Response to Republican Party Officials

[tbone717]

I am not sitting on the sidelines. I am heavily involved in my state's senatorial race. And my father is head of the GOP mayoral steering committee. Although my county votes red in national and state elections, the mayor of our county seat has always been a Democrat. Not this year though. This year I am pretty sure we'll have a genuine "conservative" GOP mayor.

On the national level, for me and my family...no one but Paul.

+rep. That's a great thing to do working on the local level. There are so many more races at stake this election. I am thinking of going through all the RLC endorsed candidates and elected officials who are up for reelection or seeking a higher office and compiling a list.

As far as the national level, right now I am on hold and waiting to see what comes out of the convention. A lot can happen between now and then, and considering this year PA will be a battleground state - what we do here is more significant than in 2008 when Obama was leading the state by 10 points all along. For me, it is a lot more than my personal vote, but whether or not I will be urging people to vote one way or another, as I have done in so many elections. I have a lot of people that I can personally reach out to (upwards of 100+), so I have to see how things shake out before I make a final decision.

 

[Matthanuf06]

It isn't about voting for "Obama" or "something else".

There is NO "something else". Every candidate except for Ron Paul IS Obama or WORSE.

Voters think — wrongly — that the two political parties are wedded to a fixed set of political principles. That's not what the two parties are. They're far more akin to products: specifically, brands. Recall that Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year award in 2008 — chosen by the nation's "brand builders" — went to the Obama campaign team for its excellence in branding its product. When ordinary products begin to fail on the market, they are simply rebranded: a car company associated with obsolete or clunky designs revises its image into a newer, sleeker version of itself.

When a political party begins to fail competitively, as the G.O.P. is clearly doing now, it, too, simply rebrands itself. Recall that in 2008, the G.O.P. was assumed by pundits to be dead for a generation because of the profound, historic unpopularity of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But the G.O.P. simply re-invented itself with a new brand identity (the Tea Party) and swamped the Democrats a mere two years later.

Romney is George W. Bush revamped. He has the same 23 foreign advisers that Bush had. He's into the SAME or WORSE imperialism http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/AnAmericanCentury-WhitePaper_0.pdf.

I don't know if Obama will go to war with Iran or not. If Romney becomes POTUS, war with Iran is assured.

In case everybody has forgotten how Bush was treated by the press, most of it deserved (but not all), be assured that the media will have the public foaming at the mouth with rage over "Romney's" war and his being on the "banker's side" <which he will have to do because BANKERS funded him> should the economy collapse. The media won't give Romney the pass they've given Obama. Romney will be lucky if he loses, because if he wins he will be the most HATED president ever.

In my opinion.

I'm not sure how you can say Obama and the other GOP candidates are the exact same. I can go down a laundry list of discrepancies between them. You can certainly argue they are equally bad, or one is worse, but they get their "badness" in different ways. For me the GOP candidate will be dramatically better on economic issues than Obama. Obama is a disaster and those guys would be pretty bad. You can flip that for social/war issues. But for me, economic issues are by far the most important, so I would 100% rather a R occupy the White House than a D. Any day and twice on Sunday. That doesn't mean I'll vote R, instead of a write in or a LP vote. I didn't say that at all. I can almost guarantee I'd vote my libertarian ideology. However, I'm open minded enough to answer the question of GOP or Obama with an actual answer. Polls that are conducted and posted here ask that same question. For me it is the GOP. For you it may be equally bad, and for someone else here it may be Obama.

 

[jbauer]

You don't cause change by agreeing with the GOP. I'd much much rather have odumbo for four more then put Romney in and let the republicans think they did the right thing. You cause change by showing the republicans that the old way of doing things doesn't work anymore.

I'm done voting for the lesser of the evils. Evils is evil and my voice will be heard even if it means writing in Dr. Paul

I'm not sure how you can say Obama and the other GOP candidates are the exact same. I can go down a laundry list of discrepancies between them. You can certainly argue they are equally bad, or one is worse, but they get their "badness" in different ways. For me the GOP candidate will be dramatically better on economic issues than Obama. Obama is a disaster and those guys would be pretty bad. You can flip that for social/war issues. But for me, economic issues are by far the most important, so I would 100% rather a R occupy the White House than a D. Any day and twice on Sunday. That doesn't mean I'll vote R, instead of a write in or a LP vote. I didn't say that at all. I can almost guarantee I'd vote my libertarian ideology. However, I'm open minded enough to answer the question of GOP or Obama with an actual answer. Polls that are conducted and posted here ask that same question. For me it is the GOP. For you it may be equally bad, and for someone else here it may be Obama.

 

[tbone717]

You don't cause change by agreeing with the GOP. I'd much much rather have odumbo for four more then put Romney in and let the republicans think they did the right thing. You cause change by showing the republicans that the old way of doing things doesn't work anymore.

You cause change by winning local, state, House and Senate elections which is what the libertarian wing is continuing to do, and we are growing. And if there isn't a libertarian running, you get rid of the moderate Republicans and replace them with people who are more sympathetic to our overall concerns. And then, someday down the road we will be able to find a candidate for the nomination who has the right combination of ideology, campaigning skills, speaking ability and charisma so that we can win the nomination.

Honestly, the whole idea of "sending them a message" didn't work in 08 and I doubt it will work in 2012. I am not encouraging people to vote for the nominee, but don't get your hopes up that the GOP leadership will fall to their knees and beg our forgiveness if they lose the general.

 

[JS4Pat]

Thanks for all the input.
Below was my reply...

Dear xxxx,

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your comments.

I am not after perfection in politics or in my government. In fact, believe it or not – I am a realist. Which is why/how I arrived at my current position.

I have tried it the way you are advocating. For years I voted for the Republican Party’s candidates, whoever they were, whatever they promised, because I was told that they were "infinitely" better than the other guy. R's, any R's, were infinitely better than the D's, and would bring us smaller government, constitutional principles, etc. and so on. The Bush years were a total disaster for Conservatism. We got more spending and larger deficits. We got a larger and more influential Department of Education. We got new, unfunded entitlements. We got bailouts. We got a Federal Reserve even more out of control. (Not even going to go into the Foreign Policy debacles) And then don't forget that the Bush administration caused, or at the very least presided over the slide into the recession. The worst part? We gave the Democrats/Obama justification to do whatever they wanted. They have been able to say things like, "Well, Bush did it and you supported it...", and then they further dismantle the Constitution.

The fact is - the approach you advocate clearly doesn’t work. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. I am part of a growing movement that is finally willing to do whatever it takes to end this insanity.

Please understand this -- it is the GOP's failure to police itself that has created this unrest within the ranks.

This movement will now only support trusted proven principled candidates who adhere to their oath of office, the constitution, and small government Republican principles, and who actually vote for and legislate to reduce the size of the federal government to its constitutionally bound limits. That’s not perfection – but that is where the bar needs to be.

This cycle, for president, the record clearly shows there's only one candidate who fits this description. Not everyone on this distribution list wants to admit it – but if you are honest with yourself, you know that is the case. All the others have failed to keep their oath of office, and they have all grown the government, regardless of what letter is beside their name, or what they've promised with their hand on the Bible.

The differences between Obama and the other candidates are not "infinite", they are insignificant; they will all continue to grow the size of the federal government. They've done so in the past on many occasions, AS REPUBLICANS. They voted against the party platform, and they violated their oath of office. Why would ANYONE, especially REPUBLICANS, trust them or what they say this time around, especially during a competitive election season?

If Romney gets elected he will continue with Obama's way of doing things the way Obama followed in Bush's footsteps. The results of electing Romney will give us the SAME outcome as 4 more years of Obama on the issues that REALLY matter. Only with the press being nastier when the Republican does it and the Tea Party being a bit softer than when Obama did it.

I am not taking my ball and going home, because this isn't a game.

You, xxxx, xxxxx and xxxxxx are all in positions of great influence to move people toward an actual solution.

I would love to work with all of you so long as you are committed to being part of the solution.

Think of it this way - You have to save "The Party" before the party can save America.

 

[dvalukis]

If they win w/ Romney we'll never get another look. If they loose they'll have to rethink their gameplan. We need to frame and prove that they can't win without us.

 

[dvalukis]

Thanks for all the input.
Below was my reply...

Niiiice

 

[BKom]

I’ve been in conversations with some Republican Party officials (prefer not to identify who) and am looking for some help in crafting my response.

Background:
I have been a vocal Ron Paul supporter since 2007 and have been somewhat of a thorn in the Republican Party Establishment’s side at the county and state level. However, I think I have earned some respect by hanging with the party this long despite my disagreements.

The response below came from a party official and there were some influential political leaders copied on the email as well. It was prompted by my reply (below) to a Tea Party leader who was making the argument that at the end of the day we must all rally behind “Anybody but Obama” in November.

MY RESPONSE to TEA PARTY LEADER:


REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO ME

What is your goal here? You will never convince him that any Republican is not better than any Democrat, unless that Republican is Ron Paul. He's only including Ron in there because he's convinced Ron won't and can't win. So it costs him nothing to sound like he respects Ron and thinks he's better than Obama. He is lying. Even if he thinks he isn't.

You cannot convince people like this with arguments, no matter how well stated or how well researched. In my county and state party, I can only hope that these people die before I do, and that will allow me to win arguments with them, but just barely. It's like talking to a wall now. It will be just a touch more gratifying to argue with a corpse.

 

[BKom]

Thanks for all the input.
Below was my reply...

That's a good reply. Really well done. And now, we will wait for them to pass over and then we'll be able to accomplish something.

 

[tbone717]

If they win w/ Romney we'll never get another look. If they loose they'll have to rethink their gameplan. We need to frame and prove that they can't win without us.

You are right, but it also puts us in a precarious position. If the Paul supporters are the indirect cause of Romney losing and thus Obama winning, because we stay home or vote for a variety of third party candidates or write ins then they may see they cannot win by nominating a moderate and rethink things next time out. But, if the Paul supporters are viewed as being the direct cause of Obama's reelection we could wind up being the scourge of the political scene and further isolated. A couple years from now some might be saying, "don't bother to work with those Paul people, if they don't get their way they'll jump ship and push a Dem into office". So it's a fine line that we will be walking this year, and the results of our action could either benefit us or hurt us in the long term.

I think a lot of it depends on how we conduct ourselves in the public arena. If we are arrogant, throwing it in their face that they will lose without us, and they do it may create that backlash I mentioned. But if we are humble and gracious in defeat letting the chips fall where they may, then we may see a benefit in the long term.

It should be interesting to see how this all plays out, both in the behavior of Paul supporters as a movement, how we are perceived by the general public, and how our fellow Republicans react to any loss they may suffer.

 

[tbone717]

I can only hope that these people die before I do, and that will allow me to win arguments with them, but just barely. It's like talking to a wall now. It will be just a touch more gratifying to argue with a corpse...That's a good reply. Really well done. And now, we will wait for them to pass over and then we'll be able to accomplish something.

You do realize that both Romney and Santorum had strong support from the 18-29 crowd in many states. While we do have a lot of young folks show up for the Paul rallies, at the voting booth the numbers show a different story.

For example in AZ Romney had 57% of the 18-29 vote. In MI Paul had 37%, but Santorum had 32%. Even Iowa while Paul had 48% of the youth vote, Santorum had 23%. For all the states that we have exit polling data for, Paul has never had more than 50% of the 18-29 vote. So, if your strategy rests on your opposition dying off, you'll have to wait a very long time.

 

[JK/SEA]

If Romney gets elected, this will be the Republican party's last chance. One screw up by Mitt and its ...party over...
And from listening to Mitt about him wanting to increase military spending, i'd say both his feet are firmly imbedded in cement. More spending Mitt?....really?....

 

[tbone717]

If Romney gets elected, this will be the Republican party's last chance. One screw up by Mitt and its ...party over...
And from listening to Mitt about him wanting to increase military spending, i'd say both his feet are firmly imbedded in cement. More spending Mitt?....really?....

Not sure. We may be heading into a boom cycle right now, and Mitt could be the beneficiary of it like Clinton was in the 90's. If that is the case, then it could be very helpful for us getting libertarian Republicans elected in the mid terms.

 

[opinionatedfool]

Oath of office and constitution before party. The rep's and dem's have been pretty much the same the last good few years.

 

[jolynna]

You do realize that both Romney and Santorum had strong support from the 18-29 crowd in many states. While we do have a lot of young folks show up for the Paul rallies, at the voting booth the numbers show a different story.

For example in AZ Romney had 57% of the 18-29 vote. In MI Paul had 37%, but Santorum had 32%. Even Iowa while Paul had 48% of the youth vote, Santorum had 23%. For all the states that we have exit polling data for, Paul has never had more than 50% of the 18-29 vote. So, if your strategy rests on your opposition dying off, you'll have to wait a very long time.

I will NOT support the farce the presidential elections have become by endorsing either of the "corporate interest" bought products (Obama or Romney) with my vote. But many will and will deserve the results.

Maybe after suffering rock bottom for awhile, voters will be more open to rational thinking.

I don't have $10K to bet, but if I did, I'd go with Bernanke's and the IMF's economic predictions, whoever gets elected is NOT going to be liked. If it is a GOP, especially a Wall Streeter, that owes the banks that got him elected--they didn't invest for nothing--that GOP POTUS is going to end up being the most hated man alive when he bails his Too-Big-to-Fail donators out AGAIN.

Plus nothing MORE reminds liberals that they hate war than a Republican president.

We will go to war if Romney is elected.

In my opinion.

 

[jolynna]

Oath of office and constitution before party. The rep's and dem's have been pretty much the same the last good few years.

+ Rep I so agree with you. Well said.

You can't endorse trashing the Oath of Office OR the Constitution. Which Obama has done. And Romney says, in ADVANCE of being elected, he will do.

I'd like to see some wooing from Romney before even giving him slight consideration.

He's done the OPPOSITE.

Being polite isn't good enough. His courtship of Ron Paul supporters has been lukewarm & pathetic. Has he made ANY offer that would appeal to Libertarians? NO! He's darn proud of being everything libertarians hate (war-mongering, trying to nab a BILLION dollars of federal government $$$--$410 million Olympics & $700 million MA stimulus, anti-liberty).

I demand some effort in OUR direction before BEFORE Romney deserves even ANY thought. Hoping Romney will reform AFTER being elected is like hoping a drunk will quit drinking AFTER marriage.

Not being Obama isn't good enough for me because I think, just like Obama was worse than Bush, that it is very probable that Romney will be worse than Obama.

In my opinion.

 

[tbone717]

I will NOT support the farce the presidential elections have become by endorsing either of the "corporate interest" bought products (Obama or Romney) with my vote. But many will and will deserve the results.

Maybe after suffering rock bottom for awhile, voters will be more open to rational thinking.

I don't have $10K to bet, but if I did, I'd go with Bernanke's and the IMF's economic predictions, whoever gets elected is NOT going to be liked. If it is a GOP, especially a Wall Streeter, that owes the banks that got him elected--they didn't invest for nothing--that GOP POTUS is going to end up being the most hated man alive when he bails his Too-Big-to-Fail donators out AGAIN.

Plus nothing MORE reminds liberals that they hate war than a Republican president.

We will go to war if Romney is elected.

In my opinion.

What does your post have to do with the one of mine that you quoted which lists the support from the 18-29 crowd?

 

[Ivash]

'The best ever devised'? I seriously disagree with that. The 'first-past-the-post' system of voting is not good imo.

 

[jolynna]

What does your post have to do with the one of mine that you quoted which lists the support from the 18-29 crowd?

You said: "So, if your strategy rests on your opposition dying off, you'll have to wait a very long time."

That is what I responded to.

I think we will have to wait through 4 years of suffering either under Obama or Romney.

Let the nation hit rock bottom. As you've said the movement isn't just Ron Paul. But, the 2012 election DID give his ideals a LOT of exposure. Maybe people need to live with their "bad choices" longer to be more open to reason next time around.

Corrupting the ideals -- the Oath of Office and the constitution -- with compromise, shouldn't be a consideration even.

In my opinion.

 

[jolynna]

What does your post have to do with the one of mine that you quoted which lists the support from the 18-29 crowd?

The rest of my post was disagreeing with another post you made predicting a bright economic future like the Clinton era enjoyed. And yes, if the economy goes great as you predict, it may be a long time, if ever, that people will be open to more Libertarian ideas.

But, if they go the way I predict, as Ron Paul says they will, it will be a WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME.

Most, including Bernanke and a report from the IMF that came out yesterday, say the world isn't in a good place financially. Last week the world's central banks flushed immeasurable amounts of fiat money into the financial system. And, economically, everybody is barely treading water. The Feds are holding off on QE-3, but, Bernanke said last Wednesday, that printing here was not being ruled out.

Central banks don't EASE (or consider easing) because financially, things are going well.

Besides it being immoral to compromise the Oath of Office or the constitution, I think keeping our integrity will give better results SOONER.

In my opinion.