Agreed. I think Boner and the rest are thinking in political terms now. Time to put Country first.

Bush 41 was a terrible President. sorry-he was also behind the passing of Sarbox- which helped his oil interests greatly. The problem with a Perot is that running as an independent is not a platform. The Libertarians have a well-thought out platform. You do not have to agree with all of it, but at least you can say yes to this no to that. The Republican platform is a mishmash, middle of the power road, nation destroying machine

"In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent and took 18.9% of the popular vote. Bush 41 lost to Clinton in the popular vote by only 5.6%. If we give Perot's vote to Bush 41, then Bush 41 would have taken California (51 electoral college votes), Colorado (8), Connecticut (8), Delaware (3), Georgia (13), Hawaii (4), Illinois (22), Iowa (7), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Maine (4), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (18), Minnesota (10), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nevada (4), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), Ohio (21), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (23), Rhode Island (4), Tennessee (11), Vermont (3), Washington (11), West Virginia (5), and Wisconsin (11) -- and very narrowly lost Maryland (10) by <0.01% and New York (33) by <0.1%. Conceivably, had Perot's vote all gone for Bush 41, Bush would have won the popular vote 56.4% to 43.0%, taken 47 of 50 states, and won 483 of 538 electoral college votes."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/t...

that is kooky. I did not know that. me too on second comment. I remember when we were all debating a libertarian vote is a throw away vot. When in actuality a third party vote, is something to be greatly feared by the dems and rep. you pull in 10% of a vote based on platforms and both parties stand up and listen. My son has worked up stats on that. I'll see if he's willing to post about that in here...

I have no Objections to the LP, as long as they've stepped back from the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy-kook cliff.

I have no problems with an existing 3rd party as a 3rd party to flee to.
I'm more interested in taking the GOP off of Tea Party life support.

yes, Euda, why not the Libertarian party?

What “objections” do you have to the Libertarian Party?

I agree, Hmm or American Constitution Party, ACP for short.

Naturally,I love the name and the idea. There once was a Liberty party in the mid 1800s. It was an abolitionist party. I would even be able to live with a surging Constitution party. http://www.constitutionparty.com/ It may not be "Objectivist" approved but I could live much more satisfied under it than the current options.

Well then how about Liberty party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fr...

Freedom Party.

And why oh why do we send money to so many other countries? Buying friends is NOT working. It needs to end! We need a NEW third party. What shall we name it?

Yes third party is needed, I am tired of sending our men and women to fight other peoples wars then have them turn around and try and kill us. Enough already!