Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[cajuncocoa]

The problem is candidates don't materialize without support. How do they know there are liberty activists hungry for a candidate? Everyone was sitting home waiting for a "pure" candidate.

Demand comes before supply.

Well, good grief. How do I know he's out there willing to run? He's sitting home waiting for a phone call from me, and I don't even know him!

 

[sailingaway]

The problem is candidates don't materialize without support. How do they know there are liberty activists hungry for a candidate? Everyone was sitting home waiting for a "pure" candidate.

Demand comes before supply.

wrong-o

Ron Paul came before the funding, crowds and dedicated organization.

And therefore they know another Ron Paul will bring crowds. Pablum and pandering, not so much.

 

[Carlybee]

A candidate either supports the Constitution or he/she doesn't. There is no gray area here. Supporting the Patriot Act is about as unconstitutional as it gets. Not to mention all the other agencies and acts that have the intent of spying on citizens or restricting their constitutional rights.

 

[libertskee]

OK, I didn't see that.

I changed it.

Thank You! : )

 

[JorgeStevenson]

I just noticed this thread and am trying to understand why the title is the complete opposite of the first post. Was it edited?

Summary of thread:

People misinterpreted "Jeff Flake can help the Liberty Movement" or something like that to mean "Jeff Flake is a liberty candidate"

Ensuing discussion included many penis measurements, pissing contests, and declarations of purity. Reasonable individuals argued that if one candidate sides with you on about 2/3 of the issues (although the remaining 1/3 are admittedly important), while another candidate sides with you on almost no issues, then it would seem that the first candidate would "help" the "liberty movement" in being a pretty sure vote for those 2/3 of the issues that he lines up with you on.

Nothing seems to have been resolved. Check in tomorrow night for an update. I'm guessing we'll still be in the same place we are now.

 

[sailingaway]

very dismissive but not terribly helpful imho ^^

nothing will be 'resolved' if we simply disagree. We are defining terms.

 

[kathy88]

Who said half? I said time and time again, I am a 90% guy. I look at the entire picture - all of the issues and see where they come down on those. By the same token I won't support a guy who is good on civil liberties, but horrible on economic issues, 2nd amendment, regulation, taxes, the fed, abortion, etc. I look at all the issues and make my decision based on that.

I remember very clearly you pushing Rohrer over Scaringi in the PA primaries, admitting that Scaringi seemed the better candidate, but Rohrer was "electable." We need to stop settling.

 

[JorgeStevenson]

very dismissive but not terribly helpful imho ^^

nothing will be 'resolved' if we simply disagree. We are defining terms.

I don't think we are. I think people are just trying to thump their chests. It's plain as day, and I believe has been admitted on both sides by now, that it's a good thing to have people who will vote for the things that Rand and Ron are trying to get passed. When the alternative candidate in the race would not vote for those things, then the candidate in question is helping. The rest of this thread is the equivalent of an emo song whining for why can't everybody be Ron Paul. Although admittedly it's starting to take a turn in a different direction where people are now trying to figure out how to organize the movement better.

 

[cajuncocoa]

A candidate either supports the Constitution or he/she doesn't. There is no gray area here. Supporting the Patriot Act is about as unconstitutional as it gets. Not to mention all the other agencies and acts that have the intent of spying on citizens or restricting their constitutional rights.

Why is this so hard? What would we expect Ron Paul to say about this?

 

[KingNothing]

I remember very clearly you pushing Rohrer over Scaringi in the PA primaries, admitting that Scaringi seemed the better candidate, but Rohrer was "electable." We need to stop settling.

Rohrer was not "settling" - he was a great candidate.

 

[kathy88]

Rohrer was not "settling" - he was a great candidate.

Scaringi was better.

 

[tbone717]

I remember very clearly you pushing Rohrer over Scaringi in the PA primaries, admitting that Scaringi seemed the better candidate, but Rohrer was "electable." We need to stop settling.

Ideologically they were both fine. Rohrer did have a record though, where all we could base Scaringi on was his words. I went with Rohrer because I had supported him before and felt that he had a realistic shot. I also recall saying that because Scaringi had no money, little organization and no legislative experience he could not be a contender. Scaringi got 6% of the vote coming in dead last. Turns out I was right about that.

 

[KingNothing]

Scaringi was better.

Yeah, who knows. It certainly didn't work out too well for him and I doubt it was because a dude on a message board felt someone else was better.

 

[gerryb]

Well, good grief. How do I know he's out there willing to run? He's sitting home waiting for a phone call from me, and I don't even know him!

No, most likely he tried to get involved, and saw that everyone attending meetings, volunteering for candidates, in control of the levers of power such as various local republican committees(precinct, county, legislative district, congressional district, etc.), was a neocon or liberal buffoon.

He saw the results of the last election when a guy like Flake ran and didn't garner much support vs. a totally statist candidate... Obviously that location supports statism and there's no hope for a different candidate.

We need to be out there showing there is support for our ideas. Promoting the positions of candidates that we agree with, and moving them our direction on the ones we don't.

 

[tbone717]

wrong-o

Ron Paul came before the funding, crowds and dedicated organization.

And therefore they know another Ron Paul will bring crowds. Pablum and pandering, not so much.

Uh no. It took Ron Paul his whole career to get to the level he did. Ron Paul couldn't draw thousands in the 70's, 80's and 90's. He built his support over the years that he was in office, when people like me used to have C-Span on late in the evening watching "special orders" and seeing him speak to an empty House chamber in the 90's. Ron Paul didn't appear out of thin air, it took years, and he had a base of support that started sending him emails and letters suggesting that he should run for the nomination back in 06.

 

[tbone717]

Yeah, who knows. It certainly didn't work out too well for him and I doubt it was because a dude on a message board felt someone else was better.

He tried for a much larger office than he was ready for. The guy was never elected to anything before IIRC, his only political experience was that he worked on Santorum's staff. He's a good guy from what I can tell, but really needs to focus on a lower level seat for his first run.

 

[gerryb]

Uh no. It took Ron Paul his whole career to get to the level he did. Ron Paul couldn't draw thousands in the 70's, 80's and 90's. He built his support over the years that he was in office, when people like me used to have C-Span on late in the evening watching "special orders" and seeing him speak to an empty House chamber in the 90's. Ron Paul didn't appear out of thin air, it took years, and he had a base of support that started sending him emails and letters suggesting that he should run for the nomination back in 06.

Bingo.

And what about those crowds now? We had 5,000 show up in Springfield, Virginia -- where we were recruiting and educating about delegates. How many were local? I dunno. But we had 97 of "our people" show up to our conventions in the adjacent town. Almost none of them from our efforts at the rally.

We won one delegate, and zero party positions. With 50 more of that 5,000 we would have had 3 delegates going to Tampa instead of 1. We picked up a lot of "coalition" support -- and If those 250 people had also paid a $15 fee to vote on party positions, we would also have control of the local party, and access to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional funds via the party.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't think we are. I think people are just trying to thump their chests. It's plain as day, and I believe has been admitted on both sides by now, that it's a good thing to have people who will vote for the things that Rand and Ron are trying to get passed. When the alternative candidate in the race would not vote for those things, then the candidate in question is helping. The rest of this thread is the equivalent of an emo song whining for why can't everybody be Ron Paul. Although admittedly it's starting to take a turn in a different direction where people are now trying to figure out how to organize the movement better.

Great post! +rep for likening this to emo music.

 

[sailingaway]

Uh no. It took Ron Paul his whole career to get to the level he did. Ron Paul couldn't draw thousands in the 70's, 80's and 90's. He built his support over the years that he was in office, when people like me used to have C-Span on late in the evening watching "special orders" and seeing him speak to an empty House chamber in the 90's. Ron Paul didn't appear out of thin air, it took years, and he had a base of support that started sending him emails and letters suggesting that he should run for the nomination back in 06.

None of the others excite that interest because they DON'T have Paul's record. I don't see how what you say refutes anything I said. People heard him and looked at his record and were energized. Others without that record can mouth the words and it is meaningless.

 

[sailingaway]

Great post! +rep for likening this to emo music.

because insulting is always good?