The good news: Barr/Baldwin/write-in Paul/Whatever

[amy31416]

You'll be waiting a long time, Brandon. In my entire lifetime, I've only seen two. Barry Goldwater and of course, Ron Paul. Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform so he talked the talk, but he certainly did not walk the walk.

The powers-that-be don't care if you don't vote, Brandon. All they want to do is to keep control and by not participating, you're falling right in line. What has freaked them out however, is to see so many people who had not voted before, get interested and campaign. We're not done yet, Brandon. We've still got to wrest the reins of the political party from the neocons and the other big government socialists. We really can do it.

Well said. At first, I didn't understand the whole delegate thing and wondered why people were "wasting their time" with it rather than moving on. It turns out that participation makes a difference--without the whole delegate process, we'd hardly even be a footnote at this point. If I had understood all of this better, I may well have attempted to become a delegate despite the fact that it would not get my guy elected.

I fully believe that we need to vote, if we don't vote, we are irrelevant. Participation is the only thing that makes a difference, not participating gets us nothing.

 

[angelatc]

Heh. My vote doesn't even count. Illinois sends 100% of the electoral college delegates to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Well said. At first, I didn't understand the whole delegate thing and wondered why people were "wasting their time" with it rather than moving on. It turns out that participation makes a difference--without the whole delegate process, we'd hardly even be a footnote at this point. If I had understood all of this better, I may well have attempted to become a delegate despite the fact that it would not get my guy elected.

I fully believe that we need to vote, if we don't vote, we are irrelevant. Participation is the only thing that makes a difference, not participating gets us nothing.

Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I mentioned before that my mother had been a delegate to national for Barry Goldwater, Sr. She's gone now, but I was talking to one of her friends who had been in the thick of it with her, about what the GOP had been doing during the various state conventions. She laughed and told me that this wasn't anything new.... that they had done that to the Goldwater supporters too. She told me all kinds of stories. Goldwater, Sr. received the Republican nomination, so I asked her how they did it in the face of all the shenanigans. She said they learned the process and beat them at their own game. That, and overwhelmed them with numbers.

We were political neophytes this time and many were not Republicans, or were coming back to the party because of Ron, having left earlier in disgust. We've learned a lot this go round and still have much more to learn. We'll be ready for them next time and in the meantime, we will become so entrenched in the GOP from dog catcher on up, that we will BE the ground floor of the party. I know I'm preaching to the choir here when I say that the presidential election is only a small part of getting our country back. We need to be city commissioners, mayors, state representatives, U.S. Congressmen and everything in between.

Look out... here we come.

 

[amy31416]

Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I mentioned before that my mother had been a delegate to national for Barry Goldwater, Sr. She's gone now, but I was talking to one of her friends who had been in the thick of it with her, about what the GOP had been doing during the various state conventions. She laughed and told me that this wasn't anything new.... that they had done that to the Goldwater supporters too. She told me all kinds of stories. Goldwater, Sr. received the Republican nomination, so I asked her how they did it in the face of all the shenanigans. She said they learned the process and beat them at their own game. That, and overwhelmed them with numbers.

We were political neophytes this time and many were not Republicans, or were coming back to the party because of Ron, having left earlier in disgust. We've learned a lot this go round and still have much more to learn. We'll be ready for them next time and in the meantime, we will become so entrenched in the GOP from dog catcher on up, that we will BE the ground floor of the party. I know I'm preaching to the choir here when I say that the presidential election is only a small part of getting our country back. We need to be city commissioners, mayors, state representatives, U.S. Congressmen and everything in between.

Look out... here we come.

So let me ask you this, with the whole progression from Goldwater to Reagan, where did that "revolution" make mistakes? Because it seems pretty obvious that their ideas didn't stick and the neocons infiltrated the party, otherwise we wouldn't be in this position.

Did they not get their people into all the "lesser" offices?

Did they err in backing Ronald Reagan? (So unfortunate that he chose Bush as VP.)

I'm not asking these questions to make light of the Goldwater people's efforts, or to put them down. I just figure we can learn from our own mistakes and theirs.

 

[IRO-bot]

I was and am a registered Republican (so says the DC board of elections).

Badnarik was a joke candidate (I'll stop there except adding that it was cruel to him personally to nominate him and let him drive around living in his car campaigning--with no drivers license). I'm happy the inmates are no longer running the asylum at the LP. I paid my LP dues when Barr got the nomination--I left the LP in large part because of their idiocy attacking him in the Republican primary six years ago.

Nader is for protecting privacy and civil liberties, against corporate welfare, skeptical of the Fed, against the drug war (though I'm very much opposed to drugs for escapism) and would be our first Lebanese-American president giving interviews on Al-Jazeera in fluent Arabic which would do more to make us safe than any DoD spending--of course, I was thinking if he had won, DeLay would have ruled the Congress and if the government only did what those two would have agreed on, I'd be very happy.
(I had worked with the now defunct "Green Scissors" coalition to cut environmentally harmful government spending and was friends with the local Greens, yes.)

What made hima joke?

Didn't he work for Pauls 2008 campaign?

 

[literatim]

So let me ask you this, with the whole progression from Goldwater to Reagan, where did that "revolution" make mistakes? Because it seems pretty obvious that their ideas didn't stick and the neocons infiltrated the party, otherwise we wouldn't be in this position.

Did they not get their people into all the "lesser" offices?

Did they err in backing Ronald Reagan? (So unfortunate that he chose Bush as VP.)

I'm not asking these questions to make light of the Goldwater people's efforts, or to put them down. I just figure we can learn from our own mistakes and theirs.

They erred by trusting a turncoat (Reagan).

 

[yongrel]

Did they err in backing Ronald Reagan? (So unfortunate that he chose Bush as VP.)

I would say, as a relative neophyte myself, that the big error made was allowing the Religious Right to become so prominent in the party. By the time Herbert Walker got into office, Pat Robertson was boasting 1.5 million followers in his political operations. Not good at all. The party was hijacked by the Religious Right and warped in order to promote their agenda. Pat Robertson doesn't care about limited government; he cares about limiting gays.

But then again, that's just the opinion of one marginally informed newcomer.

 

[CelestialRender]

I would like to start a campaign to get people to not vote. Many people are under the illusion that they have to vote. This is nonsence. If you dont like a candidate, then you are voting to have your own views walked on. Say "no" to the whole damn corrupt system and just don't participate.

We often laugh at the "silly sheeple" who vote for the lesser of two evils. Well how are we any better if we are just voting for the lesser of four evils?

I'll be waiting for the next Ron Paul.

That position is ridiculous. You can write in whomever you like, including Jesus Christ, if that's the only guy you'd be willing to vote for.

Refusal to vote is a refusal to matter to the political elite -- it merely hands them a blank check to do whatever they want.

Since when has any politician thought: "But what will the non-voting apathetic think of this? Might it endanger my re-election?"

 

[CelestialRender]

Heh. My vote doesn't even count. Illinois sends 100% of the electoral college delegates to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.

Presidential elections are not the only elections -- local & state politics are just as important as national politics...and national politics, to a great degree, are shaped thereby.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I remember that the Goldwater-conservatives were just sick to their stomach when Bush was chosen as VP, because he always had been known as a big government guy. I remember it was thought that Reagan was forced to do that by the powers-that-be to be allowed to run. It was also a huge mistake to invite the neocons to join the movement, because that's exactly what was done. Previously, they had been in think-tanks and writing journals and supposedly had been helpful. But, their Trotskite history was still entrenched in their thinking and they basically co-opted the conservative movement.

As far as the religious right is concerned... this is what I remember... Back then, a lot of the Christians that I saw, did not personally get involved in politics. Apparently, preferring to just "leave it to God", instead of remembering that God helps those who helps themselves. I recall that a lot of Goldwater-conservatives were frustrated with the Christian masses, because they took such a lackadaisical approach to our government and what seemed like a lack of willingness to lift a finger to get involved. So I remember a lot of people were excited that they were finally getting off their duffs. It sure didn't start off to be the way it is now.

One thing you have to remember is that the people calling the shots in Reagan's campaign were not necessarily Goldwater-conservatives. The real power brokers are always there behind the scenes.

I don't know if this helps at all.

 

[Quantum]

Yet, you have been actively creating threads to trash Barr.

I agree with the OP and also agree that Barr's record is very much like that of a neocon. You can't vote for all of what Ron Paul and the freedom movement denounce and expect to be welcomed by those that are vehemently anti-state, anti-war, and anti-war on terror/drugs/gays/you-name-it. The man's record is more like that of a John McCain than a libertarian. That said, if some neocon-leaning freedom lovers are able to look past Barr's atrocious voting record, if those votes do not go to the more vocally pro-war McCain it is a net positive.

 

[amy31416]

They erred by trusting a turncoat (Reagan).

It seems you're right. Reagan didn't have the fortitude to stand up, perhaps he liked power a bit too much? Perhaps he didn't have the support to do what was right and so thought that he was doing the best he could, given the circumstances. Why did he turn?

One of the things about RP that I'm sure so many here love about him is that he seems incorruptible. I'll admit that I have my sights on BJ as potentially being similar.

I would say, as a relative neophyte myself, that the big error made was allowing the Religious Right to become so prominent in the party. By the time Herbert Walker got into office, Pat Robertson was boasting 1.5 million followers in his political operations. Not good at all. The party was hijacked by the Religious Right and warped in order to promote their agenda. Pat Robertson doesn't care about limited government; he cares about limiting gays.

But then again, that's just the opinion of one marginally informed newcomer.

It seems the religious right definitely played a part, and I think that the weaknesses that the neocons played upon was mixing zionism with hollow promises for repealing Roe v. Wade, making gay marriage unconstitutional, etc. while mixing it with also hollow promises for smaller government and less taxes.

I remember that the Goldwater-conservatives were just sick to their stomach when Bush was chosen as VP, because he always had been known as a big government guy. I remember it was thought that Reagan was forced to do that by the powers-that-be to be allowed to run. It was also a huge mistake to invite the neocons to join the movement, because that's exactly what was done. Previously, they had been in think-tanks and writing journals and supposedly had been helpful. But, their Trotskite history was still entrenched in their thinking and they basically co-opted the conservative movement.

As far as the religious right is concerned... this is what I remember... Back then, a lot of the Christians that I saw, did not personally get involved in politics. Apparently, preferring to just "leave it to God", instead of remembering that God helps those who helps themselves. I recall that a lot of Goldwater-conservatives were frustrated with the Christian masses, because they took such a lackadaisical approach to our government and what seemed like a lack of willingness to lift a finger to get involved. So I remember a lot of people were excited that they were finally getting off their duffs. It sure didn't start off to be the way it is now.

One thing you have to remember is that the people calling the shots in Reagan's campaign were not necessarily Goldwater-conservatives. The real power brokers are always there behind the scenes.

I don't know if this helps at all.

Sure it helps. The Republicans invited the neocons out of desperation, it seems. So, let's not be desperate, but we still have to balance that with being accepting of those who have sincerely changed their neocon ways.

We also have to continue to keep religion out of politics, it is a bad mix no matter how you look at it. Freedom gives people the right to be whatever religion you want, or to not have religion at all in your life. Once you start imposing beliefs or lack thereof on other people and try to do that through laws, you've crossed the line--that would be one thing that is entirely unacceptable to me. And when I say this, I also mean it's unacceptable to get Christians or any other group to give up or hide their beliefs. Atheists/agnostics can also take a lesson from Paul in the fact that he doesn't push his beliefs or ridicule others on their own.

So, that's a start on my own litmus tests:

1. No neocons. None. The damage they've done is immense. Still an issue with former neocons, but we just have to be smart about it. This board has plenty of former neocons on it, so I'd certainly never count them out, even as politicians. But as politicians, they will get much more scrutiny.

2. No bible-thumping showmen who make empty promises or run on a religious platform. No need to hide religion, but an attempt to incorporate it into laws is not acceptable.

3. Familiarity and respect for the Constitution, obviously. Respect for Constitutional laws, the willingness to go against popular opinion or reactionary sentiment to uphold it.

4. Clarity in finances and economics. Even if it's bad news, give it to us straight.

5. Your life should echo the values that you use to sell your brand to the public. If you're going to allow marijuana to be illegal and don't do anything about the drug war, you're completely out if you get busted smoking the stuff, even if it's in your past. The "no Rush Limbaugh" rule of thumb.

So, there's more criteria, but I'm just sort of thinking out loud at this point. It'd be nice to have a government we don't loathe--and we're responsible for making sure that happens.