difference. To me that would be what a centrist movement is about: looking for what's been labeled and the mushy middle,  accurately so to a certain degree. 

To me Senator Joe Lieberman and I could name a few others isn't a centrist. He has clear liberal views on most if not social issues except when it comes to national security where he's more of a Neoconservative and he tends to be fairly liberal on economic policy as well. But Joe Lieberman is definitely an Independent more interested in governing than fighting partisan battles. And always looking for the solutions to problems, rather than continuing to fight. As a Liberal Democrat myself I tend to disagree with Senator Lieberman on most if not all national security and foreign policy issues.

But Senator Lieberman is an Independent looking to govern and looking for solutions. Looking to do what's in the best interest of the country. Rather than fighting partisan battles and just to give his party an edge or to gain more power. Which is basically what Democrats and Republicans are doing right now: "How do I get that extra edge on the opposition to win this partisan battle to give me leverage in the next political battle. As well as winning the next election." 

This is why I believe an Independence movement as well an Independence Party is needed where people would come together and Senator Lieberman could be one of their leaders, especially as he leaves Congress in 2013. But a party and movement and that could be made up of Classical Liberals, Classical Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists who agree on enough. And can work out their differences to form a united party to push Democrats and Republicans.

An Independent Party could push Democrats and Republicans hard enough where they can get on the ballot everywhere, where their leaders and members are former Democrats and Republicans, where they recruit Democrats and Republicans, as well as liberal and conservative Independents who don't like the big government tendencies of either party or the partisan fighting. And want to see America working again, by laying out an agenda that accomplishes not by running to the center and avoiding big decisions, but putting down solutions that work and throwing out the junk that doesn't work. 

And someone like a Buddy Roemer who twenty-years ago would've been considered a great Republican presidential candidate before the Religious and Neoconservatives took over the party, could be the Independence Party's presidential nominee, because he'll take on both Republican and Democratic special interests. And Independence movement and an Independence Party should be about a couple of things.

A real Independence Party could blow up the current two-party duopoly that only serves the leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. We are way too big and politically diverse as a country, where we are represented across the political spectrum to only have two major political parties. And to push Democrats and Republicans to tell them, either figure out how to govern this country and then do it. Or get out-of- town, because they're going to replaced. 

Buddy Roemer: 'Goldman Friggin Sachs- Governor Buddy Roemer on MSNBC's Morning Joe'

Source:Buddy Roemer- Reform Party presidential candidate Governor Buddy Roemer, talking to MSNBC.

"2012 Presidential Candidate. Fair Trade. No Tax Loopholes. No Special Interests. Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit." 

From Buddy Roemer

Buddy Roemer is one of the few if only real Republicans (as I would put it), people who are Classical Conservatives, running for President in the Republican Party right now. The only other person I would consider would be Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul I would classify as a Classical Libertarian, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman I would classify as Liberal Libertarians. Who I believe as a Liberal Democrat myself would both make solid Democrats in an Old School sense. 

Actually, I would put Rick Perry in the same class as Newt Gingrich, but the rest of that field are Neoconservatives, except for Mitt Romney who if I had to guess by judging his track record looks like George H.W. Bush or Gerry Ford. But politically he's where ever he feels he needs to be to suit him politically. But the rest of them, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann are all Tea Party Neo-Cons. Basically trying to install round three of the George W. Bush Administration.

Running for President in an era where neoconservatism and Christian-Conservatism is out of style in most of the country. If it's a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan Republican you're looking for President, look at the Buddy Roemer and take a look at John Huntsman, because they are the closest people that the Republican Party has right now. Which to me is just more evidence that both Goldwater and Reagan couldn't get the Republican nomination for President right now. Because they wouldn't kiss up to the Religious and Neo-Right, because they wouldn't give a damn about those people. 

Because of Governor  Roemer's politics and character and the fact that he can't get the Republican nomination for President right now, because of how far-right the GOP has moved in the last ten years or so, is just more evidence that Governor Roemer shouldn't give up his presidential campaign, just not run as a Republican. What American politics needs right now is another major political party. A party that could take votes away from Democrats and Republicans.

Time to force the two big parties to speak to broader audiences other than their fringe bases. And court votes from people other than their fringe bases. We need an Independence Party, something that George Wallace tried to start in the late 1960s and what Ross Perot tried to start in the 1990s. A party thats made up of both Classical Liberals and Classical Conservatives, people who aren't on the Far-Left or Far-Right. That can appeal to American voters who aren't on these fringes and give the two parties a hell of a run for their money. To encourage them to move away from their fringes whether they win or lose. 

And Buddy Roemer, Bob Barr, Evan Baygh, Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg, Lincoln Chaffey and others, would all make excellent presidential candidates for an Independence Party. Because they are the real things on the left and right not extremists. 

Buddy Roemer represents what the Republican Party used to be and what they have moved away from. Even with the Tea Party movement, because some of them have gotten in bed with Christian-Conservatives. Buddy Roemer hasn't left the Republican Party, but they've left him politically. Which is why he should leave the GOP and work to build a real Independence movement in American politics. That can build America's third major political party.

Associated Press: 'Libertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As Nominee'

Source:Associated Press- Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R, GA) and now 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee.

"Libertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As NomineeLibertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As NomineeThe Associated PressThe Libertarian Party on Sunday picked former Republican Rep. Bob Barr to be its presidential candidate after six rounds of balloting.  Barr left the GOP in 2006."

From the Associated Press

Bob Barr in some ways fits in perfectly with the Libertarian Party on economic and foreign policy. Similar to Pat Buchanan ,but on social issues, I would figure at least with Bob Barr's record in the House of Representatives, that he wouldn't be liberal to libertarian enough on social issues to fit in well with that party. Which is why Pat Buchanan run for President for the Reform Party in 2000 not the Libertarian Party. 

Until I heard about Representative Barr's opposition to the Patriot Act and War on Drugs, two things that I'm against as well. So to me Bob Barr would be a better fit with the Tea Party thats not in bed yet with the Religious-Right. Thats also against things like the Patriot Act and a neoconservative foreign policy and of course shares Representative Barr's views on economic policy. As well and also why I believe that Bob Barr would be an excellent fit in an independence movement that would lead to an Independence Party.

An Independence Party that Governor George Wallace tried to start in the late 1960s and Ross Perot tried to start in the 1990s. Which is a movement and party thats not exactly about centrism or splitting the difference, that does have clear positions on the issues. More conservative on economic policy, more liberal or at least neutral on social issues and more isolationist on foreign policy. 

A political party like this I believe would do very well in America right now with the right leadership. Because the largest voting block in America are registered Independents. People not registered with a political party. There is an independent political movement in America right now, but they don't have a major political party. The Reform Party is the closest thing they have right now but they've been around since 1995-96.

And the Reformers are still a fairly small political party, which is one reason why Mike Bloomberg has flirted with running for president. There are people in Congress that have flirted with leaving the Democratic and Republican parties and becoming Independents. Like Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Lisa Murkowski, Ron Paul and others. These people would make good leaders in an independence movement. To go along with people like Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan, Mike Bloomberg, David Walker who used to run Government Accountability Office. Evan Baygh who used to be a Senator and Governor from Indiana, independent commentator Lou Dobbs, the No Labels Movement and other people. Independents have the talent and personal to build their own party, that could blow up our two-party system.

A real Independence Party could  finally give America a political system that could represent our huge and diverse nation. Thats basically stuffed into two political parties. Bob Barr represents what independent politics could be in America and an avenue to blow up our two-party system. And give us a political system that has five strong parties that can represent the whole country. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist and independent and force Democrats and Republicans to compete for voters. Across the political spectrum instead of just running to their fringes for their support.