Hear, hear. And don't give me this crap about Lincoln being a third party candidate. Sorry but the main parties were the Democrats and the Republicans by 1860. Also, let's be blunt. "Extreme moderates" of the "far middle" and the "raging center" are not the best third party candidates. And while we can all probably name a few of these (Perot but I'd argue he was more of a populist than anything else, Anderson, John Bell, Fillmore), most third party candidates are either on the left or the right.

Since Morris has never been wrong about a prediction in his life- especially the one about Hillary being Dean's running mate- this should be taken very, very seriously.

While I think Dick Morris is sucking the crack pipe again, and Karol is right that Bloomberg doesn't stand a chance in hell, I want to also applaud her for the consistency in sticking to her "logic" about third-parties. Because A has never happened before means that A will never happen at all!! We should apply that to, I don't know, rocket science, medical science, black politicians, and, well, EVERYTHING.

You, my friend, are indeed a true conservative!

Ken, just because you want something to be true, doesn't mean it is or will be.

For background: 2004 was the first time in my life I voted for either of the major parties in the presidential election. I was the biggest third party supporter. My graduate thesis was to be on the subject of the influence of third parties and their potential for winning elections. And then I started to do the research. And I learned that third parties are essentially meaningless, few of their proposals ever get adopted by the two main parties (despite the lip service the proposals may get during the race) and, because of the way our electoral system is set up, it's nearly impossible for them to win national election. Again, I'm sorry Condi can't win because she's single and I'm sorry Rudy can't win because he's a northeast liberal but this is the reality. Accept it.

I disagree to some extent Karol. I think a lot of historic third parties had a great deal of their platforms adopted by major parties (I'm thinking the various Free Soil Parties led by Matty Van Buren and John Hale; the Populists and TR's Progressives).

Bloomberg would be lynched on his first visit to North Carolina. (Lotsa people in Red States take their tobacco seriously....)

Dick Morris doesn't get out much, does he?

OTOH, Karol, I think you're selling Red Stater's short re: Condi's marital status and Rudy's social liberalism. Red State intolerance of honest differences of opinions is a myth propogated by the coastal establishment (which very much needs its constituency to believe it true). Fear of Pat Robertson's Theocracy is one of the lynchpins of the lurching Democratic machine.

My advice: Let the Democrats worry about finding an electable candidate; they'll almost certainly end up with another Kerry if they do. Republicans should find the best person for the job. IMHO, Condi or Rudy, either one, would do very nicely.

Mark, Mark, Mark,
You silly man. Karol knows all about the voting habits of the American people ... even if she does seem to confuse "American people" with "people who vote in Republican primaries."

And she just says Condi can't win because she's single because she's afraid if she says "Condi can't win because she's black" that Dawn Summer's gonna kick her butt.

While I think Dick Morris is sucking the crack pipe again,

Well, nice to see that Dick is sucking on something other than toes for once.

Mark, it's not that red states are 'intolerant', it's just that they have core beliefs (pro-life, anti-gay marriage) that they don't need to change. Their kinds of candidates actually get elected. Why would they elect a pro-choice candidate when they can have a pro-life one? And the Condi marital status isn't just red states. Americans love the first family, the whole picture, the couple, the kids, the pets. I really believe they'd elect a married black person over a single white person any day.

Ken, let me know when you figure out a way for the "American people" to vote for a candidate who didn't make it through the primary. Only an independent can do that and, again, they've never won and they never will. I know in your own personal fantasyland, the majority of Americans will go against all of their personal beliefs to vote for Ken's chosen candidate but let me tell you: ain't gonna happen.

What I admire about conservatives is that they are pragmatic. The perfect choice won't run. (One of the great ironies of '08 is the best potential Republican candidate is named Bush; and pragmatic or not, there ain't a snowball's chance anyone named Bush will be elected again before 2016.) So some person who isn't a perfect fit, but who is a good fit, will be the nominee in '08. Personal opinion: social conservatives will be fine with anyone who promises, and seems to mean it, to keep the government out of their personal schizzle. (Biggest reason to say "buh'bye" to Bloomberg).

Let's flip this; what two or three candidates are better than either Rudy or Condi?

Practically, I think Condi is enjoying being SecState, and wouldn't leave the job in flux to start campaigning. The only way I see her running is the scenario where Cheney resigns and Condi become VP. (Can you imagine the confirmation hearings? Talk about the Dems being in a lose-lose situation....) That scenario is so blatantly political though that I inherently distrust it, so I really expect her to run (if she ever does) in 2012. (Also, time is running out on that scenario. Practically, everyone who is going to run needs to be lining ducks up now. So she would need the VP incumbency to have any shot.)

It will be interesting. I really do hope the Democrats can get over the whole "electability" thing and come up with a real candidate in '08. Conversely, I hope Republicans don't fall into the Democrat's favorite trap.

Karol,
I never made any claims that the American people will vote for my own personal candidate. And, sadly, you are right about the primary system. But just because an independent hasn't won in the past doesn't mean it can't be done in the future. Of course you were probably too young to remember how close Rossy P. was before he imploded with crazy.

But I will tell you that you're repeated use of the phrase "go against all of their own personal beliefs" is laughable. Their own personal beliefs? What are those pray-tell? Explain to me how those own personal beliefs came into play when the people of, say, Louisiana, voted for Bill Clinton twice ... then George W. Bush twice.

People vote on many things and, like it or not, charisma or image, often trump actual policy, politics or beliefs.

IF Rudy G. could get past a primary, I guaran-god-damn-tee you he'd win in a heart-beat, primarily because lots of Americans on the right and left would like nothing more than for some people to stick their own personal beliefs right up their asses.

The fact of the matter is, the majority of people, even in the Red States, aren't as nutso religious right as they're made out to be. They don't care enough about abortion to make it the deciding factor and they'd much rather stem cell research be approved. Even Karl Rove knows this, which is why he USES the religious right only as much as necessary and then spends the rest of his time trying to keep them shut up.

But let the Republicans nominate another religious-right panderer (especially if Bush vetos the stem-cell bill) and let either the Dems or a third party put up someone who's sensible and tough on terror and then you can see exactly where American's personal beliefs will put the Republican party.

I can understand why the Republicans are scared shitless of a third-party candidate. Because if it was a Republicanish guy, a moderate, the Republicans would lose in a hearbeat. Hell, you'd better hope Bloomie is the third-party runner. At least then his actual long history as a Democrat and nanny-stater would pull more Dems than Republicans.

BTW, the "intolerance" I think people who write Condi off in the Red States fear isn't of skin color, but of sexual orientation. That whole "single woman" chatter is just the P.C. way to get people wondering what way Condi swings.

Once again, I think it would be a non-issue for most conservatives. I could be mistaken, but then again, my redneck roots surprised the hell out of me by embracing my Boricua wife-to-be.

Bottom line, I think "traditional values" voters care a lot more about the quality of the person than what labels are attached to them. (Anybody seen someone who wasn't a Foaming Lefty trashing Mary Cheney? Didn't think so.)

Of course you were probably too young to remember how close Rossy P. was before he imploded with crazy.

Hey! I voted for Ross P. In 1996, baby! But here's the thing. He got 18% of the vote but didn't carry a single state. That's the fate of the very best third party candidate. Spoiler, sure, but never an actual contender.

He got 18% AFTER his freak-out. Think what he would have done if he hadn't turned into nutcase.

Didn't George Wallace win five states in 1968?

And a third party -- the Republicans -- won the Presidency in 1860. Prior to that, the two parties were the Democrats and the Whigs.