Response to Republican Party Officials

[tbone717]

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.

It is not so much of a prediction on my part, but more so just an observation of the boom and bust cycles. We have been in a 10 year or so recession, things over the next 4 to 8 years may appear to be better. It doesn't mean things are genuinely better, as we cannot sustain this level of debt, spending, etc - but nonetheless things will have the appearance of recovery with any slight lifting of regulatory burden, taxes, reductions in the increase of spending, etc. I am fully aware of the root cause of our economic problems, but that is not what I am referring to. Simply that life for the average American could very well appear to be better under a Romney admin than an Obama admin.

If that is the case, it may wind up benefiting us in the libertarian Republican wing. If Romney has the appearance of being moderately successful, it will help us to elect more libertarian Republicans to office in the mid term, as typically the mid term election of a first term Presidency results in an increase in Congressional seats from the same party. So if we work diligently to get libertarian Republicans on the ticket and through any primaries, we can take seats from Dems in those mid-terms. The more libertarians in Congress, the more influence we have in the party, the better our chances are in 2020.

Conversely, if Obama wins the general, we still are in a good position come 2016. We are still gaining influence in the party. We will elect more libertarian-conservatives to office this year, and come 2016 we could very well have a stronger voice in the primary race provided we find the right candidate to carry the mantle as we move forward.

Essentially, it could very well be a win/win situation for us, provided that we stay united in purpose, accept that we may have some policy differences here and there, continue to get involved locally, and enhance our public image and appeal.

Oh, last the comment regarding waiting for people to die off, was in reference to another poster inferring that our only chance of success was to wait for all the old establishment leaning folks to die off. My point was that there was just as many 18-29's supporting Romney/Santorum/Newt as there was Paul. While we may appear to have the lion's share of the 18-29 bloc, the vote totals tell a different story. While they may not pack an auditorium to hear Romney speak, the youth are coming out in rather strong numbers for him. So contrary to popular opinion, we do not own the youth vote.

 

[parke]

Then you and the party better stand up for conservatism. @sshole.

 

[DEGuy]

I would focus on the fact that it's still anyone's race. Romney only has 10% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination, after all. And since he agrees that all candidates are infinitely better than Obama, perhaps he should consider the polls that say only Romney and Paul have a realistic chance of beating Obama in a general election. Reach agreement on those facts. Then, and only then, you can start the conversation about how Romney really isn't that different from Obama.

I'd stay away from the word conservatism too. Everyone in the GOP seems to have a different, conflicting definition.

 

[jolynna]

I'd stay away from the word conservatism too. Everyone in the GOP seems to have a different, conflicting definition.

I agree.

To keep it simple, compromising the "oath of office" or the "constitution" should NOT be a consideration. Period.

 

[jolynna]

Delete because duplicate. Sorry. My computer is on the fritz.

 

[jolynna]

delete because it is a duplicate