Hello jdg,
I hope your appraisal is accurate and a trend. Many I have occasion to speak with that self identified as TEA party people (having taken a beating in the media) are trying to infiltrate the GOP in a stealthy way. It would seem that they are trying to do what the progressives did to the Democratic party. I voted for Perot twice. I often hear that I "helped elect Clinton."
Whatever... One must vote their conscience.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Enough of the right wing has already turned libertarian that the GOP will indeed have to embrace liberty or vanish. "Establishment" GOP advocates such as Ann Coulter and Karl Rove have already expressed annoyance about this, but they'll never turn back the tide.

We need to start telling them, in large numbers, that they will just have to move to us because we'll never come back to them. An "establishment" (= big-government) Republican candidate is simply an even worse choice than a Democrat, since he will spend just as much, and take just as much of our freedom away -- and the Right will get the blame. Why should we help them make that happen?

The only other option is to run for election yourself, and I agree that because of the way things are, the odds are stacked against you.

That being said, I will continue to vote until that right and privilege is taken away from me. Fraud at the ballot box may happen, but at least I can answer myself and say that I didn't give up.

Bread and Circuses.

The major party learned from that experience.
It will not recur.

imo, by participating I would consent to a system that purposely prevents any new candidate having the desired traits (ethics and favoring individual liberty above all else) from being able to run for national office with a chance of success.
Voting has accomplished nothing of consequence in at least half a century.
Someone else has already determined the outcome long before election day.

One can either choose to vote FOR a candidate, or vote AGAINST another. Or one can "shrug", not vote, and have someone else determine the outcome.

I think we all prefer to be able to vote FOR someone with whom we can identify. And I think many of us have identified that unfortunately, those candidates are few and far between - largely because of the Party apparatus which George Washington warned against but which probably was inevitable to a republican form of government.

Me? I will vote FOR someone as much as possible, vote AGAINST someone where necessary, but in no way will I allow someone else to determine my destiny without my say.

I agreed with abstaining from voting on moral principles for most of my life, but of late it seems I am voting against more than for any one candidate.
Until the Democrat Party cleans up their act and gets rid of the Progressives, I will vote for the Republican running. Even if I have to hold my nose to do it.
We are not a democracy, but there is a large faction in government and within the voting populous that act as if we are. If we keep ignoring this...one day we will wake up as a democracy.
Yeah, some of the candidates on the right stink to high heaven but they are the weapon of choice to throw at this growing threat.

That may be possible. But remember what happened to Ross Perot. Someone threatened his daughter and he dropped out of the race for a while. Got back in and still took 20% of the votes.

Based on his Issues, I would probably vote for him but it isn't just about issues. I dont' know if a GYM manager qualifies for a governor.

I don't have numbers to back my claim (just trying to get this out before my work-day begins) but it "seems" most libertarians or other 3rd parties typically draw from politicians on the right side.

I would like to see, or at least feel confident, that a 3rd party would draw equally from both parties. There are definite problems with Ds and Rs but I have always allied myself with Rs much more than Ds. Voting for a 3rd seems to hurt Rs much more than Ds and gives the Ds the advantage.
I am registered R, but take the primarys very seriously and vote for the R closest to the 3rd party I would, otherwise vote for. It would seem, if we just pulled the R's to allign with our 3rd party we would get both the R-vote, the 3rd party vote and maybe even some D-vote.

I know that I'm not voting for the R or D candidates in my states gubernatorial election. The incumbent is a typical tax the snot out of everyone because he spends too much. The R is not a constitutionalist. He's anti 2nd amendment. sigh... There are very few here worth my vote...

I think this type of third-party-spoiler-vote election should make us re-think laws that do not require a majority for election. We should probably have runoff elections in such cases. That way, the protest vote could still make its protest, but would not necessarily deny election to its natural ally.

Illinois can really do no worse than they're doing now. I don't live in Illinois, but I do live in another "blue" State: New Jersey. If New Jersey is any guide, the Republican is probably a "reasonable Democrat" anyway.

I do to with the exception of any party that does not hold small government values. There has been the communist & green parties in the past that would be no better than our current D+R parties.

I agree wholeheartedly with dbhaling and freedomforall.

"Biting the bullet" is lead poisoning.
If you must vote, then vote for anyone except the R+D party.