A crushing defeat for GOP should be welcomed by Libertarians

[LibertyEagle]

this should open the Incredibly shut door to 3rd party candidates.

Should, but likely won't. Unfortunately, we still have a two party system in this country. If we do not take back one of those, we don't stand a chance.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What about the Libertarian party's treatment of Ron? Remember Barr's blog? What about the Libertarian REASON magazine and their treatment of Ron?

Since we're apparently wanting to slam groups, what do you think should happen to these groups?

Nice "gotcha". The beltway libertarians were just as hostile, if not more so.

I'm not in favor of "taking back" the GOP, however. From Goldwater to Reagan to Bush to now, for 40 years, people have been trying to do just that, and, well, you see what it has gotten us.

I'm in favor of starting fresh, in a perfect situation, secession of a state or group of states. Barring that, a new party.

Let the GOP be the new Whigs and die off.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm in favor of starting fresh, in a perfect situation, secession of a state or group of states. Barring that, a new party.

What if we do not have a "perfect situation", AF? Are you willing to bet everything on the hope that we will?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, goodie for you. You realize however, that Ron Paul suggested that we take back the Republican Party, right?

I realize this. However, I have a mind of my own. I think RP is wrong on this. Note that he also recommended in at least one occasion the importance of supporting 3rd party opposition to the republicrats (especially in this particular presidential race, and many local ones). He also endorsed Chuck Baldwin-not McShame.

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

The destruction of the Republican party would be such a bad situation for us all. Think of the all the fervent Republicans still very much asleep to what's really happening who will feel completely disenfranchised if their party crumbles. They will see Obama and socialism as the enemy that needs to be utterly eradicated. We will see the birth of an extremist party in America that will rise quickly out of the ashes of nationalism.

Didn't I read about that happening somewhere else?

edit* What is a "party" but a group of individuals with like beliefs and goals. Change the mind of the individual and you'll change the party.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I realize this. However, I have a mind of my own. I think RP is wrong on this. Note that he also recommended in at least one occasion the importance of supporting 3rd party opposition to the republicrats (especially in this particular presidential race, and many local ones). He also endorsed Chuck Baldwin-not McShame.

Of course he did. We have not taken over the Republican party YET. We should always vote for the best candidate, regardless of party.

It will take a lot of hard work. Not everyone is going to want to participate.

 

[klamath]

Many are showing their inexperience in politics in this thread. I have been following elections since 1976 and the losing party acording to the pundits is always dead. Two years of Obama and the GOP will be very energized. In 1992 the GOP was dead, Clinton won, Perot took 19% with the reform party and bush senior won less the 40% of the vote. Two years later the GOP won 50 house seats and 10 senate seats holding for the first time both houses in 40 years.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What if we do not have a "perfect situation", AF? Are you willing to bet everything on the hope that we will?

Yes.

If the opportunity presents itself, and I'm doing all I can to make that happen, I'd be willing to stake it all (money, job, home, family, life) on a shot at secession based on returning to sound freedom, foreign policy and economic principles.

Call it, "re-setting the clock to zero".

 

[Anti Federalist]

Many are showing their inexperience in politics in this thread. I have been following elections since 1976 and the losing party acording to the pundits is always dead. Two years of Obama and the GOP will be very energized. In 1992 the GOP was dead, Clinton won, Perot took 19% with the reform party and bush senior won less the 40% of the vote. Two years later the GOP won 50 house seats and 10 senate seats holding for the first time both houses in 40 years.

I've been doing the same since 1980.

Until recently the GOP held a majority of the House, the Senate, the White House and has appointed majority of federal judges at all levels, and, for a while, had a majority of state governors and houses.

And how is liberty doing today, in 2008?

The "system" is designed to appear to swing back and forth, to give the illusion that one side or the other is "winning". It is also very good at marginalizing any message or people that might gum up the works.

This is why the national GOP has been targeting Ron Paul for defeat, giving covert and not so covert support to primary challengers and even, if I'm not mistake, democrats, running against him in years past.

We are not welcome in the GOP, and any strides we might make within the GOP would be quickly neutralized.

 

[BeFranklin]

I realize this. However, I have a mind of my own. I think RP is wrong on this. Note that he also recommended in at least one occasion the importance of supporting 3rd party opposition to the republicrats (especially in this particular presidential race, and many local ones). He also endorsed Chuck Baldwin-not McShame.

I think we can do both at the same time. In fact it may be to our advantage to do so.

 

[klamath]

I've been doing the same since 1980.

Until recently the GOP held a majority of the House, the Senate, the White House and has appointed majority of federal judges at all levels, and, for a while, had a majority of state governors and houses.

And how is liberty doing today, in 2008?

The "system" is designed to appear to swing back and forth, to give the illusion that one side or the other is "winning". It is also very good at marginalizing any message or people that might gum up the works.

This is why the national GOP has been targeting Ron Paul for defeat, giving covert and not so covert support to primary challengers and even, if I'm not mistake, democrats, running against him in years past.

We are not welcome in the GOP, and any strides we might make within the GOP would be quickly neutralized.

No. Our problem is that 95% of the Americans believe in socialism to some degree or another and the two party shift is only reflecting a small discontent from one party to another. We have a lot of work ahead of us convincing 60 million voters that freedom and personal responsibility is the way. It isn't the parties it is the people that we have to convince.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No. Our problem is that 95% of the Americans believe in socialism to some degree or another and the two party shift is only reflecting a small discontent from one party to another. We have a lot of work ahead of us convincing 60 million voters that freedom and personal responsibility is the way. It isn't the parties it is the people that we have to convince.

Hmm, I suppose so.

I don't know that much work will be required.

That 95% will get the message when Uncle Sucker goes tits up.

Which is looking like it could be next week sometime.

 

[Liberty Star]

My only concern (albeit a big one) is Obama's supreme court appointments. McCain's picks would be much better, no doubt.

Bush/Cheney were pretty "conservative" on judges front, would you support keeping them for four more years?

 

[klamath]

Hmm, I suppose so.

I don't know that much work will be required.

That 95% will get the message when Uncle Sucker goes tits up.

Which is looking like it could be next week sometime.

The trouble is people have lost their butts in the private sector ie 401k's and such. So far the government has always been able to come up with money for hand outs throughout history so the people turn to what has always saved them. The day the government really goes broke and cannot bail people out is they day they will turn back to themselves for security.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The trouble is people have lost their butts in the private sector ie 401k's and such. So far the government has always been able to come up with money for hand outs throughout history so the people turn to what has always saved them. The day the government really goes broke and cannot bail people out is they day they will turn back to themselves for security.

12 trillion in the hole.

I'd call that pretty broke.

Government might be able to "bail out" some people, but it would be with worthless FRNs.

A nationwide "Katrina" at all levels, political, economic and social.

What could be rebuilt from that would better than what was there before.

That's what I hope anyway.

 

[klamath]

12 trillion in the hole.

I'd call that pretty broke.

Government might be able to "bail out" some people, but it would be with worthless FRNs.

A nationwide "Katrina" at all levels, political, economic and social.

What could be rebuilt from that would better than what was there before.

That's what I hope anyway.

It may very well be coming. I quit predicting when the collapse was going to happen as I have been hearing that the collapse was imminent for nearly forty years. I know it will happen if we keep going the way we are but damned if I know exactly when that will be. As long as that wheel barrow load of FRNs still buys food and a shelter the people will greatfully lap up to the government.

 

[Original_Intent]

Agree with OP.

And most important election in the next four years+1day is 2010. We have got to get more RonPaul congressmen. Non presidential year elections usually have lousy turn out, if we stay focussed we could have some big wins.

Hope a lot of rascals get thrown out tomorrow too.

 

[anotherone]

I agree. Die, Die, Neocons, Die.

Besides. Trumped up wars are much more expensive (and much less moral) than government health care programs, and so I'd prefer a Dem Commander in Chief over the current Repubs.

I'll be voting LP.