Discussion of Working inside the GOP

[Kluge]

It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.

I was asking "respect38." The GOP was far more respectable back in the day (I'd say prior to Reagan) and wasn't evangelical until him either. And you do know that neoconservatism is a relatively recent phenomenon too, don't you?

 

[sailingaway]

It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.

Actually, the evangelical part isn't accurate. That is with the Bush's. The neocons manipulate the evangelicals to be their foot soldiers by holding things out (like convincing them only the never achievable 'federal solution' to abortion counts so they shouldn't even go for returning it to the states). Obviously, if those few hot button issues are achieved, they would lose their foot soldiers.

Our sort were, then, if you will, a FACTION of the GOP and one that had a real power base. so we are getting that back, then.

I have no particular preference for in GOP or out. I see pros and cons. But if we were out would we all stick together, after Ron leaves politics? Because we'd have to to have a chance doing anything else.

Also, I think the law suit should be modified and name the states as coconspirators based on their ballot preference to the two main parties, making us disenfranchised when one otherwise private party cheats this way. Go for ballot access. Unless I am missing something.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I won't disagree with that, and that's fine. We used them to get into the debates and grow our movement. Now would be a good time to take our liberty movement to another party (or one that we start ourselves) before the GOP completely co-opts us the way they did to the Tea Party. I don't ever want to see another so-called "liberty candidate" endorsing Mitt Romney or some other neocon.

Added on edit: if this means our growth is stalled or that we never win an election, at least we can hold up our heads. If we can't connect with others on our ideas alone, then our country is doomed anyway. What's the point of having a "liberty movement" if we sell out our values to the establishment?

Perot failed. Buchanan failed. Ventura failed.

They all had flash in the pan type third party movements and they all dissipated into nothingness and became a footnote to history. Once Romney loses, we have a great opportunity to get one of our guys in the Presidency come 2016. Rand will be a major front-runner for the office, if not the front-runner. Thomas Massie will also be in position to fill Rand's Senate seat. So not only are we having election success getting our guys into Congress, we're beginning to see a graduated formula for liberty candidates to step up into a minor office (County Judge Executive, State House, State Senate) and advance to another office when the guy above you moves up the ladder. Third parties can't even win minor offices, let alone respectfully fund raise. There is way too much cost in terms of education you need to do with the general public to run third party. You start deviating from your message into trying to justify your existence to skeptical, uneducated, voters. Starting a new party amounts to pushing on string, especially in light of the success we've been having taking over the Republican party.

 

[V3n]

The 2 parties have been in power too long, and one of the only things they agree on is "don't let there be a 3rd". They've designed everything to prevent a 3rd party from gaining anything.

I hear "get Gary Johnson in the debates!" - but the two parties RUN the debates. They will never allow a 3rd party in. Our only choice is to RETAKE (not infiltrate) the GOP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by Federal US tax laws,[1] whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.[2]

The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.

The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk, a former head of the Democratic National Committee. Under the leadership of these two former heads of party, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls. This rule is considered controversial as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of two parties instead of the 10 or so parties that are actually running for President of the United States.

Oh.. and most of the "national polls" are run by biased organizations as well.. These parties are so entrenched and willing to protect each other to keep a new party out, 3rd party has no chance until we can retake one of the existing and open the doors for a 3rd.

 

[TheGrinch]

It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.

So if you don't like something, you just turn your head and pretend it doesn't exist? Fact stands that the two-party monopoly exists to make it far more difficult for a 3rd party to gain traction. It's been tried for years to little avail...

We're continuing to make more gains then we've ever seen, while the corruption of the local GOPs continues to be exposed.

Republican is nothing mroe than a word that's meaning has changed over time, depending on who's in charge. I think far too many focus on labels, when we have the opportunity to change it (or in many ways bring the term back to what it claims to be: small government).

If we reinforce their meme that "we don't belong", then all that does is enable them and the democrats to maintain their control and sink this country with debt and warfare. So how bout forget about party affiliations, the stakes are too high not to try to make as many gains as we can before it's too late, and it's evident that this is the only route we even have a chance to make change in the short-term.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.

I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.

So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.

So go join the Socialist party and we'll continue doing what we're doing and we can compare notes. Since we're already electing our guys to major Federal offices, people directly from these forums!...Think about that for a moment. We'll win this argument. Paul supporters had this debate 4 years ago, and Ron told everyone what we should do and its starting to bare fruit.

 

[specsaregood]

The 2 parties have been in power too long, and one of the only things they agree on is "don't let there be a 3rd". They've designed everything to prevent a 3rd party from gaining anything.

I hear "get Gary Johnson in the debates!" - but the two parties RUN the debates. They will never allow a 3rd party in. Our only choice is to RETAKE (not infiltrate) the GOP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

and they even make it a point to not use taxdollars to fund the debates, preventing people from making an argument for inclusion of other candidates based on that.

 

[TXcarlosTX]

NEO-CONS infiltrated. It took them many years. Look at them now!!!

I'm just saying...

 

[V3n]

and they even make it a point to not use taxdollars to fund the debates, preventing people from making an argument for inclusion of other candidates based on that.

Good catch!! (or you probably knew that before! - good point!!)

The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by Federal US tax laws,[1] whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.[2]

 

[specsaregood]

Good catch!! (or you probably knew that before! - good point!!)

Yeah, if people were serious about trying to get other candidates in those debates, they would team up the LP, CP, GP, etc party supporters and start an organized effort to target the sponsors telling them they'll boycott or whatever if they sponsor the exclusive debates. Since they don't yet have listed sponsors for these next debates I guess it would be good to preempt by contacting last years sponsors (conveniently listed on their website)

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=national-debate-sponsors

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Actually, the evangelical part isn't accurate. That is with the Bush's. The neocons manipulate the evangelicals to be their foot soldiers by holding things out (like convincing them only the never achievable 'federal solution' to abortion counts so they shouldn't even go for returning it to the states). Obviously, if those few hot button issues are achieved, they would lose their foot soldiers.

Our sort were, then, if you will, a FACTION of the GOP and one that had a real power base. so we are getting that back, then.

I have no particular preference for in GOP or out. I see pros and cons. But if we were out would we all stick together, after Ron leaves politics? Because we'd have to to have a chance doing anything else.

Also, I think the law suit should be modified and name the states as coconspirators based on their ballot preference to the two main parties, making us disenfranchised when one otherwise private party cheats this way. Go for ballot access. Unless I am missing something.

I think we'd splinter and scatter to the wind in a third party. Ron's liberty movement will succeed, where other movements have failed, because we have a unifying theme of Liberty and we're working inside a major party. That party will incrementally be imbued with our Liberty values. Our people will be in positions to help newbies getting their feet wet in the political process. We'll revolutionize the party and new voters will come flooding in.

 

[Victor Grey]

 

[LibertyRevolution]

One other thing 99.9% of everyone currently here on these forums wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Ron Paul running in 2007 under a major party and getting into the debates. Those debates appearances in front of millions of viewers on tv and youtube clips later is what galvanized this movement. Haven't you even watched the For Liberty documentary? They even say so @ the 3:10 that it was the debate appearances that mattered. Third party equates to no debates, no creditability, no legitimacy.

And this is why we are saying lets get the RP voter block to vote LP in 2012, then they will be in the debates!
If we can get the LP to break the 15% barrier, they will have a podium at the debates for the general election!

You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?

 

[specsaregood]

You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?

Yes, and what did he say about the experience?

 

[sailingaway]

And this is why we are saying lets get the RP voter block to vote LP in 2012, then they will be in the debates!
If we can get the LP to break the 15% barrier, they will have a podium at the debates for the general election!

You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?

Yeah, and looking at old candidates I can even see ones I would have liked, but I have a sort of 'what on earth happened' feeling when I look at those the LP has picked since I was really focusing on them, for President, at least. "Party of Principles" sings to me, but I just don't see it. I'm not trying to be bashing, I'm giving my honest assessment of one reason why I pretty much forclosed for myself the idea of going to the LP. A new party is still theoretically open in my mind if we could make a go of it, but it seems as if what happened to the GOP also happened in the LP, the 'pragmaticism', and I can get that in the GOP, amongst candidates I don't like, and they might win.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, and what did he say about the experience?

Things have changed since 1988.

 

[Victor Grey]

but I have a sort of 'what on earth happened' feeling when I look at those the LP has picked since I was really focusing on them, for President, at least. "Party of Principles" sings to me, but I just don't see it.

You aren't alone.

 

[specsaregood]

Things have changed since 1988.

No, I don't believe that is what he had to say.

 

[July]

The Republican party, since it's formation, has had a history of various groups, coalitions, and ex members of other parties joining. There's no reason we can't do the same and have a seat at the table also...and we would not even be the first 'liberty' oriented group to do so.

 

[tbone717]

There has been a liberty movement in the GOP for decades now, and that movement has been working to return the party to its founding principles. Things like this simply do not happen over night, but take a very long time to achieve. There are more elected libertarian-conservatives in the GOP than in any other party. Additionally, there are many who will be on the ballot this November that have a realistic chance of winning their races. It would be foolish to walk away from all the work that has been done to start anew.

For those looking instant gratification, then politics is probably not the best place for you.