View Full Version : is it more realistic to fight in Democratic primaries?
cindy25
10-29-2009, 06:00 AM
come 2010 and especially 2012 I can see a Democratic base voting for an anti-war candidate. similar to Gene McCarthy vs LBJ
but Republicans, especially the primary voting base, will be pro-war til the end. and on domestic issues the differences between Paul or Johnson vary only in degree
sofia
10-29-2009, 06:45 AM
come 2010 and especially 2012 I can see a Democratic base voting for an anti-war candidate. similar to Gene McCarthy vs LBJ
but Republicans, especially the primary voting base, will be pro-war til the end. and on domestic issues the differences between Paul or Johnson vary only in degree
Congressman Dr. Larry MacDonald was the original "Dr. No"
He was elected as a Democrat in Georgia. Had identical positions as Ron Paul and a bright future ahead of him until the Communists shot his plane down (KAL007) in 1983.
In Reagan's address to the nation that evening, he gave condolences to the families of KAL007 and a "Mrs. MacDonald"....BUT NEVER MENTIONED THAT A CONGRESSMAN WAS ON BOARD!
Larry MacDonald was also the head of the John Birch Society.
Bucjason
10-29-2009, 08:36 AM
Woodrow WIlson -Democrat- Pro-war
FDR- Democrat-Pro War
Truman- Democrat - Pro War
Kennedy-Democrat-Pro war
Lydon Johnson-Democrat - Pro War
Barack Obama - Democrat - Pro War
Sooooo, ummmm, yeah ....running as a Dem in the primaries isn't going to help you. Dems are only anti-war when a Republican is in office. Don't believe me ?? Ask Code Pink...
krazy kaju
10-29-2009, 08:51 AM
I would support any pro-market Democrat who would try to run for any office.
....running as a Dem in the primaries isn't going to help you. Dems are only anti-war when a Republican is in office.
The Democratic base is often anti-war.
cindy25
10-29-2009, 08:52 AM
but how can an anti-war Republican beat a Palin, or Huck, or Romney? Wilson ran as peace candidate, FDR beat Wilkie who was also pro-war/pro-draft. Truman beat pro-war Dewey
krazy kaju
10-29-2009, 08:53 AM
We should be trying to field liberty candidates through every venue possible. That includes the Democrat Party.
kahless
10-29-2009, 09:07 AM
We need operatives infiltrating both parties. Right now they both fight to see who the most moderate. It would be a win win situation to see both sides fight over who is more for limited government and non-intervention.
Mini-Me
10-29-2009, 09:11 AM
We should be trying to field liberty candidates through every venue possible. That includes the Democrat Party.
Although I agree in principle, the problem is that as a movement, we have very limited resources. It would be great if a Republican and a Democrat in every district in the US ran on a pro-freedom platform - and eventually, swarming the establishment from all sides is how we're going to win (even if it takes a thousand years) - but until we educate more people, we can't pledge to financially support a bajillion candidates at once. :-/
krazy kaju
10-29-2009, 09:16 AM
I'm not arguing we field literally thousands of candidates on both sides, what I am arguing is that it would be nice to have some libertarian Democrats. In a district dominated by Democrats, we could field a Democrat liberty candidate. Or, in a district dominated by Republicans, we could field a liberty candidate in the Democrat Party as a viable alternative. Such a candidate would have a better chance of winning in a conservative district.
Personally, the Republican Party is for me. But I'd love to see a move away from statism within the Democrat Party.
Bucjason
10-29-2009, 09:32 AM
I would support any pro-market Democrat who would try to run for any office.
Pro-market Democrat ....HA ! Oxymoron.
heavenlyboy34
10-29-2009, 09:35 AM
since the elected class (theoretically) comes from the general population, it seems that educating the general population is a better use of time and resources (if you're concerned about election outcomes).
Mini-Me
10-29-2009, 09:39 AM
I'm not arguing we field literally thousands of candidates on both sides, what I am arguing is that it would be nice to have some libertarian Democrats. In a district dominated by Democrats, we could field a Democrat liberty candidate. Or, in a district dominated by Republicans, we could field a liberty candidate in the Democrat Party as a viable alternative. Such a candidate would have a better chance of winning in a conservative district.
Personally, the Republican Party is for me. But I'd love to see a move away from statism within the Democrat Party.
Of course, but my point was that we're still struggling to support candidates in just a handful of scattered districts. Once we're to the point where we can field a candidate for almost every district, I'm sure we'll start to branch out a lot more and field candidates based on district demographics. I guess the best way of putting things into perspective is that we're still fighting over resources between Schiff and Rand Paul, so any unknowns - whether they want to run as Republicans or Democrats - are kind of on their own financially until we grow further. :-/ Realistically, we're only going to see more random people running for office (in either party) once we've made more headway educating people. By that point, the candidates will be everywhere and should be able to get their funding locally.
klamath
10-29-2009, 10:28 AM
but how can an anti-war Republican beat a Palin, or Huck, or Romney? Wilson ran as peace candidate, FDR beat Wilkie who was also pro-war/pro-draft. Truman beat pro-war Dewey
What does that tell you? Democrats are more dishonest than R's. It is not what they say it is what they DO.
I remember the democratic base screaming to high heaven that Reagan would start WWIII and obliterate the world with nuclear weapons.
The next democrat that was elected coming from the democratic peace movement started three wars and continued another one. The republicans in congress vote over 50% with RP while the democrats vote well under 50% with RP. There is not one democrat in congress that votes over 50% with RP.
However if you can get a good democratics candidates running in a solid democratic districts, more power to you.
paulitics
10-29-2009, 10:33 AM
since the elected class (theoretically) comes from the general population, it seems that educating the general population is a better use of time and resources (if you're concerned about election outcomes).
The besy way to reach out is through campaining, esp debates. You can reach thousands or millions, instead of one or two. There is no harm in getting involved in the political process. None.
The political enemy is counting on us thinking the game is too rigged to participate. It becomes a self fullfilling prophesy.
constituent
10-29-2009, 10:34 AM
Of course it is, if your goal is liberty. We should strive to influence every party concerning every issue we even remotely agree on. Take for example, the war on drugs. The dems consistently play to the anti-drug war crowd, and are (wrongly, imo) viewed as the "pro-marijuana" party.
If we were busy playing the base, and holding "our elected officials" feet to the fire concerning liberty issues, we'd be seeing progress every day rather than settling w/ crossing our fingers after every election, hoping that we might, in four years' time, elect people who--assuming they stick to their word--take it upon themselves to fix this country for us.
We have to realize that elections aren't the only answer, and that party hackery is no answer at all.
cindy25
10-29-2009, 06:54 PM
Reagan promised to end draft registration, W promised no nation building. and read my lips old Bush promised no new taxes
Liberty Star
10-29-2009, 11:43 PM
That's a good question, hard to cure GOP base entirely.
but Republicans, especially the primary voting base, will be pro-war til the end. and on domestic issues the differences between Paul or Johnson vary only in degree
Obama treatment has had a little corrective effect but looks like they need more powerful prescription even.
tangent4ronpaul
10-30-2009, 01:21 AM
It would be pretty easy to streatch limited resources and support many candidates.
There is a list of 912 candidates, a list of liberty candidates and one other out there. Develop a platform that both Repubs and Dems could support - things like repealing the patriot act and bringing our troops home, etc. Then see how many of these candidates would sign on to the "coalition"
Develop radio/TV ads and fliers that cover the issues but are candidate / party independent. For broadcast media - short clip of candidate at end. Could also get pretty good discounts for bulk advertizing buys, for print - because we're talking huge print runs the per-copy costs gets downright cheap on a web press. They could be customized during printing or via a rubber stamp.
Likewise, "cells" could be set up for material production. The cost of a T-shirt screen printer starts looking pretty good compaired to commercial orders for T-shirts by 50 candidates. Maybe a couple of Meetups coud buy a bunch of button machines and beacuse they are making so many, get deep discounts on the materials, etc.
For websites, co-host a server and set them up cookie-cutter style, one per candidate, but link all the other sites on each one. That may get higher search rankings via google.
Do fundraising and grassroots organizing seperatly from the candidates.
-t
tangent4ronpaul
10-30-2009, 09:27 AM
discussion?
-t
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.