Interesting article here:
Friedman is appalled by both parties’ pandering “solutions” to the gas-price crisis, craven schemes for bribing
voters out of the pockets of our kids and grandkids. He believes that both parties’ utter abdication of the responsibility to get
very serious about the energy crisis that is upon us - and is also, of course, our national-security crisis - creates a huge opening
for a third party, and that such a party will field a presidential candidate as early as 2008.
I’m not holding my breath, but I wouldn’t be displeased.
One of the projects on my to-do list, which may or may not happen, is to add a set of static pages to this blog describing what I’d
like to see as planks in a third-party platform.
However, as I toy around with doing that, I’m reminded about one of the big challenges in a viable third “centrist” party being
formed — is there a cohesive enough set of views to build a viable party around.
In some of the writeups I’ve seen proposing a centrist party, some ideas have been tossed around. Some of them I agree with, and
others I don’t. I can’t help but wonder if, as more centrists are collected to form a core of a third party, there will be enough
fracturing of views to cause such a movement to coalesce. The common theme among those of us holding such views is only that the
Elephants and Donkies fail to adequately represent us…and I’m afraid that “anybody but them” is too shaky of a platform to be
viable.