"Another Ross Perot" isn't what's needed. Another opposition party, also "hopefully ... sane", is what's needed.

There's already another Ross Perot. This one is shrewder (and richer). He's shrewder because he understands that the political system here precludes third parties from getting any real traction. Influence yes. Authority no.

So he's buying one of the existing parties and moving it in the direction he likes. His name is George Soros.

I agree a viable third party would be good for the system. But a strong, rich, and sane figurehead for that third party would certainly be helpful. My money is on Bill Gates... Not that I am a Bill Gates fan mind you, but I could certainly see this happening as he gets older.

Sticky, if Bush caps the medicare spending people are going to get paranoid about social security.

If social security gets dealt with, it will be easier to do what's right with medicare.

Soros? The article says someonw who is sane.

If the Wolves stink in a few years, maybe Mark Cuban will get bored!

who says the republican party is sane? a bunch of lunes over there as well as the left. Third party would only seperate the really luney from the moderately luney and end up with a middle of the road blah blah blah. What would be different?

The only reason Ross got off the ground is because the man who told us "Read my lips. No new taxes!" Gave us the biggest set of new taxes and tax hikes in the history of peace time America. We voted for a conservative in 88. We got a left wing tax and spend liberal.
Had Bush been less liberal, say only raised the current taxes instead of adding on the new taxes he would have got maybe 40% of the vote and Ross would have been down with the Green and Libertarians.
Had Bush governed as a conservative he would have won reelection.

I commented a couple times about this over at my blog. I think this is directionally correct but probably premature. I would not be suprised to see the eventual dissolution of the Democratic party, and then the ascendency of a libetarian splinter goup off of the Republican party. The splinter group will either form their own party, or like the neo-cons, take over the hollow carcass of the opposition party.

Looking at my entry above, my sincere hope is that this new party will take time to teach me to spell!

And I'll wager he'll be a dem.

As long as he has charts, start popping the corn.

Who is John Galt?

If we are waiting for a knight on a white horse, or Shrek riding in on a giant gingerbread-man to a rousing chorus of "I Need a Hero," we might be in for a long wait.

Perhaps we need to fix this ourselves.

-The Prof

Third party? Be careful what you wish for...thanks to Perot we got 8 years of Clinton.

The only way there will be another significant third party candidate is if Bush keeps talking about raising taxes as he expands the government. We got 8 years of Clinton because the Republicans ran two tax and spend, big government liberals that they tried to disguise as conservatives. Sometimes the Republicans think we are as dumb as the Dems do. They both underestimate the intelligence of the average American. Do not blame Ross for Clinton blame the Republicn Party muckymucks.

Shucks. I thought this was gonna be all about the Antichrist.

Maybe Steve Forbes is up for another try. Or some other CEO type, like Jack Welch, though he's probably too old.

I expected Carly Fiorina to run for political office at some point, but it seems less likely now that HP's board kicked her out.

I also expect Meg Whitman (eBay) to run for office at some point -- though not for president.

Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks, not the Minnesota Timberwolves.

I agree with the professor. Forget this waiting for Godot crap. We don't need a 'hero' to save us. A third party is neither here nor there. We as voters need to seize the initiative and start rejecting the status quo candidates and get behind people, Republican, Democrat or whatever, who will actually try to change something in Washington, not just say they will until they get there. We have the power to fix this ourselves and in the end, we get the government we deserve.

It wasn't just taxes that drove the Perot campaign, though they were the majority issue. I know an awful lot of conservatives who wuld've allowed fingernails to be pulled out before they voted for Bush Senior because of the AWB (way to offend your party's core, dude) and because of the slackass way he handled the Gulf War. It won't be taxes that bring in a viable third-party candidate (or not JUST taxes); it'll be practical issues.

The third party effect is now part of the major parties’ strategy. Since Perot and Nader proved third parties strength in only a few states can help decide a close election, it behooves a major party to finance a third party on the opposite side of their political spectrum.

We can expect any third party hopeful will receive help from those with a hidden agenda. Attack ads, pressing the flesh, pithy little terms behind speakers that show up on TV news bytes, blogs for and against (some hidden, some not), and the support of third party hopefuls as a means to torpedo your opponent are all part and pieces of politics.

Yea, verily I say unto thee. Go forth and do likewise.

...and then I will vote for him.

A millionaire doesn't have to be sane. He owns a mansion and a yacht. If only it wasn't for those scwewy wabbits.

Quit wishing for a moral millionaire. As Ross MacDonald wrote: no one gets that much richer than anyone else without breaking some laws.

All that aside - my, er, money is on Mark Cuban on this one. I wonder if his little reality show failure wasn't a tiptoe into the water to see if he could make himself truly a national media figure - which Brother Ross was before he went and got loco.

A couple of quasi-libertarian "pox on both houses" candidates have sprung up here in Kahleeforneeyaaah before Arnold came along - Michael Huffington and Ron Unz. Both tried to buy their way into office (Huff for the Senate, Unz for the governorship) but failed, because there was no message behind the money.

Another possibility that comes to mind is Joe and/or Gavin Maloof, owners of the NBA Sacramento Kings and The Palms resort in Lost Wages, NV. The Maloofs are currently in a political battle of sorts in Sacramento regarding an arena deal - success in that venture may encourage movement elsewhere.

All three of the possibilities (Cuban, the Maloof boys) have boo-koo bucks, are telegenic, have serious media and press outlets to serve them, and are known to put their money where their rather large pie-holes are.

Not that it's relevant to anything, but my older brother's roommate went on to become Mark Cuban's business partner. From far away, it looked as if he tripped and fell into several hundred million dollars. He's nearly falling off the Forbes 400, these days.

Libertarian hearts break all over this great land of ours when people speak of the need for a viable third party. They swear there is one, and it is they. However, we all know they're a bunch of loons...

There's another difference between Perot and Soros that bears mentioning (not that likening the two makes any sense at all to me, to start with): Soros is not eligible to hold the office.

Cuban's definitely the type, but he's not a whole lot less crazy than Perot.

I wouldn't get too excited about Mark Cuban.

1) He is not a Republican or Libertarian.

2) He is far too unattractive to be a political candidate.

3) He is hardly a great public speaker.

Every time I've seen Mark Cuban I've come away with the impression that he is one shot of tequilla away from hosting the next "Girls Gone Wild" video. Besides I think that a president should be able to count to 100 without using touchdown denominations.