Discussion of Working inside the GOP

[Peace&Freedom]

The fact that there are Liberty Republicans winning races, advocating a non-interventionist FP and civil liberties is a testament to that. The more voices we have in the House and Senate, I feel we will have less resistance to our FP and CL stances come 2016 or 2020.

Here, here! There's been no official Libertarian elected to House or Senate in their history. We've elected several Liberty candidates to both House and Senate and are poised to do it again. Results speak for themselves.

Are they starting to win because of within-GOP organizing, or because area or national grassroots support, from both within and outside the party? If the latter, it more backs up the "whole movement collaboration, but based independently of the GOP" integration model. In any case, let's see if the "liberty Republicans' go on to have a liberty voting record (ala Paul's) to verify their commitment. And will they maintain that record, once worked over by the PACs and big donors?

 

[tbone717]

Are they starting to win because of within-GOP organizing, or because area or national grassroots support, from both within and outside the party? If the latter, it more backs up the "whole movement collaboration, work independently of the GOP" integration model. In any case, let's see if the "liberty Republicans' go on to have a liberty voting record to verify their commitment. And will they maintain that record, once worked over by the PACs and big donors?

Well I can best speak for my own county. Our State Senator first won in 06 and was reelected in 10. His support came from both the county committee and his own grassroots base. His voting record is sound.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the big advantages of having Liberty Movement activists work within the local GOP is the accessibility to the infrastructure of the party, once we have a majority or near majority presence on the county committee. The mailing lists, the donor lists, the ability to organize events and fundraisers, and the county GOP endorsements are all in the hands of liberty-minded folks if we have that presence. Having access to that infrastructure gives liberty candidates for state or federal office, a major upper hand on their competition.

Again, using the example of our State Senator, if he were to have a challenger for the nomination in 2014 (let's say a neo-con type, or establishment moderate type), that challenger would not be endorsed by our county GOP, he would not have the hundreds of volunteers that stand at the polls on election day passing out the county endorsement ballot, etc.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't think it matters all that much whether a good Liberty candidate has the GOP label, the LP label, or even the label of a new party that we could start. The grassroots for Liberty have been organized now (thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paul) and we would learn about that candidate...we would still put out the same effort to canvass, phone, donate, etc. I don't think the GOP deserves us, quite frankly.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

I love TBone... he's the only one here who tries to base his opinions in reality and he's consistently slammed over and over, as well as infracted and banned, for doing so.

Keep fighting TBone...

 

[tbone717]

I don't think it matters all that much whether a good Liberty candidate has the GOP label, the LP label, or even the label of a new party that we could start. The grassroots for Liberty have been organized now (thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paul) and we would learn about that candidate...we would still put out the same effort to canvass, phone, donate, etc. I don't think the GOP deserves us, quite frankly.

A lot of it boils down to the allocation of time and resources. So hypothetically let's say that in 2014 there are two major races occurring in an activist's immediate area, a US House race and a State Senate race. For examples sake, let's say that the CD race has an incumbent Republican (not a liberty candidate), a liberal Dem, and an LP candidate - in this race the incumbent Repub has a huge lead in the polls. The State Senate race has a Liberty Republican and a liberal Dem - this race is a dead heat.

So, our activist in question only has so much time and money that he/she can devote to activism. Do they split the time and money between the LP House candidate and the State Senate candidate? Or do they concentrate all their efforts on the winnable State Senate race?

While you are right that labels should not matter, the reality is that each one of us only has so much time and money to dedicate to working for a candidate. If we make the best use of the time and money we have then we can see this movement continue to grow and have greater representation in government.

 

[Carlybee]

A lot of liberty candidates running under the GOP bannner who have been successful have also been under the national media radar. If the media had the power to marginalize Ron Paul enough to lose Iowa where he was favored, how on earth do you think that won't be any different when the establishment decides to join forces with them in order to save their party from a "takeover"?

 

[tbone717]

A lot of liberty candidates running under the GOP bannner who have been successful have also been under the national media radar. If the media had the power to marginalize Ron Paul enough to lose Iowa where he was favored, how on earth do you think that won't be any different when the establishment decides to join forces with them in order to save their party from a "takeover"?

House races and State legislature races usually do not have the power of the media attack machine behind them like we see in state wide races. Nonetheless, we deal with situations as they come up. Personally, I would rather continue the hard work, then worry about the "what ifs".

And again, the crux of the plan is individual involvement on the local level. If Liberty activists run for offices like committeeman, they have the opportunity to have great influence, if not majority control over their county GOP. The best thing that we as individuals can do is stay involved on a local level, and additionally financially support candidates that are out of our local areas if we have the means.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

A lot of liberty candidates running under the GOP bannner who have been successful have also been under the national media radar. If the media had the power to marginalize Ron Paul enough to lose Iowa where he was favored, how on earth do you think that won't be any different when the establishment decides to join forces with them in order to save their party from a "takeover"?

Granted the campaign should've prepared a response to the "Racist newsletters" smear job. They had to know it was going to come and we'd get hit over the head with it, especially at zero hour in Iowa. The campaign's response was to send Dr. Paul into hiding in Texas and cease campaigning in the waning hours. They also had zero campaign commercial response to the accusation. The Revolution Super PAC had to step in and set the record straight and did so beautifully, albeit too late for Iowa. The damage had been done.

My two biggest campaign grips are: not knowing who Sacha Baron Cohen is and not being properly prepared to deal with the "Racist Newsletters" allegations.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't think it matters all that much whether a good Liberty candidate has the GOP label, the LP label, or even the label of a new party that we could start. The grassroots for Liberty have been organized now (thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paul) and we would learn about that candidate...we would still put out the same effort to canvass, phone, donate, etc. I don't think the GOP deserves us, quite frankly.

Duly noted. Hey I think "Libertarian" sounds cooler than Republican, but running as third party you're not only fighting to get your message out, but the near insurmountable stigma that voting for you is a wasted vote. You end up in philosophical third party political debates and not enough about you as a candidate. Add to that little to no fund raising because who wants to waste their money supporting someone who doesn't have a chance...you see where I'm going with this? This is the prevailing attitude you're up against.

Maybe 50 years from now when we control the Republican party, and therefore country, we can reeducate the populace, streamline our elections, and dissolve built in bias against third parties. But that is a very long term endeavor.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling. ~50% of people will vote one way or the other, so restoring one of those ways to liberty becomes a win. The vast majority of republicans champion most of our issues and can likely take on more of the foreign policy/civil liberties stances when the RP name is not immediately involved so the media and radio mafia can drag it through the mud.

I agree.

As for foreign policy, I think the GOP will go back to the typical conservative non-ideological stance (which excludes Ron Paul/Rothbardian non-interventionism ideology as much as the 2nd generation of neoconservatives internationalism/interventionism) as the memory of 9/11 and the following Bush wars wanes. The platform will be more similar to a Taft/Eisenhower/Nixon approach.

As for "civil liberties" (I don't like that expression, liberties are liberties), I think that the TSA, PIPAs and Obamacare mandates have already moved the GOP base a lot. I notice that in conservative websites like Hotair or RedState the support for, say, the Patriot Act extension among commentators is now a minority position when it used to be almost hegemonic a couple of years ago.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree.

As for foreign policy, I think the GOP will go back to the typical conservative non-ideological stance (which excludes Ron Paul/Rothbardian non-interventionism ideology as much as the 2nd generation of neoconservatives internationalism/interventionism) as the memory of 9/11 and the following Bush wars wanes. The platform will be more similar to a Taft/Eisenhower/Nixon approach.

As for "civil liberties" (I don't like that expression, liberties are liberties), I think that the TSA, PIPAs and Obamacare mandates have already moved the GOP base a lot. I notice that in conservative websites like Hotair or RedState the support for, say, the Patriot Act extension among commentators is now a minority position when it used to be almost hegemonic a couple of years ago.

Just wait until the GOP is back in power, Hotair and RedState will go right back to cheering for the PATRIOT Act and the rest so we can kill terrorists.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Working within the two party system isn't for everyone. Some people just don't have the disposition and temper for it and that's perfectly fine.

What you can't expect to work though is to be in and out at the same time. You can't attack the GOP (or the Dems) in the morning and call them the enemy and then in the afternoon work within the party. Every group that has attempted to do that ended up purged and for good reason.

Each individual needs to choose a way of acting in the political arena and then take full responsibilities for that choice. If you decide to be a partisan, you're expected to act like one.

 

[tbone717]

Duly noted. Hey I think "Libertarian" sounds cooler than Republican, but running as third party you're not only fighting to get your message out, but the near insurmountable stigma that voting for you is a wasted vote. You end up in philosophical third party political debates and not enough about you as a candidate. Add to that little to no fund raising because who wants to waste their money supporting someone who doesn't have a chance...you see where I'm going with this? This is the prevailing attitude you're up against.

Add manpower to that. Our county has 55 polling locations. Polls are open from 7a to 8p - that's 715 man hours needed to have people at the polls handing out literature. Our county GOP has the volunteers that are willing to do the work. Typically about 200 volunteers are needed for this, as most people can only dedicate a few hours to the work.

 

[EBounding]

Everyone on this forum should read this:

The Real Nature of Politics and Politicians: America’s System Works, but Not the Way You Think!

Here's some important excerpts:

In America, through a brilliant system of rewards and punishments, checks and balances, and diffusion of authority, we have acquired a habit and history of politics mostly without violence and excessive corruption.

The good news for you and me is that the system works.

The bad news is it is hard, and sometimes unpleasant work, for us to succeed in enacting policy.

There is absolutely no reason for you to spend your time, talent, and money in politics except for this: If you do not, laws will be written and regulations enforced by folks with little or no interest in your well-being.

Sometimes, activists make the local newspaper or media the target. The thinking goes, “If we can just get them to understand the problem, things will change.” It is fortunate that this is not correct, because the media in the U.S. is overwhelmingly committed to big government, gun control, and the supremacy of state-controlled education over parent controlled education.

The fact is newspapers cast no votes. The national evening news controls no elections. If this were not true, Ronald Reagan would never have been President

 

[cajuncocoa]

Duly noted. Hey I think "Libertarian" sounds cooler than Republican, but running as third party you're not only fighting to get your message out, but the near insurmountable stigma that voting for you is a wasted vote. You end up in philosophical third party political debates and not enough about you as a candidate. Add to that little to no fund raising because who wants to waste their money supporting someone who doesn't have a chance...you see where I'm going with this? This is the prevailing attitude you're up against.

Maybe 50 years from now when we control the Republican party, and therefore country, we can reeducate the populace, streamline our elections, and dissolve built in bias against third parties. But that is a very long term endeavor.

Let me address your second point first: I don't think the country can survive another 50 years under the current system.

No matter what label under which our liberty candidates run, we still have educating to do in order to turn "running" into "getting elected". We already had to fight to get our message out. Ron Paul participated in several GOP debates, but I know many here remember how disgusted we were when he wasn't getting equal time to answer questions. And the mainstream GOP members in the audience in S.C. (IIRC) booed him when he invoked the golden rule!! As long as those people are not on board with our message, we can't win unless we pretend to be one of them.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

And the mainstream GOP members in the audience in S.C. (IIRC) booed him when he invoked the golden rule!! As long as those people are not on board with our message, we can't win unless we pretend to be one of them.

The jury is still out on whether the booing was orchestrated by Fox having placed key people in the audience to invoke said response as they scripted that certain question towards Ron. Either way, it could also be just herd mentality that was started by a few and many others there followed along because they were preconditioned to come off negative toward Ron on foreign policy related matters.

In general the bottom line is, the Ron part of Paul is a permanently tarnished name amongst the conservative base because of the repeated attacks by the MSM and radio mafia over a 5 year period. Hence, Rand is playing safe with his terminology when commenting on foreign policy subjects so as to not bury himself before he has a shot at it. The way he campaigned for Senate in KY is the way we'll likely see him campaign for prez and it won't be to the liking of the purists. Basically, those of us around here that trust him based upon his voting record will be running cover for him not throwing truth bombs because the purists will be bickering over every little thing. Normally, I'd be considered a purist but I guess I lose that label when I see the need for going stealth so as not to be sabotaged in the media which is sometimes hard to fight off especially in a larger ballpark.

 

[sailingaway]

The jury is still out on whether the booing was orchestrated by Fox having placed key people in the audience to invoke said response as they scripted that certain question towards Ron. Either way, it could also be just herd mentality that was started by a few and many others there followed along because they were preconditioned to come off negative toward Ron on foreign policy related matters.

In general the bottom line is, the Ron part of Paul is a permanently tarnished name amongst the conservative base because of the repeated attacks by the MSM and radio mafia over a 5 year period. Hence, Rand is playing safe with his terminology when commenting on foreign policy subjects so as to not bury himself before he has a shot at it. The way he campaigned for Senate in KY is the way we'll likely see him campaign for prez and it won't be to the liking of the purists. Basically, those of us around here that trust him based upon his voting record will be running cover for him not throwing truth bombs because the purists will be bickering over every little thing. Normally, I'd be considered a purist but I guess I lose that label when I see the need for going stealth so as not to be sabotaged in the media which is sometimes hard to fight off especially in a larger ballpark.

RON is the only one with the record to show what he says is what he will do, and isn't just pandering. That, and the fact that he is the only one who never panders.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Well I can best speak for my own county. Our State Senator first won in 06 and was reelected in 10. His support came from both the county committee and his own grassroots base. His voting record is sound.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the big advantages of having Liberty Movement activists work within the local GOP is the accessibility to the infrastructure of the party, once we have a majority or near majority presence on the county committee. The mailing lists, the donor lists, the ability to organize events and fundraisers, and the county GOP endorsements are all in the hands of liberty-minded folks if we have that presence. Having access to that infrastructure gives liberty candidates for state or federal office, a major upper hand on their competition.

Again, using the example of our State Senator, if he were to have a challenger for the nomination in 2014 (let's say a neo-con type, or establishment moderate type), that challenger would not be endorsed by our county GOP, he would not have the hundreds of volunteers that stand at the polls on election day passing out the county endorsement ballot, etc.

That liberty incumbency has not stopped establishment GOP leaders from trying, repeatedly in the case of Paul over the years, to get him out of his House seat, including even recasting the district. The internal lists and organized events have value, but access can also be infiltrated by the enemy, especially if you choose to sleep with the enemy within the same structure. The worry right now, for example, is that the CFL lists, donors and volunteers built up meticulously by Paul over the years will be forked over to the regular GOP universe, to back the candidacies of prowar/pro-Fed hacks in the interests of "getting along" with the rest of the party. Again, access can cut both ways.

The real way to judge efficiency of use of resources is in terms of what you are trying to achieve, as it bears on the available opportunities to realistically achieve it. Nearly all districts are gerrymandered to ensure either a Dem or GOP wins the election, and stays in office, but 5% of those are open seats, or "Weinergate" scandal situations where there is an opening. If the point is to have liberty candidates win more seats, and our agenda is clearly different than either that of standard Republicans or Democrats, why restrict yourself to wearing only one shoe? Since open seats come up in both safe Democratic and safe Republican districts, how is it the best use of liberty activists' resources to ignore 50% of the best opportunities for getting our candidates in office?

An independent grassroots can field, vet and support liberty candidates for BOTH open seat Republican and open seat Democratic primary races, while a GOP-only effort cannot. What is the primary loyalty here, getting liberty candidates more seats, or getting Republicans more seats? If the latter, it leads to wasting more time trying to get liberty Republicans elected in uphill situations (in both the primary and the election) that are not honestly winnable, because we have restricted our efforts to only one big party universe. Relatively speaking, open seats are lay-ups, compared to 50 ft jumpshot attempts against incumbents. Focusing on the latter structurally sets up activists for failure from the outset, while abandoning half the playing field. That is not the best or the optimal use of the movement's time to accomplish its electoral goals.

 

[tbone717]

An independent grassroots can field, vet and support liberty candidates for BOTH open seat Republican and open seat Democratic races, while a GOP-only effort cannot. What is the primary loyalty here, getting liberty candidates more seats, or getting Republicans more seats? If the latter, it leads to wasting more time trying to get liberty Republicans elected in uphill situations (in both the primary and the election) that are not honestly winnable, because we have restricted our efforts to only one big party universe. Relatively speaking, open seats are lay-ups, compared to 50 ft jumpshot attempts against incumbents. It structurally sets up activists for failure from the outset. That is not the best or the optimal use of the movement's time to accomplish its electoral goals.

The GOP is the path of least resistance. Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see his supporters continue with an active role of involvement in the GOP. I have not heard anyone from C4L, the Paul campaign, or any other connected organization suggest the idea of working in the Democratic party. If that is your desire to do so, you are free to choose whichever path you wish. However, the plan as it has been communicated is to work locally within the GOP.

Look I get that you disagree with the strategy, but this is the plan as most of us here understand is being communicated to us from Paul, Hunter, etc. If you choose to be an "independent activist" you are free to do so.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The jury is still out on whether the booing was orchestrated by Fox having placed key people in the audience to invoke said response as they scripted that certain question towards Ron. Either way, it could also be just herd mentality that was started by a few and many others there followed along because they were preconditioned to come off negative toward Ron on foreign policy related matters.

In general the bottom line is, the Ron part of Paul is a permanently tarnished name amongst the conservative base because of the repeated attacks by the MSM and radio mafia over a 5 year period. Hence, Rand is playing safe with his terminology when commenting on foreign policy subjects so as to not bury himself before he has a shot at it. The way he campaigned for Senate in KY is the way we'll likely see him campaign for prez and it won't be to the liking of the purists. Basically, those of us around here that trust him based upon his voting record will be running cover for him not throwing truth bombs because the purists will be bickering over every little thing. Normally, I'd be considered a purist but I guess I lose that label when I see the need for going stealth so as not to be sabotaged in the media which is sometimes hard to fight off especially in a larger ballpark.

RON is the only one with the record to show what he says is what he will do, and isn't just pandering. That, and the fact that he is the only one who never panders.

Agreed, sailingaway....I'm not interested in another politician who panders. It's time for cold, hard truth and that's what Dr. Paul always gave us. If Rand can't do that, he won't be my candidate in 2016. Perhaps I won't have a candidate in 2016...but I'm not going to vote for anyone who appears to play ball with neocons.