Crosposted From: Red Hot Cuppa Politics

During the past couple of months, I’ve thought privately that this country was ripe for the rise of a third party … and son of a gun — Rasmussen just came out with the fascinating poll:

April 27, 2006–Democrats currently hold a 12-point advantage over Republicans on a generic 2008 Presidential ballot. However, a third-party candidate focusing on immigration enforcement issues could fundamentally alter those political dynamics.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey finds that 44% of Americans say they would vote for a Democrat if the Presidential Election were held today. Just 32% would vote for a Republican. Those figures are likely a reflection of unhappiness with the Bush Administration rather than a commentary on prospective candidates from either party …(nope. folks are fed up with Congress as well — FB)

The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if “a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority.”

With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.

That indicates that a third party could win, at least in 2008. If you look at the figures — Dems would lose a whopping 13 percent to a third party candidate, while Repubs would lose only two percent less. Which makes me think that alot of folks would consider voting Dem, just because they’re fed up with Republicans, and alot of Republican voters would love a third choice.

Click here to see how the rest of the November elections are shaking down so far. In some states, it looks close, but I’m only seeing 2 Republican leading in their Senate races, although it’s a partial list. The Texas race isn’t mentioned; but I think Senator Hutchison will be okay; she’s a tad diplomatic, but she lessens the stench at the voting booth.

Back in 1994, the Republicans took over Congress with their “Contract With America.” They were full of ideas and ethics back then, and America responded warmly. I’m not seeing or hearing anything new from the Democratic party this year — but our fearless Republican leaders have pretty much forgotten about that Contract with America, and they’ve been methodically shooting themselves in the foot. A lot of conservative voters can no longer stand them, or Bush.

But, at the risk of going off on a liberal-style flight of fancy, we need to think a minute about what happens if Dems take Congress in the fall: First, Republicans, to be sure, get chastised, and just might get their act together for 2008. That’d be nice, and it’d be justice, alot of them haven’t earned re-election; they’ve gotten fat and as pork-crazed as the Democrats.

However, Dems get conrol of the economy for at least two years, we still don’t drill in ANWR or offshore, tax cuts get repealed, there’s no hope of cutting spending on domestic policies that don’t work … political correctness gets in vogue again … and ohyah! There’s still no border control.

Contemplate the international gig if Democrats take control of Congress. Cindy Sheehan’s smirk gets bigger, and she claims she speaks for the American people. (That’s you and me.) She and her buds in Code Pink will point to a Democrat elected Congress as proof, and folks overseas will believe it.

Here’s what happens internationally if Democrats win in both the house and the Senate:

First, we pull out of Iraq. With Dems in control, and RINO’s running scared, there will be no Congressional support for our efforts there. We pull the rug out from under our allies in Iraq, who are painfully managing to achieve a decent government of their own. There’s progress being made, tho not reported, and they still need our back-up. So, Dems win, we pull out, there’s a civil war in Iraq and no matter who wins, they all hate the USA. Al Quada declares victory, and feels free to attack our interests overseas and at home. And, remember — the Dems pretty much have to get us to pull out of Iraq, to please their wealthy anti-war billionaire funders.

Second, Bush gets impeached — whether there’s rational, documentable grounds or not, probably along the lines of “lying” about Iraq, and “outting” Val Plame. One of the deepest pockets of the Democrat donors (Soros) has pledged his fortune to getting Bush out of office. And, if Dems have a majority, they’ll hang together and make it happen, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Because that’s what they do.

So, if Bush gets impeached, we get Cheney — so what’s the big deal? Well, if you’ve read the DailyKos, Cheney’s all intertwined with Bush in terms of their perceived evidence for presidential “lies.” If Bush goes, Cheney goes.

Here are the implications of impeachment: terrorists everywhere rejoice, Al Quada declares victory. Our enemies point to the USA as an easy target overseas and at home. Dems respond to blackmail. And, the mullahs ride their nuclear ambitions to the fabled caliphate, or the Muslim End-times — or maybe to New York City — or LA — or Chicago — or Houston … (and no, I don’t think they have the capacity to launch missiles, but they host terrorists, and can certainly slip a couple of nukes wherever they want to)

In 2008, if Hillary wins and has a Democrat Congress handed to her — Al Quada and maybe the mullahs test us again, to increase their status in the eyes of the world. I honestly think that there are two reasons we have not been attacked. Bush reacted strongly to 9/11 — two countries went down in two years. Also, we’re keeping Al Quada’s best and brightest busy in Iraq — where armed Coalition forces troopers with body armor are killing them. The deterrance stops cold if we get a Dem controlled Congress in 2006, capped with Hillary in 2008, beholden to funds from wealthy leftist anti-war billionaire kingmakers.

And, again, with a Dem Congress, we still don’t get border control, although there’ll be plenty of “feel-good” rhetoric, and funding for high tech gadgets.

Look — Lord knows, the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, richly deserve to get punished this fall. Vote your heart — as Americans, we’re supposed to do that. All I’m saying is think first.

But, listen up! Here’s a good and interesting thing. In 2008, there just might be a viable third party, although there’s not time to build support for this fall’s Congressional elections. I do think that electing a third party candidate to the Presidency in 2008 is enough to strike terror into the most pork plated heart in Congress.

Now, Tom Tancredo says he’s not interested. But, you know, Chris Simcox is a handsome devil; you have to admit, he’d look great with the Presidential seal behind him. And, I’d bet dollars to donuts, the mullahs would think twice about crossing him …

If you feel (as I do) that US Democrats are unthinkable, perhaps one strategy would be to “hold your nose” and vote Republican for now for global policy reasons … and work to build a possible “MinuteMan” (?) party for 2008, and beyond? You have to admit — it’s got a ring to it.

Any thoughts out there?

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let us know at what level you would like to participate.