Please, Run Republican

[acptulsa]

Fight the establishment! Don't join it!

How many mighty men have survived battle after battle, only to be felled by a virus?

 

[Printo]

Better yet, change the establishment.

Exactly.

We are not going to change the monopoly of the 2 parties in DC. So lets takeover the GOP while it lays wounded & dying. It lacks all ideas & can only win if they bring back true conservatism.

 

[EndTheFed]

"As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also." -Thomas Jefferson.

Fight the establishment! Don't join it!

Oh really... Is this what you believe?

No one seemed to reason with me like men .. Hmmmm

 

[Matt Collins]

Not necessarily. Running against someone, even if you lose, causes them pain. It costs them time and money that they could otherwise be spending elsewhere. Run a cheap campaign, and do it to educate voters rather than to win.

Putting effort and money into a campaign guaranteed to lose is harmful to our resources AND to morale. There are more effective ways to educate people than wasting money, effort, and time, running for an unwinnable seat.

 

[georgiaboy]

YAYYYYYy way to go Liberty People! It's time to work within the GOP..but we have to be NICE ..and be team players..not protesters! They won't listen to us if we go in as revolutionaries....I am so happy to see this thread! Lets go take the GOP back to sanity! Tones

I agree with your sentiment, Tones, but what do you mean by being "team players"? There's a part of me that thinks being a team player means compromising principle, and that doesn't sit well.

 

[georgiaboy]

Oh really... Is this what you believe?

No one seemed to reason with me like men .. Hmmmm

looking at this and your other post, are you eating some sour grapes today, End?

 

[Charles Wilson]

Please anyone who is interested in helping Ron Paul's movement please, please, please, run Republican.

The laws are so biased against 3rd parties. We can't do anything to fix this unless we can get into office to change the laws. Then we can all go back to our 3rd parties once we get them fair access.

In my own area we had a great Ron Paul supporter running for Senate and because he ran as Libertarian only garnered 1% of the vote. Had he run Republican I know he would have gotten more. So many people are still brainwashed. Many more people would have taken a look at him if he had been registered Republican.

To run 3rd party in the climate we are in is to ensure a loss. We have to be able to get to congress to affect any change.

You make a very valid point. If I understand correctly we just picked up two new Ron Paul Republicans in Congress. Ron Paul Republicans now have a small toe hold in Congress that will grow if we supporters work together. Those Ron Paul Republicans that ran and lost this election will have more name recognition two years from now. As the economy gets worse, voters will be looking for new candidates. I am more optimistic now than ever that we can succeed in growing the Ron Paul Revolution and eventaully win the White House.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Besides the facts that the GOP machinery already exists and the traditional principles are in essence libertarian, the next best reason for reforming the GOP is the party faithful. Let's face it, 75+% of any political party are followers and will tow the party line. We just have to be the ones who decide what that line will be.

If we make the GOP platform libertarian, all those Republicans will become libertarians because they're good obedient Republicans. Easier than getting people to join a new 3rd party.

 

[EndTheFed]

looking at this and your other post, are you eating some sour grapes today, End?

No... sure i am not happy with the results... but the sour grapes is this..

It is obvious now that the "make a statement with your vote" did not happen...

there is no discussion in the "real world" about how much of a difference third parties made.

For a couple of months I tried to talk a reason here with people to try to get them to not attack people, not to ridicule people and let people make the decision they needed to with out being call names, cursed at and called a troll and a neo-con and such..

And now most here are talking about well what do we do now... well you pissed a lot of people off and Im sure many left because of it.

 

[sirachman]

+uber1776

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Please anyone who is interested in helping Ron Paul's movement please, please, please, run Republican.

The laws are so biased against 3rd parties. We can't do anything to fix this unless we can get into office to change the laws. Then we can all go back to our 3rd parties once we get them fair access.

In my own area we had a great Ron Paul supporter running for Senate and because he ran as Libertarian only garnered 1% of the vote. Had he run Republican I know he would have gotten more. So many people are still brainwashed. Many more people would have taken a look at him if he had been registered Republican.

To run 3rd party in the climate we are in is to ensure a loss. We have to be able to get to congress to affect any change.

I would much rather run as a Democrat.

 

[zadrock]

I would much rather run as a Democrat.

Might be a good strategy in some places (like MD). Donna Edwards used grassroots supports to upset an entrenched incumbent (Al Wynn) in the primaries this year.

There is good support for RP's message in MD, but very little support for Republicans. Pro-market Democrats would be looked upon favorably, especially when compared to anti-war Republicans (despite the fact that the message is exactly the same).

If we can convince progressives that the Fed is anti-poor people and also convince them that Federalism is a smart strategy for liberals, then we could get grassroots support from the Left. We already agree on the war and civil liberties. (I'm talking about the people on the Left, not the leadership.)

Again, this is very much dependent on local sentiment.

Z

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Might be a good strategy in some places (like MD). Donna Edwards used grassroots supports to upset an entrenched incumbent (Al Wynn) in the primaries this year.

There is good support for RP's message in MD, but very little support for Republicans. Pro-market Democrats would be looked upon favorably, especially when compared to anti-war Republicans (despite the fact that the message is exactly the same).

If we can convince progressives that the Fed is anti-poor people and also convince them that Federalism is a smart strategy for liberals, then we could get grassroots support from the Left. We already agree on the war and civil liberties. (I'm talking about the people on the Left, not the leadership.)

Again, this is very much dependent on local sentiment.

Z

Yup. I would run as a libertarian-Democrat. socially liberal, fiscally conservative. End the Patriot Act, oppose all taxes, oppose all regulations, cut spending, reform where we can't cut, free trade, abortion rights, legalize drugs & prostitution, get rid of age of consent, nomore 18 or 21 bs, if you're old enough to "serve," you're old enough to drink. blah blah blah. but,. of course, use the populist rhetoric in order to reel in the democrats.

I would moderate my views, just going on my beliefs here. I'm not a social con :////

I live in New Jersey, you now know why I would run with this party...

 

[Mini-Me]

Please anyone who is interested in helping Ron Paul's movement please, please, please, run Republican.

The laws are so biased against 3rd parties. We can't do anything to fix this unless we can get into office to change the laws. Then we can all go back to our 3rd parties once we get them fair access.

In my own area we had a great Ron Paul supporter running for Senate and because he ran as Libertarian only garnered 1% of the vote. Had he run Republican I know he would have gotten more. So many people are still brainwashed. Many more people would have taken a look at him if he had been registered Republican.

To run 3rd party in the climate we are in is to ensure a loss. We have to be able to get to congress to affect any change.

I agree. While I fully support the idea of throwing out support to third parties when our own major party candidates lose their primaries (to slowly build third party support and so we do not reward the Republicans for rejecting pro-liberty candidates), our primary focus should still be taking over the GOP. It wouldn't hurt to try transforming the Democrats, either...though I personally think the GOP is more ripe for the taking, since their establishment is so weak right now compared to that of the Democrats.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

red to anti-war Republicans (despite the fact that the message is exactly the same).

If we can convince progressives that the Fed is anti-poor people and also convince them that Federalism is a smart strategy for liberals, then we could get grassroots support from the Left.

Federalism? You mean that philosophy that enabled the monstrous federal government to crush the states' rights? Somehow, I don't think libs would appreciate that very much.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree. While I fully support the idea of throwing out support to third parties when our own major party candidates lose their primaries (to slowly build third party support and so we do not reward the Republicans for rejecting pro-liberty candidates), our primary focus should still be taking over the GOP. It wouldn't hurt to try transforming the Democrats, either...though I personally think the GOP is more ripe for the taking, since their establishment is so weak right now compared to that of the Democrats.

Make that your primary focus, not our. I have no interest in the defunct GOP. Let it die!

 

[orafi]

I was thinking of trying out for a 2010 run in VA's 11th congressional district. This is where Keith Fimian got his butt handed to him. And the guy sucked at the debates. They say he would've been another Tom Davis, but I'd rather have a Davis than a guy who can't answer half of the questions asked to him at debates. But I'm too disgusted with Republicans right now. And I have no clue where to start lol

 

[orafi]

Federalism? You mean that philosophy that enabled the monstrous federal government to crush the states' rights? Somehow, I don't think libs would appreciate that very much.

anti-federalism for the win!

 

[zadrock]

Federalism? You mean that philosophy that enabled the monstrous federal government to crush the states' rights? Somehow, I don't think libs would appreciate that very much.

I meant that Dems should be in favor of having stronger state governments and a weaker federal government. Even with this huge sea change of an election, they still are short of 60 Senators, so Republicans can block legislation if they want.

I think it makes sense to run on a federalist platform, where you point out that "blue" states tend to be wealthier and net payers to the system, while "red" states are poorer and net takers. Convince the libs that their money would be better spent at home in their own state (i.e., enact universal health care, more funding for education, etc. within your state, rather than trying to accomplish it at the federal level).

Granted, this isn't exactly a libertarian platform. In some ways, it would be conceding bigger government within your state, but smaller government at the federal level. But in some states, it may be the only way.

Z

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I meant that Dems should be in favor of having stronger state governments and a weaker federal government. Even with this huge sea change of an election, they still are short of 60 Senators, so Republicans can block legislation if they want.

I think it makes sense to run on a federalist platform, where you point out that "blue" states tend to be wealthier and net payers to the system, while "red" states are poorer and net takers. Convince the libs that their money would be better spent at home in their own state (i.e., enact universal health care, more funding for education, etc. within your state, rather than trying to accomplish it at the federal level).

Granted, this isn't exactly a libertarian platform. In some ways, it would be conceding bigger government within your state, but smaller government at the federal level. But in some states, it may be the only way.

Z

I'm not a federalist. I'm anti-state, plain and simple.