After each election...

[Fr3shjive]

should we focus our attention on 2-3 liberty candidates who have a real chance at taking out the establishment candidate? Right now we have two people who are getting most of our attention; Rand and Schiff.

Assuming they win their respective elections should we move on to two more candidates who have a real shot at taking out establishment candidates? I think if we focused our efforts on 1-2 candidates every election cycle we'll really start to make an impact in Washington. It'll be slow but eventually people will start to notice and we'll have a real alternative to the establishment Dems and Neo-cons.

Right now we have, what, 1-2 candidates who represent liberty minded people in washington. Once we start taking Neo-con seats they're going to start noticing us.

What do you guys think?

[parocks]

What are the other choices?

There should be Liberty candidates. We should support Rand and Schiff.


should we focus our attention on 2-3 liberty candidates who have a real chance at taking out the establishment candidate? Right now we have two people who are getting most of our attention; Rand and Schiff.

Assuming they win their respective elections should we move on to two more candidates who have a real shot at taking out establishment candidates? I think if we focused our efforts on 1-2 candidates every election cycle we'll really start to make an impact in Washington. It'll be slow but eventually people will start to notice and we'll have a real alternative to the establishment Dems and Neo-cons.

Right now we have, what, 1-2 candidates who represent liberty minded people in washington. Once we start taking Neo-con seats they're going to start noticing us.

What do you guys think?

[Fr3shjive]

What are the other choices?

There should be Liberty candidates. We should support Rand and Schiff.

I guess this is the first time that the Campaign for Liberty has really backed candidates and it probably wont be the last. Kind of gives me hope for our country if we can manage to get at least 1-2 liberty minded candidates into office every election cycle.

I've contributed to both of their campaigns and definitely hope they both win.

[tangent4ronpaul]

should we focus our attention on 2-3 liberty candidates who have a real chance at taking out the establishment candidate? Right now we have two people who are getting most of our attention; Rand and Schiff.

Assuming they win their respective elections should we move on to two more candidates who have a real shot at taking out establishment candidates? I think if we focused our efforts on 1-2 candidates every election cycle we'll really start to make an impact in Washington. It'll be slow but eventually people will start to notice and we'll have a real alternative to the establishment Dems and Neo-cons.

Right now we have, what, 1-2 candidates who represent liberty minded people in washington. Once we start taking Neo-con seats they're going to start noticing us.

What do you guys think?

do the math. with elections every 2 years, and a max political career of 40 years, and the unrealistic assumption of winning every race, that strategy gets us at most 40-60 people in Congress after 40 years. There are what, 456 or so seats in the house + 100 in the senate. the strategy almost works if we just support Senate candidates, but legislation and spending bills are supposed to come from the House. This plan is a basic FAIL.

in 2008, we ran 70 candidates. We were the Atari of politics. It takes someone like Obama and a Dem controlled congress to create brushfires that turn into firestorms. That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in now - a perfect storm. November and 2012 will be a bloodbath for Congress, and as so many are retiring or vulnerable, we need to run as many candidates as possible or adopt others candidates.

Remember when RP had that PR event with 6 candidates from different political spectrums? He had one requirement - agree to these 6 points. Beyond that it doens't matter if they were socialist, libertairn, conservative or whatever. This "it has to be a "liberty candidate" is total BS! - if someone matches 3/4ths of what you're looking for and you get them in office - well, that is major progress! Crossing lines like that also shifts funding demands to different communities and distributes them.

Personally, if I had 4 requirements for supporting a candidate they would be:
1) Refuses to take corporate contributions
2) vows to never talk to or be swayed by lobbyists
3) vows to never make a deal for their vote
4 vows to never vote on legislation that would spend money the government doesn't have in hand (that year's receipts) or raise taxes.

That would solve 99% of the problems right there.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

I guess this is the first time that the Campaign for Liberty has really backed candidates and it probably wont be the last. Kind of gives me hope for our country if we can manage to get at least 1-2 liberty minded candidates into office every election cycle.

I've contributed to both of their campaigns and definitely hope they both win.

I hope not! - their tax status absolutely forbids them from supporting candidates!

-t

[Fr3shjive]

do the math. with elections every 2 years, and a max political career of 40 years, and the unrealistic assumption of winning every race, that strategy gets us at most 40-60 people in Congress after 40 years. There are what, 456 or so seats in the house + 100 in the senate. the strategy almost works if we just support Senate candidates, but legislation and spending bills are supposed to come from the House. This plan is a basic FAIL.

40-60 seats in the house or senate would be considered a fail to you? Right now we have two choices to pick from 1. Big government 2. Bigger government. If we had even 20 people in there that stood by the costitution and believed in freedom it would send the message that we have other choices aside from Democrat or Neo-Con.

40-60 is modest but I think if we even got close to that number of representatives in congress then we'd be showing people that they do have choice and it would snow ball from there. All it takes is to get a few representatives in there for people to notice and then I think it would eventually start attracting many more people.

I think its good if we support all candidates who are closest to our values but if we, the people of C4L, are going to put our financial support behind candidates I think it would be best if we focused on a few so that we can give them the best support we can rather than having fragmented support all over the place.

[Fr3shjive]

I hope not! - their tax status absolutely forbids them from supporting candidates!

-t

Support in the sense that they have a part of the forum dedicated to them. By just posting a sticky or creating a part of the forum for them generates hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[fisharmor]

Congress is a runaway freight train, and I'm inclined to agree that a platform of trying to change it is futile.

If I were calling the shots I would immediately shift focus away from national politics and start focusing exclusively on state politics.

The fastest way to enact changes in favor of liberty is through nullification and, if necessary, secession.

States are already mumbling about it, and the liberty movement's apparent failure to capitalize on it is disturbing.

[tangent4ronpaul]

well, could split donations with suggestions being something like:

Pick 3 candidates - one national race that we are backing, one candidate for local, state or federal office in your local state and one lesser known candidate in another state and divide your donations evenly.

That third candidate could be a "cluster bomb donation too - ask everyone to donate to a nationwide PAC and send out raised funds evenly to minor candidates.

Donations and national level campaigns are a double edge sword. Brown's whole campaign budget was 1.2 Million. His opponent had 1.5 Million (250K from SEIU), when it went national, he raised 12-14 Million from individuals while his opponent raised a similar amount but from only 4-5 donors/pac's. As a result, TV stations in the area ran out of ad slots they could sell the 2 campaigns.

What else happened? Individual donors were bled dry. If the campaign had been kept at a lower level of intensity and within the original 1.2 Million budget those donors could have funded 10 Senate races at the same level.

Money bombs get publicity, but they also drive up costs, as the bought opposition goes for corporate / PAC bribes.

I imagine this exact same effect has overshadowed Rand and Schiffs campaigns.

-t

[slothman]

What are the "liberty" candidates in Congress?
Yes I used scare quotes.

I would at least include Dennis Kucinich.

[tangent4ronpaul]

What are the "liberty" candidates in Congress?
Yes I used scare quotes.

I would at least include Dennis Kucinich.

Unless they are running for re-election, if they are in Congress they aren't candidates. A liberty candidate is someone that basically agrees with RP's platform. Follow the Constitution, small government, local controll, non-interventionist foreign policy, what you put in your body is your own business, abortion and gun control are state issues, anti-nannystate, anti-regulation, anti-tax, etc.

The following representatives (maybe a senator or two in here too) attend Dr. Paul's Thursday afternoon Congressional Liberty Caucus meetings and should be considered on "our side". It would be a bad idea to run against them. This list is not exhaustive and Not sure all these folks are still in office, but...

Paul Broun
Doug Lamborn
Jones
Duncan
Bartlett
Tancredo
Rehberg
Chabot
Goode
Jeff Miller
Flake
Blackburn
Senator Sununu

-t