When are we going to get serious?

[Henry Rogue]

Electoral success, local or national....is highly unlikely. The co-opting of the Tea Party from its Santelli-Ron Paul roots into some kind of social-conservative-group was engineered equally and with cooperation by Republicans and Democrats for their mutual benefit and it is the only example we should ever need to know that progress from electoral victories has little chance of success.

There are at least two ways to get serious w/o electoral victory:
(1) Push on issues, not candidates. And, very importantly, those issues need to be framed as Constitutional amendments. Pick an issue to start with; commerce clause clarification, declaration of war clarification, etc. Obviously, not having an electoral strategy will make it more difficult to get the votes needed for this to happen, but if we fixate on one or two items and drive public support...then it may be successful.
(2) Begin a serious discussion about secession and start movements in selected States.

To me these seem like the only paths to real change in our lifetimes. Maybe Im missing something? Is there a reason why an electoral strategy is better than these strategies?

I think focusing on issues is a good idea. I have long thought that MSM has ruled the country by deciding what issues are front page. Those become the issues that are debated in congress. I don't know if secession is any more likely than electing Ron Paul or Rand Paul as president or ending the federal reserve. Maybe start with something a little more doable like nullification. I'm no Constitutional scholar. Does opening up the Constitution to ratification leave the door open for antiliberty amendments? That would be a shame to put a lot of effort into that only to see it get co-opted by socialist. IMO Sound Money is a strong Liberty issue. If a Country can't borrow money, it's choices are print its own which leads to hyperinflation or raise taxes which destroys economies and is unpopular or spend less which makes it difficult to go to war and must shrink the size of government, which leads to more Liberty.

 

[CTRattlesnake]

Electoral success, local or national....is highly unlikely. The co-opting of the Tea Party from its Santelli-Ron Paul roots into some kind of social-conservative-group was engineered equally and with cooperation by Republicans and Democrats for their mutual benefit and it is the only example we should ever need to know that progress from electoral victories has little chance of success.

There are at least two ways to get serious w/o electoral victory:
(1) Push on issues, not candidates. And, very importantly, those issues need to be framed as Constitutional amendments. Pick an issue to start with; commerce clause clarification, declaration of war clarification, etc. Obviously, not having an electoral strategy will make it more difficult to get the votes needed for this to happen, but if we fixate on one or two items and drive public support...then it may be successful.
(2) Begin a serious discussion about secession and start movements in selected States.

To me these seem like the only paths to real change in our lifetimes. Maybe Im missing something? Is there a reason why an electoral strategy is better than these strategies?

Disagree on both counts

1) We can push issues all we want, but this country is in the hands of a faux two party system perpetrated by a corporatist media. Issues are not going to sway the lazy and uneducated. They want to see a good looking guy (or girl) get up there and tell them what they want to hear. We need to get candidates who can WIN elections, but share our values. Putting up the opposite is not the way to get serious at all. In essence, we need candidates with Ron's values and Obama's charisma and charm.

2) Uh, no. Threatening to seccede is not how you get serious and win elections. Nothing else needs to be said here.

 

[idiom]

What's wrong with what we are doing? We are becoming exponentially more successful without making compromises. We didn't win the presidency so we should secede?!?

 

[mad cow]

Electoral success, local or national....is highly unlikely. The co-opting of the Tea Party from its Santelli-Ron Paul roots into some kind of social-conservative-group was engineered equally and with cooperation by Republicans and Democrats for their mutual benefit and it is the only example we should ever need to know that progress from electoral victories has little chance of success.

There are at least two ways to get serious w/o electoral victory:
(1) Push on issues, not candidates. And, very importantly, those issues need to be framed as Constitutional amendments. Pick an issue to start with; commerce clause clarification, declaration of war clarification, etc. Obviously, not having an electoral strategy will make it more difficult to get the votes needed for this to happen, but if we fixate on one or two items and drive public support...then it may be successful.
(2) Begin a serious discussion about secession and start movements in selected States.

To me these seem like the only paths to real change in our lifetimes. Maybe Im missing something? Is there a reason why an electoral strategy is better than these strategies?

(1)To amend the Constitution,you need 2/3 of the elected POLITICIANS of both houses or 2/3 of the elected POLITICIANS of the State Legislatures to propose an amendment.
Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the several States Legislatures POLITICIANS to become part of the Constitution.

(2)If Virginia ever secedes again,I stand with Virginia.

Meanwhile,I will try to get better politicians elected.

 

[supermario21]

Look: Republicans lost this election because not enough base conservatives were enthused to show up and vote for Romney. Obama's vote machine outnumbered our enthusiasm. Even people on Rush were saying they voted 3rd party because they didn't trust Romney. For everyone fearful of foreign policy, how often do many people you know talk about it? Is it really an issue to many primary voters? Most people I know are skeptical of war. The peace candidate always wins! 2 straight repudiations of moderate neocons will also bolster our momentum. We are the true change candidate, going back to real conservatism. Also, which Republican do you hear talk about making the party more competitive nationwide? The only one I've ever heard thoughtfully discuss this is Rand. His brand of libertarianism will make us competitive in New Hampshire and Maine for starters, and maybe we can slowly claw back a state like Connecticut (New England) and Oregon in the Northwest. Rand has been a leader in exploring alternative directions for the party since well before this election, so I'd say he's ahead of the curve. Maybe Rand could get a guy like Lincoln Chafee back into the Republican party. Most liberal Republicans are now Democrats, and we've never been friends of them going back to the Goldwater/Rockefeller war, but after watching a video of Chafee discussing his book about the time in the senate these are the things we have common ground on:

1. opposition to the war
2. protecting civil liberties

It doesn't sound much more different than conventional Democrats, and it's a bit optimistic, but Rand is a great messenger and can relate to everyone.

 

[supermario21]

Rubio is really no different than Ryan, Romney, Christie, etc. He's a neocon with a Hispanic name. Policies earn votes in a post-racial America, not color of skin.

 

[parocks]

The Rand strategy is an electoral strategy and of course it has significant merit. But I think its flaw is a fatal one. He will not do better in the primaries than Ron did in '12 because Republicans views on foreign policy are not moving at all and won't move anytime soon.

Repubs agree with us on the 10th amend and can also be convinced on the Declaration of War. Dems would be against 10th amendment clarifications , but could be convinced on Declaration of War. Why not jam that issue into the hearts of all sides and get some momentum behind a Constitutional Amendment.

It's realistic it could happen, it could happen fast and it would have a real impact.

I think we should push Rand. And not stop until he's President. There's a big group of Conservatives that like Rand and don't like Ron.

 

[parocks]

Rubio is really no different than Ryan, Romney, Christie, etc. He's a neocon with a Hispanic name. Policies earn votes in a post-racial America, not color of skin.

You're not suggesting we're "post-racial" now? This past election had a huge racial component.

Black women voted for Obama 96/3. Black men 87, Latino women 76, Latino men 65.

Romney won whites 59/39, white women 56/42.

 

[supermario21]

I don't want to, but if we don't be careful with this we're going to be labeled racists. I cringe the MSM thwarting Rand with that Maddow interview. Look, I'm as much a post-racial skeptic as you are, but I just fear losing because of something stupid and insignificant. We should try and bolster our conservatism and pick up minorities as bonus points. I think Ron's minority supporters could have put Romney (or any hypothetical R) over the top. It's going to take a careful message to win over minorities, something that the right wing talking heads are already missing. They think if we go pro-amnesty that solves all the problems.

 

[Drivingrain]

I don't want to, but if we don't be careful with this we're going to be labeled racists. I cringe the MSM thwarting Rand with that Maddow interview. Look, I'm as much a post-racial skeptic as you are, but I just fear losing because of something stupid and insignificant. We should try and bolster our conservatism and pick up minorities as bonus points. I think Ron's minority supporters could have put Romney (or any hypothetical R) over the top. It's going to take a careful message to win over minorities, something that the right wing talking heads are already missing. They think if we go pro-amnesty that solves all the problems.

I agree with this sentiment.

Rand Paul will be labeled a racist and it will stick. He will also be labeled as a foreign policy nut. The Repubs, Dems AND the MSM will suffocate the success. There is too much for the 2-party system, the welfare state and the MIC to lose to ever give us a fair shot again.

We went over that cliff. It's about time we recognize it.

Focus on the *many* issues where we have widespread appeal and we will see real change in our lifetimes.

 

[69360]

Electoral success, local or national....is highly unlikely.

No it isn't. Rand has all the same principles and values as his dad, but with better presentation so the GOP talkers and GOP mainstream like him. We'll be in much better shape next time.

If Bernake can't print enough to feed Obama's nation of takers and it all falls apart in the next 4 years it's a whole new game as well.

 

[Drivingrain]

If <snip> it all falls apart in the next 4 years it's a whole new game as well.

If the country is forced to learn the lessons we've been trying to teach them, then yes; that will help....but what impact on our lives did us being correct about the housing bubble get us? Nothing. More of the same.

This is not just about electoral victories, this is about real impactful change in our lifetimes. I do not believe we will achieve that through an electoral strategy. Not once have R's said that we should have followed Ron Paul following this election. They will not turn to us in any meaningful way. And if they somehow do turn to Rand, D's and the MSM will successfully vilanize us and we will lose as Goldwater did.

Our issues, however, are in our favor. Pushing the issues will get results as the MSM wont fight nearly as hard and we will actually get support from both Ds and Rs

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

the MSM will successfully vilanize us and we will lose as Goldwater did.

so why isn't the MSM our target? Information is power and they are controlling the flow to the masses.

 

[belian78]

I've been more of a political reader who has written a few letters to my congressmen. This thread reminds me that I should be more active in grass roots efforts.

Would it be better to try to affect change in the GOP, or try to build up the Libertarian Party?

Who do you work with better? Who do you have the most networking groundwork already laid, with? These questions should point you in the right direction.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Takes the willingness to do the work. Most of us talk a bit game, but most of those(myself included) don't really want to do the work at the end of the day. If we want to build from the bottom up, we have to get people elected strategically throughout key states. We need to agree on what our goals really are and work solely toward them. If we are all over the place then we won't achieve anything. So clarification of goals, and organizing action to achieve them must come first.

+rep

 

[LibertyEagle]

Electoral success, local or national....is highly unlikely. The co-opting of the Tea Party from its Santelli-Ron Paul roots into some kind of social-conservative-group was engineered equally and with cooperation by Republicans and Democrats for their mutual benefit and it is the only example we should ever need to know that progress from electoral victories has little chance of success.

There are at least two ways to get serious w/o electoral victory:
(1) Push on issues, not candidates. And, very importantly, those issues need to be framed as Constitutional amendments. Pick an issue to start with; commerce clause clarification, declaration of war clarification, etc. Obviously, not having an electoral strategy will make it more difficult to get the votes needed for this to happen, but if we fixate on one or two items and drive public support...then it may be successful.
(2) Begin a serious discussion about secession and start movements in selected States.

To me these seem like the only paths to real change in our lifetimes. Maybe Im missing something? Is there a reason why an electoral strategy is better than these strategies?

No thanks. I'm not at all interested in a Constitutional Convention. Because then the whole thing is up for grabs. No thanks.

 

[belian78]

If the country is forced to learn the lessons we've been trying to teach them, then yes; that will help....but what impact on our lives did us being correct about the housing bubble get us? Nothing. More of the same.

This is not just about electoral victories, this is about real impactful change in our lifetimes. I do not believe we will achieve that through an electoral strategy. Not once have R's said that we should have followed Ron Paul following this election. They will not turn to us in any meaningful way. And if they somehow do turn to Rand, D's and the MSM will successfully vilanize us and we will lose as Goldwater did.

Our issues, however, are in our favor. Pushing the issues will get results as the MSM wont fight nearly as hard and we will actually get support from both Ds and Rs

It's all well and good to have people at the forefront talking bout the issues that need discussed, but you will not have true and lasting change in both policy and thought without that change coming from the bottom up. Lets say tomorrow Jim Demint comes out at Ron's true successor, changes his tune and becomes an absolute crusader for ending the War on Terror/Fed Reserve/Fractional Reserve banking... Sure it'll spark a few fires in the local GOP areas, for a short time. In the short term the mainstream machine will marginalize and chew up Demint just like it did Ron, and when they have him successfully pushed off to one side, the rest of the rank and file GOP goes back to listening to Beck/Hannity.

Now, changing the way local rebublicans think/act within their party will have lasting change. The mainstream machine can pull all the tricks they want, and in the end they will only make themselves look even worse and quicken their demise. So yes, having those at the top champion our causes is needed, but do not rule out changing structures from bottom up as fruitless.

 

[Henry Rogue]

so why isn't the MSM our target? Information is power and they are controlling the flow to the masses.

There is a thread here on RPF about starting a Liberty channel link>http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395014-Liberty-TV-revisited&highlight=Liberty+channel It would take a ton of RFNs. Not sure how successful of a business adventure it would be as a Co-operative.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

There is a thread here on RPF about starting a Liberty channel link>http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395014-Liberty-TV-revisited&highlight=Liberty+channel It would take a ton of RFNs. Not sure how successful of a business adventure it would be as a Co-operative.

Wasn't talking about buying a tv station, we need a cultural change that forces our current major media outlets to become more journalistic or be rejected all together. Exposing the MSM for what they really are, corporations that are driven by profit not truth. Social media is a great resource, not to mention broadcast sites. Maybe a Netflix channel (just brainstorming).

 

[Henry Rogue]

Wasn't talking about buying a tv station, we need a cultural change that forces our current major media outlets to become more journalistic or be rejected all together. Exposing the MSM for what they really are, corporations that are driven by profit not truth. Social media is a great resource, not to mention broadcast sites. Maybe a Netflix channel (just brainstorming).

Yes, giving MSM some competition would be nice. Like everything else start small and grow from there.