Too many liberty people have a defeatist attitude:

[fr33]

Yes.

I'd like to see that math. You could probably persuade me that if we only funded certain campaigns in certain areas, we could make a little difference in a few more races but I've yet to see the polling stats to support your theory. Unless part of your plan involves us all moving our residences.

 

[Feelgood]

 

[jmdrake]

For growing the GOP, that might work in urban areas.

To use it as a strategy to win elections, it is a complete waste of time.

So let me see if I understand you. You agree that acptulsa's approach might work in urban areas to get more libertarians into the GOP. But you think that getting more libertarians into the GOP is a "complete waste of time" for winning elections? So...you don't win elections by getting more voters? Because that seems to be what you are saying.

Something is only a "waste of time" if it is either counterproductive, not at all productive, or less productive that something someone might be doing that would be productive. If acptulsa has no interest in going to a tea party rally (haven't seen one of those around here in awhile) and trying to convince teocons that "Rand really agrees with you 100%" then his trying to reach "blue republicans" is worth more than him sitting around arguing with you on a web forum. Look at Rand's "minority outreach" efforts. Will that win him the GOP nomination? No. Not in itself. But it may get him a few extra votes. It's certainly not a "waste of time."

 

[Tod]

When our forefathers revolted, it was because they had a defeatist attitude about the possibility of change within the existing political system. If only they had just written one more letter to King George, I'm just sure he would have granted their wishes.

 

[Matt Collins]

When our forefathers revolted, it was because they had a defeatist attitude about the possibility of change within the existing political system. If only they had just written one more letter to King George, I'm just sure he would have granted their wishes.

No, not exactly. Their situation was different because they had effectively zero control over their government. being thousands of miles away didn't help. We can have control over our government, but it means people have to actually be involved in the process.

 

[Matt Collins]

If one continues to compromise on certain issues, it's easy to convince oneself that we're winning

I completely agree.

 

[Matt Collins]

So let me see if I understand you. You agree that acptulsa's approach might work in urban areas to get more libertarians into the GOP. But you think that getting more libertarians into the GOP is a "complete waste of time" for winning elections? So...you don't win elections by getting more voters? Because that seems to be what you are saying.

Huh? Now I am confused


But to answer your question, I think, generally for primary elections getting new blood into the GOP will not change the outcome of primary elections. It can however change party leadership, especially in urban areas where Republicans are weak.

Look at Rand's "minority outreach" efforts. Will that win him the GOP nomination? No. Not in itself. But it may get him a few extra votes. It's certainly not a "waste of time."

I agree with that, but I think it might be that he is fundamentally trying to broach a rhetoric that has been traditionally ignored by mainstream GOP/leadership. There isn't much short term value in it, but if Rand paint himself as a uniter that brings people in to the party who traditionally were not, then it helps him in the long run. And MLK was a Republican too, but that point is lost on most people these days. If the Party can get back to issues that appeal to that group of individuals (drug war, civil liberties/rights, etc), then I think they can indeed increase their voting base. But that typically only works on a large scale over a very long period of time which is why most Republicans have given up on it.



And by the way, come out to Mafiaoza's tonight and hang with us in Nashville. Haven't seen ya in a while.

 

[The Free Hornet]

No, not exactly. Their situation was different because they had effectively zero control over their government. being thousands of miles away didn't help. We can have control over our government [LOFL], but it means people have to actually be involved in the process.

California and Alaska are thousands of miles from DC. They have "effectively zero control over their government".

I claim zero control since 100% of a state's power can't overrule DC even when engaged in an unconstitutional activity. It is unambiguous that we are not a republic and we are not a democracy.

So I am throwing the bullshit flag on you:

BOOM! Bet you didn't see that coming!

 

[Indy Vidual]

I would try much harder if things were not so hopeless.

 

[Matt Collins]

California and Alaska are thousands of miles from DC. They have "effectively zero control over their government".

I claim zero control since 100% of a state's power can't overrule DC even when engaged in an unconstitutional activity. It is unambiguous that we are not a republic and we are not a democracy.

Look up "nullification" sometime, which is done at the state level.

 

[acptulsa]

Huh? Now I am confused


But to answer your question, I think, generally for primary elections getting new blood into the GOP will not change the outcome of primary elections. It can however change party leadership, especially in urban areas where Republicans are weak.

Scientific polling data to support that or it isn't true. As for changing the party leadership, how can you look at what happened at the 2012 national convention and consider anything that works toward changing the leadership of that party a waste of time?

I agree with that, but I think it might be that he is fundamentally trying to broach a rhetoric that has been traditionally ignored by mainstream GOP/leadership. There isn't much short term value in it, but if Rand paint himself as a uniter that brings people in to the party who traditionally were not, then it helps him in the long run. And MLK was a Republican too, but that point is lost on most people these days. If the Party can get back to issues that appeal to that group of individuals (drug war, civil liberties/rights, etc), then I think they can indeed increase their voting base. But that typically only works on a large scale over a very long period of time which is why most Republicans have given up on it.

We're heading into our third presidential election cycle. Are we not in it for the long term? If we were 'most Republicans', would we not have won by now? If we don't increase the GOP voting base, will it not continue it's previous trend of drying up and blowing away? Is taking over a party the 'usual course'? Even so, did not evangelicals do a pretty good job of it back in the days when Newt was Speaker of the House? Did not the Moral Majority forces recruit and unify every evangelical they could muster, including those who were lifelong Democrats?!

Look up "nullification" sometime, which is done at the state level.

And this is a more proven method than getting people to switch parties?

Your efforts to get us to give up on winning over disaffected Democrats is not merely 'negativity', Matt. Given how it has past history of success, it has current promise, and it is clearly more immediately effective than such things as nullification, your efforts to discourage us from doing it amount to trollery and saboutage.

Good OP, Matt. Take your own advice when you give good advice, for a change.

 

[fr33]

No, not exactly. Their situation was different because they had effectively zero control over their government. being thousands of miles away didn't help. We can have control over our government, but it means people have to actually be involved in the process.

No I have no control over the government. None. At. All.

And to put to rest your other ridiculous arguments; DC is indeed over a thousand miles away. Even being involved locally makes no difference. In order to create the government we have, they used your arguments. People locally got involved and voted for it. They have control of their government.

The men that decided, "fuck it, it's time for British soldiers to die or I die trying" were not in any different scenario than me; unless you count the fact that they had more freedom and less taxation than I do.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'd like to see that math. You could probably persuade me that if we only funded certain campaigns in certain areas, we could make a little difference in a few more races but I've yet to see the polling stats to support your theory. Unless part of your plan involves us all moving our residences.

- Ron raised upwards if $40 million during the campaign.

- A typical House race would cost between $500-750K

- A Senate race is usually $2-6 million, although the cost widely varies by the state you wish you play in.

We'd only have to get our Liberty Candidates through the primary for the most part, because once they enter the general election against a democrat fund raising sort of goes on automatic pilot. We have to do the heavy lifting early in the election cycle to give our candidates the best shot at winning.

Polling is largely tied to who people perceive as the frontrunner. People (media especially) come to that conclusion by donation numbers. We have to inject cash heavily and early so we can get that earned media attention focused on our guys. To be taken seriously you got to be able to raise cash; it's a sad reality. People will all of a sudden put down their coffee and newspaper and start to take notice of you when you rack in the cash. Psychologically, voters like to back someone with a perceived chance at winning. To achieve that proverbial "light-bulb" moment you have to make some fund raising waves.

Run the numbers, there's really no reason why we shouldn't be electing a couple dozen rock-solid Liberty Candidates every 2 years. I don't think Paul supporters realize how much potential political clout we could wield when we ban together. And that's just liberty candidates and fund raising. I haven't even touched upon banning together state-by-state just like Iowa, Nevada, and Maine did. We have to storm the Bastille in every damn state across the country and kick out the old party bosses and install our people. No deals. Show up with overwhelming numbers and defeat the bastards. That endeavor would only take anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand activists.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Look up "nullification" sometime, which is done at the state level.

Matt is correct. Alaska will likely be the next state to legalize marijuana. It's essentially quasi-nullification by the people and legislatures in those states.

 

[jjdoyle]

- Ron raised upwards if $40 million during the campaign.

- A typical House race would cost between $500-750K

- A Senate race is usually $2-6 million, although the cost widely varies by the state you wish you play in.

We'd only have to get our Liberty Candidates through the primary for the most part, because once they enter the general election against a democrat fund raising sort of goes on automatic pilot. We have to do the heavy lifting early in the election cycle to give our candidates the best shot at winning.

Polling is largely tied to who people perceive as the frontrunner. People (media especially) come to that conclusion by donation numbers. We have to inject cash heavily and early so we can get that earned media attention focused on our guys. To be taken seriously you got to be able to raise cash; it's a sad reality. People will all of a sudden put down their coffee and newspaper and start to take notice of you when you rack in the cash. Psychologically, voters like to back someone with a perceived chance at winning. To achieve that proverbial "light-bulb" moment you have to make some fund raising waves.

Run the numbers, there's really no reason why we shouldn't be electing a couple dozen rock-solid Liberty Candidates every 2 years. I don't think Paul supporters realize how much potential political clout we could wield when we ban together. And that's just liberty candidates and fund raising. I haven't even touched upon banning together state-by-state just like Iowa, Nevada, and Maine did. We have to storm the Bastille in every damn state across the country and kick out the old party bosses and install our people. No deals. Show up with overwhelming numbers and defeat the bastards. That endeavor would only take anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand activists.

Actually, Ron Paul supporters did ban together, and tried to show that political clout to the establishment in 2012. Only, they didn't realize the campaign they were working to support, was actively working to support Mitt Romney. Which is why some of them were tossed under the Mitt Romney bus.

And had Ron Paul 2012 not remained in the race after agreeing to attack Mitt Romney, how many more millions could have been directed to other candidates/campaigns? About $20 million? So, 5-10 Senators? Or, 20-40 Congressmen?

The reason Ron Paul supporters aren't electing more, is because they aren't your average Mitt Romney supporters overflowing with cash. They saved up, delayed car repairs, ate Ramen noodles, etc., to donate to a campaign that had bigger plans than actually winning after they agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.

Oh, and it doesn't matter if we storm the Bastille and have a campaign/candidate serious about winning, because as Maine shows, the RNC will simply ignore the duly elected delegates who spent their own money to go down to Florida. They will write what they want on the teleprompter, and change the rules to protect their own.

 

[Ronin Truth]

That's one of the really cool things about being a "liberty people". You are free to have whatever damned attitude that you choose. I assume that the correct number have chosen the attitude that they want.

 

[CaptUSA]

Actually, Ron Paul supporters did ban together, and tried to show that political clout to the establishment in 2012. Only, they didn't realize the campaign they were working to support, was actively working to support Mitt Romney. Which is why some of them were tossed under the Mitt Romney bus.

And had Ron Paul 2012 not remained in the race after agreeing to attack Mitt Romney, how many more millions could have been directed to other candidates/campaigns? About $20 million? So, 5-10 Senators? Or, 20-40 Congressmen?

The reason Ron Paul supporters aren't electing more, is because they aren't your average Mitt Romney supporters overflowing with cash. They saved up, delayed car repairs, ate Ramen noodles, etc., to donate to a campaign that had bigger plans than actually winning after they agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.

Oh, and it doesn't matter if we storm the Bastille and have a campaign/candidate serious about winning, because as Maine shows, the RNC will simply ignore the duly elected delegates who spent their own money to go down to Florida. They will write what they want on the teleprompter, and change the rules to protect their own.

Yeah, this certainly seems like some of that negativity to which Matt was referring.

Listen, the 2012 campaign employed a strategy that didn't work. They weren't supporting Romney, they were trying to become the "anti-Romney" candidate. It took a lot of resources to keep slamming down all the fakers that the media were putting in that role. It may have seemed like Paul's campaign was laying cover-fire, but that's only based upon a negative point of view. The problem at the core of the strategy was that Ron Paul was deemed long ago to be unacceptable to the GOP base. Once we spent our funds defeating the fakers, they settled for Romney without ever giving Ron a serious look. The good thing is that Rand has worked extremely hard to avoid that label. (Much to the detriment of his reputation among many of us.) But, he is moving that ball forward.

My hope is not that you agree with me on all of this. My hope is that you do not give up. If you don't like the approach of organized campaigns, try something else - but try something. Don't waste your time turning your fire inward.

You see, the liberty movement as it has existed for decades now, has a problem. We are diverse and have diverse opinions on how to achieve success. And instead of working in a positive nature on our opinion, many of us work in a negative fashion to try to break down another's. (I call this the LP syndrome) I kindly ask you to review your post and ask yourself whether you are adding or subtracting.

 

[pcosmar]

it is a complete waste of time.

Defeatist attitude.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I totally agree with what Matt said.

 

[pcosmar]

Ok..
Nice rant Matt,, but I have a different perspective. I have no interest in Growing the GOP.
I would like to Defeat the GOP, and the Democrat party,, and any/all other parties.
I have no interest in the parties. And the GOP is directly responsible for at least have the problems with this country.

And the devil, taking him up into a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

If winning requires a deal with the devil,, NO Thank You.

I will wait for them all to be destroyed.
Call that defeatist if you will. I want something better.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”