Discussion of Working inside the GOP

[parocks]

Shouldn't we just continue doing what we've been doing for the last 72 years or so? We're Conservatives. Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutionalist Conservatives. The more candidates of ours we get elected, the stronger and more influential the Libertarian / Constitutional faction of the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party will be. We make the case that True Conservativism is Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservatism, and then that Conservativism is the core of the Republican Party. Libertarian vs Social Conservatives. Conservatives vs Eastern Establishment. That's why I think Ron Paul is continuing to attack Santorum for no apparent reason. He understands that he, not Santorum, should be considered the leader of the Conservatives, or that his brand of Conservative is the right one, the strong one.

There are 2 parties that win regularly, and Ron Paul's ideas have never been a part of the Democrat tradition, and have always been a part of the Republican tradition.

I expect most people here to be voting for Gary Johnson though.

 

[mstrmac1]

There is not enough of us. Not nearly enough. Third parties don't get in debates; nor get any media time. If it wasn't for that and the fact that we would spend years getting on all of the ballots, it might be worth considering. But, that is not the case. We have to attract a whole lot more people and we need a podium from which to do that. That leaves one of the major parties.

4 years from now if Rand Paul doesn't run in or if Romney gets elected and its a democrat running against him,who will you vote for then... Get it now?

 

[parocks]

Saying that the "Conservatives are enthusiastic this year" could describe what we're doing, instead of "the Ron Paul people are taking over". "This is a good year for the Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservatives, they're turning out for Conventions like never before". Explain it as a natural process, and not a takeover. There has always since Taft, if not longer, been a Limited Constitutional Government Conservative Wing of the Republican Party. Ron Paul is the leader of that wing. We shouldn't be portraying ourselves as outsiders, but the True Conservatives. At this particular moment, there is no reason at all to appeal to anybody but Republicans. Of course, later there will be, but we need to keep our eyes on Tampa, and Independents don't count in Tampa.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There is not enough of us. Not nearly enough. Third parties don't get in debates; nor get any media time. If it wasn't for that and the fact that we would spend years getting on all of the ballots, it might be worth considering. But, that is not the case. We have to attract a whole lot more people and we need a podium from which to do that. That leaves one of the major parties.

No, that leaves BOTH of the major parties, used differently, WITH coordination with liberty third parties. The establishment uses the two party system to marginalize and neutralize principled movements be they both outside OR inside the major parties. We've already seen decades of legislative failure trying to reverse tyranny from inside the major parties, and decades of electoral failure running outside the two parties. Repeating the same 'work inside GOP' mistakes is not enough for us, and we should not be committing to wasting more decades on it. Continuing to seed liberty through third party educational campaigns is valuable, but also insufficient for changing policy.

By not being compromised, the LP and CP provide a primary vetting system for new liberty activists that is independent of the establishment parties. Running for open seats in WHATEVER major party primary situation that arises, drawing from the grassroots base of independent, uncompromised liberty candidates, is the key going forward. Major party versus minor party liberty activism is a false dichotomy. Let's work together, to make progress.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Shouldn't we just continue doing what we've been doing for the last 72 years or so? We're Conservatives. Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutionalist Conservatives.

That means failing for another 72 years. Let's do something else.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm awake bro! Trust me. I'm not saying we haven't made some inroads... Because we have! We are having some mini successes and I can see how many are excited with that. Moving forward is what is next... I just don't think anyone understands what a machine were up against. It is a great opportunity to pull a new brand off... What happens when there is no Ron Paul to lead the movement? You don't think they can divide and conquer us? When we're all mixed in a room it's hard to tell who's who. I think it would be much easier today, moving forward to build our own house. And yes it's only easier because of all the hard work that's been put in trying to infiltrate the party... I get it. Wrong approach. Third party is much more reachable than its ever been.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mstrmac1 again.

 

[Carlybee]

Something everyone is forgetting. We have the ability to raise a lot of money. Something the Libertarian Party and most other 3rd parties can't do. We had a billionaire and a millionaire form SuperPacs for the cause of liberty and Ron Paul. I think you are underestimating resourcefulness with regard to forming a new party. What the big 2 have is the MIC and Big Corps running them. That would be the fly in the ointment.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

That means failing for another 72 years. Let's do something else.

If you can't see how the political scene has changed from 1940 to 2012 with the use of the Internet and social media I can't help but facepalm your post. We're having enormous influence in a very short span of 4 years. We've accomplished more in 4 years than other parties and groups have in the last 50 years! The only office that has alluded our reach thus far has been the Presidency, but mark my words, it's coming! Once again, third parties can't even organize or fund raise to elect a dog catcher, let alone someone to the House of Representative or even more exclusive, the United States Senate. It's a new world now, people are slowly waking up and taking the blinders off, there are more avenues to get news than ever before. The information barriers are failing.

Rand Paul will be the front runner in 2016 and you damn well know Ron will be at arms length as his confidant and most trusted advisor.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Something everyone is forgetting. We have the ability to raise a lot of money. Something the Libertarian Party and most other 3rd parties can't do. We had a billionaire and a millionaire form SuperPacs for the cause of liberty and Ron Paul. I think you are underestimating resourcefulness with regard to forming a new party. What the big 2 have is the MIC and Big Corps running them. That would be the fly in the ointment.

Ron Paul and Liberty movement can raise more money in 24 hours than all third parties have raised since their existence.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Shouldn't we just continue doing what we've been doing for the last 72 years or so? We're Conservatives. Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutionalist Conservatives. The more candidates of ours we get elected, the stronger and more influential the Libertarian / Constitutional faction of the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party will be. We make the case that True Conservativism is Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservatism, and then that Conservativism is the core of the Republican Party. Libertarian vs Social Conservatives. Conservatives vs Eastern Establishment. That's why I think Ron Paul is continuing to attack Santorum for no apparent reason. He understands that he, not Santorum, should be considered the leader of the Conservatives, or that his brand of Conservative is the right one, the strong one.

There are 2 parties that win regularly, and Ron Paul's ideas have never been a part of the Democrat tradition, and have always been a part of the Republican tradition.

I expect most people here to be voting for Gary Johnson though.

It's not that I am disagreeing with everything that you're saying, but there needs to be a history lesson.

First political parties, although unofficial, were known as the Administration and the Anti-Administration. The Administration (led by G. Washington and A. Hamilton) embraced a strong central government and central banking system. The Anti-Administration (lead by T. Jefferson and J. Madison) were against strong central government and stating that central banking was unconstitutional.

The Administration later became known as the Federalist and the Anti-Administration later became the Anti-Federalist. Another issue of division between the parties arose under the Jay Treaty with Britian. Britain was at war with France and France had helped the US during the Revolutionary War against Britain.

After Jefferson was elected in 1801, the Anti-Federalist party had been deemed the Democratic-Republican party. The Federalist faded into non-existance after the War of 1812. After Jefferson was elected, the Democratic-Republican Party was dominate until 1824, known as the First Party System.

In 1825, John Q. Adams was elected President by the House of Reps, but 3 other candidates emerged to contend for Presidency. This was the beginning of the Democratic-Republican party divide, in which one of the 3 contenders was Andrew Jackson. Jackson's political movement at the time was dubbed "Jacksonian Democracy" which was more aligned with the "Jeffersonian Democracy". The are some differences between the two democracies.

The movement of Jacksonian Democracy within the Democratic-Republican party eventually evolved into the Democratic Party. The supporters of Adams (and Henry Clay) later changed their party name to the National Republicans. In 1835, the National Republican party bcame the Whig Party and then in 1852, after the Whig party failed to re-nominate its own current incumbent President Fillmore over an anti-slavery divide; majority of the Whip party's leaders left the party to create the current Republican party.

Andrew Jackson was elected in President in 1828 and re-elected in 1832. In 1829, Jackson, who objected to the bank's unusual political and economic power and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings, called for an investigation into the bank's policies and political agenda as soon as he settled in to the White House. In 1833, Jackson veto'd the renewal charter of the 2nd National Bank of the US, thus removing the central banking system at the time known as the "Bank War".

So to summerize: Both the current Republican and Democratic parties originated from the divide of the Democratic-Republican Party. The original stances of the Deomcratic-Republican party were against a strong centralized goverment and banking. But as time passes, some of the original stances of the party advertly did an about face which eventually led to the creation of the Democratic Party.

After all the rhetoric that is said and then by the opposite action being taken by both current Republican and Democratic parties, it seems as though the 2 current parties have combined back into a Administration / Federalist party.

But that's just my take.

 

[Carlybee]

If you can't see how the political scene has changed from 1940 to 2012 with the use of the Internet and social media I can't help but facepalm your post. We're having enormous influence in a very short span of 4 years. We've accomplished more in 4 years than other parties and groups have in the last 50 years! The only office that has alluded our reach thus far has been the Presidency, but mark my words, it's coming! Once again, third parties can't even organize or fund raise to elect a dog catcher, let alone someone to the House of Representative or even more exclusive, the United States Senate. It's a new world now, people are slowly waking up and taking the blinders off, there are more avenues to get news than ever before. The information barriers are failing.

Rand Paul will be the front runner in 2016 and you damn well know Ron will be at arms length as his confidant and most trusted advisor.

I dont think Rand will be the frontrunner unless he embraces the imperialism and anti-Islamism that runs the GOP agenda.

 

[gte811i]

Ron Paul and Liberty movement can raise more money in 24 hours than all third parties have raised since their existence.

Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing. The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.

All the money in the world can't change that thinking, so it doesn't matter that the Liberty movement can raise more money than all the other 3rd parties. This "Liberty movement should form a third party" is ridiculous . . . people seem to think that if the Liberty movement split from the Rs and formed it's own party (or joined with the Ls) that it would garner more votes and more influence and that the Liberty movements fundraising ability would give it legs. This is twisted logic. Even with all the fundraising RP garnered ~10% of the primary vote. If people think the blackout of RP was bad in the Primary, wait till you go 3rd party, then the blackout becomes a black hole. Wait 'till you go canvassing, now instead of just having to convince one side (the Ds) to switch you've now got to convince both Rs and Ds to switch. Wait 'till you try and get ballot access and need 15,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot?? Hmm, tough choice there . . .

To have a successful third party you first have to become a significant portion of one of the main parties (i.e. ~40%) and then you split to form your own party. If RP Liberty folks take over 20+ states and RNC positions etc. then you can talk about splitting, otherwise it is a fool's game and you will lose most of the momentum.

Be advised I'm not advocating who you personally vote for on a ballot (always vote for the best person).

 

[Carlybee]

Well you can't have a paradigm change by continuing to placate the status quo.

 

[gte811i]

Well you can't have a paradigm change by continuing to placate the status quo.

Who's placating the status quo? I'm not, and I've gotten heavily involved in my local republican party.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Something everyone is forgetting. We have the ability to raise a lot of money. Something the Libertarian Party and most other 3rd parties can't do. We had a billionaire and a millionaire form SuperPacs for the cause of liberty and Ron Paul. I think you are underestimating resourcefulness with regard to forming a new party. What the big 2 have is the MIC and Big Corps running them. That would be the fly in the ointment.

+rep

With the right candidate, we can do this.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing. The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.

That's your opportunity to educate them. Yes, people tend to believe there are only two teams and that they have to be a cheerleader for one or the other. Until that way of thinking gets changed, not much else will.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot?? Hmm, tough choice there . . .

 

[parocks]

That means failing for another 72 years. Let's do something else.

No, we won in 1980. It didn't turn out as well as we planned (so they say, I wasn't there paying attention back then, based on what I know I tend to agree). A bunch of conservatives for years now have gone the Libertarian route. That hasn't helped Ron Paul saw in 1988 how not entirely pointful that was.

We're fighting against the global elites, we aren't very smart either, so we lose a lot. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep fighting. Conservatives like us belong in the Republican Party.

Now, I'm not saying to choose Romney over Johnson in November. I expect more to pick Johnson over Romney. But I'm arguing that the Johnson votes should be cast by Conservative Republicans, and not Libertarians. I'm not saying "don't vote for Libertarians" I'm saying "BE a Conservative Republican" and if that means voting for a Libertarian because the Libertarian is more like a Conservative Republican than the Republican, so be it. It'll be interesting to see whether the Republican can win without the support of Conservative Republicans like us, who are (often) voting for a Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party isn't really much to speak of and it has been around quite a long time, without any successes to speak of. Get the power within the Republican Party and hurt our enemies within the Republican Party. That's what the neocons did. And we outnumber them.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing. The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.

All the money in the world can't change that thinking, so it doesn't matter that the Liberty movement can raise more money than all the other 3rd parties. This "Liberty movement should form a third party" is ridiculous . . . people seem to think that if the Liberty movement split from the Rs and formed it's own party (or joined with the Ls) that it would garner more votes and more influence and that the Liberty movements fundraising ability would give it legs. This is twisted logic. Even with all the fundraising RP garnered ~10% of the primary vote. If people think the blackout of RP was bad in the Primary, wait till you go 3rd party, then the blackout becomes a black hole. Wait 'till you go canvassing, now instead of just having to convince one side (the Ds) to switch you've now got to convince both Rs and Ds to switch. Wait 'till you try and get ballot access and need 15,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot?? Hmm, tough choice there . . .

To have a successful third party you first have to become a significant portion of one of the main parties (i.e. ~40%) and then you split to form your own party. If RP Liberty folks take over 20+ states and RNC positions etc. then you can talk about splitting, otherwise it is a fool's game and you will lose most of the momentum.

Be advised I'm not advocating who you personally vote for on a ballot (always vote for the best person).

Please see this post

.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If you can't see how the political scene has changed from 1940 to 2012 with the use of the Internet and social media I can't help but facepalm your post. We're having enormous influence in a very short span of 4 years. We've accomplished more in 4 years than other parties and groups have in the last 50 years! The only office that has alluded our reach thus far has been the Presidency, but mark my words, it's coming! Once again, third parties can't even organize or fund raise to elect a dog catcher, let alone someone to the House of Representative or even more exclusive, the United States Senate. It's a new world now, people are slowly waking up and taking the blinders off, there are more avenues to get news than ever before. The information barriers are failing.

Rand Paul will be the front runner in 2016 and you damn well know Ron will be at arms length as his confidant and most trusted advisor.

What federal budget has been even a single dollar less than it was the year before? What major program of the welfare-warfare state has been repealed? What major bad decision (liberty wise) of the Supreme Court has been overturned? Apart from a few elections here and there, it's been NOTHING. Those are the objective big picture markers, policy wise, of real progress in reversing the march of the Total State. An election win here or there are token victories by comparison. Those who keep looking at elections exclusively, while not noticing the policy never changes, fail before they start. I say disparage this racket, not the third parties that are wise to it.

We've started achieving things since the Internet era, with the rise of alternative media, which has given us a bigger voice and an affordable and efficient way to network nationwide. We've been able to use it to build a much bigger grassroots base that can effectively raise money for the right candidate, and better mobilize the existing base of liberty activists (mostly from THE THIRD PARTIES). In other words, only by going around the establishment party and media matrix, have we been able to start getting somewhere. That is the 'something else' we have to keep moving towards, an organized movement that coordinates independently of the major parties, so that it doesn't get co-opted or marginalized by them. Use the establishment parties as leverage to get into office, but otherwise don't get into their hip pocket. Those who stay in that pocket, will continue to get squished.