Two Parties For Moderates Is One Too Many

The call for a third party in American politics has been long and plaintive. I don't count the Tea Party because it's not a party. It's a movement made up of discontented voters whose most prominent voice is that of Sarah Palin. It was her endorsement that drove some primaries, not theirs. They but followed her lead by voting for a label no matter how outrageous the candidate might be. No, they don't answer the need.

Then came an article in The Wall Street Journal about a group calling themselves The Modern Whigs. I read about them with great interest. Here was an actual organization aimed at being the home of the discontent moderates, regardless of their current affiliations. I signed on so I could have access to what they are doing. So far there hasn't been enough to make them viable as time ticks away toward 2012.

A more recent Wall Street Journal article introduced me to another such effort - the No Labels. Again, I read what I could find about them. They have funding and big names such as Michael Bloomberg. The big names could be a bane or a blessing. The money is definitely a blessing.

Here's the dilemma. I don't want to see them "tea party" themselves by having too many efforts reaching for the same end. A home for moderates.

At this point I don't have to make a choice as to which to support. They are both in their infancy, yet the No Labels seem to have the stronger organization. I have mentioned in previous posts that I felt the Modern Whigs needed a better PR effort to get their name and cause known. A Facebook page does little good if no one knows for what or whom to search. Both are there. Now you know.

I'll be watching and hoping something comes of one of them. I really hope they will talk with one another and somewhere along the line join forces. The common ground is there.

If they want Idaho they'd best begin in the Boise area. There are too few of us in northern Idaho to even gather for a meeting. Aren't there?