Comments on: Whig Party Name May Again Appear on Ballots

By: David Atwood

David Atwood — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:54:36 +0000

The Modern Whigs are fake. They have no money and are not filing with the Federal Elections Commission. They have taken money and not reported it. The chairman is an ego maniac who appoints and fires state chairmen all the time. Watch the website (www.modernwhig.org) and you will see what I mean. Go to archive.org and you will see how they change all the time. The Modern Whig party is a Democrat Party front, part of the George Soros campaign to destroy the Republican Party. I have been tracking this Whig thing and the national party is a pack of liars. The Whig idea is good, middle of the road is good. Too bad a group of ding dongs are running the show.

By: Ken Belcher

Ken Belcher — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:58:26 +0000

I am and was the member of the Modern Whig Party to run as a Democrat for County Constable. You will not see a third party on an Alabama ballot. The power parties had made the qualification process so heavily rigged that it is a virtual impossibility to qualify in Alabama as a third party for ballot purposes. At the time that I ran for office, and as far as I know now, it was and is a Modern Whig policy to carry your Whig principles to the ballot box under any party appropriate.
A member in long and good standing of the Modern Whig party and one of it’s progenitors: The USAWhig party I qualified to run for Constable as a Democrat and won against a write-in candidate.
While most third parties are single-issue parties or small groups with a personal axe to grind, the Modern Whig Party takes pride in it’s moderate position of pragmatism and compassion, generally leaving the esoteric minutae of local politics to local politicians familiar with local values. People do want some substantive change, not radical change. That is why Perot received 19% of the popular vote even after withdrawing from his presidential campaign.

Hon. Kenneth C. Belcher; Constable, Beat 14, Lee County Alabama, Modern Whig

By: environmental information

environmental information — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:00:39 +0000

Hi, Excellent post, some really useful environmental information here and well worth knowing about.

Thanks

By: jamie lee davis

jamie lee davis — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:36:58 +0000

After 20 years of military service and 30 years of voting Republican, I’m really glad to see the Whig platform.

Unlike the many third parties that focus on one issue, the Whigs seems to have found a reasonable spot on many issues that matter.

I won’t align with the other third parties in order to be “anti-Democrat” or “anti-Republican.” I am “PRO-my country and the world.”

With the current economic depression and political polarization wrought by the now irrelevant Cheney/Limbaugh party, now is the perfect time to form a new party.

The Modern Whig Party may have legs.

By: Citizens For A Better Veterans Home

Citizens For A Better Veterans Home — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:26:16 +0000

Isn’t ‘Alabama Independent’ BobBarr08 honcho Stephen Gordon ??????

——- Donald Raymond Lake

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Sun, 24 May 2009 00:55:17 +0000

Even though “An Alabama Independent” is a thoughtful person and writes well, I have to respectfully disagree with him (or her) on this one. What I think that we need is a left coalition (a la the Popular Unity Coalition of early 70′s era – and prior – in Chile). I do not want to support any bourgeois conservatives for public office.

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Sun, 24 May 2009 00:01:35 +0000

How much money do the Whigs plan to raise for this? The average winning Congressional campaign cost about $1 million in 2008.

By: An Alabama Independent

An Alabama Independent — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:16:48 +0000

Richard. You are right to a point and I should have qualified what I meant. The problem with most 3rd parties is that they push the party and not the candidate. Voters are leary of a candidate – especially if he or she is unknown and the party is pushing the party more so than the candidate. In the case of Jesse Ventura, HE was being touted -rather than the REFORM PARTY. The same was true of Longley in Maine, Weicker in Connecticutt, and Lieberman in Connecticutt. Voters “knew” who these candidates were and cared less of their label. Unfortunately, most 3rd parties do not have well-know candidates like a Ventura, Longley, Weicker, or a Lieberman.

But I think you will have to agree that more candidates (even lesser known candidates) have been elected on the “independent” label than on a 3rd party label. If I were going to run for a major office and had a million dollars to spend on the campaign, I would NOT want a label that might have negatives or send the wrong message to the voters.

One can’t go wrong with “independent.”

By: Jerry Baker

Jerry Baker — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:54:14 +0000

#14-Why would 2 candidates with deep fub=ndamental disagreements run on a single ticket simply because neither is a Democrat or a Republican? Say for example the Green believes climate change is a grave threat and we need to regulate greenhouse gases very strictly, while the Libertarian is against all environmental regulations. How do you reconcile those 2 positions? Simply put, you can’t. And putting them on a single ticket deprives the voter of the chance to support whichever of those positions he or she favors.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:24:13 +0000

When Jesse Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota, his label was “Reform Party”. When Lowell Weicker was elected Governor of Connecticut, his label was “A Connecticut Party.” When Joseph Lieberman was elected U.S. Senator from Connecticut, his label was “Connecticut for Lieberman Party”. When James Longley was elected Governor of Maine in 1974, his label was “Longley for Maine.” There is nothing magical about the label “independent”. People vote for a candidate they like and don’t worry about the label.

When Audie Bock was elected to the California legislature in 1999 in a special election, her ballot label was “Green Party.” When she ran for re-election as an independent in 2000, she lost badly. People do respect minor parties, because minor parties are perceived to be people who would rather stick to principles, even if those principles are unpopular, than win. Voters perceive that someone who just wants a profitable career in electoral politics is someone who always runs as a Republican or a Democrat because that is the path to typical career advancement in electoral politics. People aren’t prejudiced against the label “independent”, but neither is “independent” any better than a minor party label.