Is Winning worth trading your principles?

[UtahApocalypse]

In light of the C4L debacle I laid in bed last night thinking. Sure I don't know what the statement from them will say, but some thoughts on it have come out through discussion here and also some C4L leadership.

At this point it seems the main point that might be made is that the $350,000 was not from the "General fund" but some other source earmarked for this ad. Regardless of where the money came from it does not change the fact that the C4L logo, graphics, and wording on the ad imply an endorsement.

Members here have researched this candidate and found not just the Iraq war comments but many other things that are not compatible with our ideals, or principles. Too me that is more offensive then the use of the funds would have been.

Other members have stated to suspect that this was done as a strategy against the Senate Conservatives fund backing of another candidate.

These points bring me to a question that kept me up last night "Would you trade off some of your principles to win?"

If Ron Paul could have won the nomination for President by changing or dropping his principles on foreign policy would it have been worth it?

If the billionaire was real and offered as much money needed for ads for Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Debra Medina, and even all or local level candidates in exchange for certain votes not consistent with our principles would it be worth it?

If winning each and every campaign meant changing our values and principles would it be worth it?

Absolutely not. I would rather loose EVERY election we fight and never win then trade a single liberty, freedom, value, or principle that we fight for.

[Anti Federalist]

Trade your principles to "win" and you've already lost.

[LittleLightShining]

In light of the C4L debacle I laid in bed last night thinking. Sure I don't know what the statement from them will say, but some thoughts on it have come out through discussion here and also some C4L leadership.

At this point it seems the main point that might be made is that the $350,000 was not from the "General fund" but some other source earmarked for this ad. Regardless of where the money came from it does not change the fact that the C4L logo, graphics, and wording on the ad imply an endorsement.

Members here have researched this candidate and found not just the Iraq war comments but many other things that are not compatible with our ideals, or principles. Too me that is more offensive then the use of the funds would have been.

Other members have stated to suspect that this was done as a strategy against the Senate Conservatives fund backing of another candidate.

These points bring me to a question that kept me up last night "Would you trade off some of your principles to win?"

If Ron Paul could have won the nomination for President by changing or dropping his principles on foreign policy would it have been worth it?

If the billionaire was real and offered as much money needed for ads for Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Debra Medina, and even all or local level candidates in exchange for certain votes not consistent with our principles would it be worth it?

If winning each and every campaign meant changing our values and principles would it be worth it?

Absolutely not. I would rather loose EVERY election we fight and never win then trade a single liberty, freedom, value, or principle that we fight for.The point is HE wouldn't but Hopper, Rothfeld and Tate would.

[Elwar]

That depends. I am for open borders but I was very much as supporter of Ron Paul and would have loved for him to be president. Would that mean that I traded my principles for a win?

[MsDoodahs]

trade your principles to "win" and you've already lost.

^^^this.

[Anti Federalist]

That depends. I am for open borders but I was very much as supporter of Ron Paul and would have loved for him to be president. Would that mean that I traded my principles for a win?

No, throwing your support to McPain to "block" Obama would have been.

[Elwar]

No, throwing your support to McPain to "block" Obama would have been.

But at what point do I trade principles for a possible win?

The only candidate that I agree with 100% is myself. I support most of the planks of the Libertarian Party but have come to realize that they'll never win. I supported Ron Paul because he was more likely to win than any LP member. He supports the Constitution which is the direction I would support but there are plenty of things in the Constitution that I feel are still too much government.

I support Gary Johnson and he's running on a more practical campaign of smaller government as opposed to dismantling government, which makes him even more of a viable candidate.

My principles say that government's role should only be to enforce the non aggression principle and enact property rights. Voting for anyone outside of that would be comprimising my principles.

[UtahApocalypse]

But at what point do I trade principles for a possible win?

The only candidate that I agree with 100% is myself. I support most of the planks of the Libertarian Party but have come to realize that they'll never win. I supported Ron Paul because he was more likely to win than any LP member. He supports the Constitution which is the direction I would support but there are plenty of things in the Constitution that I feel are still too much government.

I support Gary Johnson and he's running on a more practical campaign of smaller government as opposed to dismantling government, which makes him even more of a viable candidate.

My principles say that government's role should only be to enforce the non aggression principle and enact property rights. Voting for anyone outside of that would be comprimising my principles.

I do see your point and agree. You can never find someone 100%. I guess more my point is if you did support someone, even with a a few "flaws" that you have come to accept would you still support them, or the group if they CHANGED what their principles were.

[Anti Federalist]

But at what point do I trade principles for a possible win?

The only candidate that I agree with 100% is myself. I support most of the planks of the Libertarian Party but have come to realize that they'll never win. I supported Ron Paul because he was more likely to win than any LP member. He supports the Constitution which is the direction I would support but there are plenty of things in the Constitution that I feel are still too much government.

I support Gary Johnson and he's running on a more practical campaign of smaller government as opposed to dismantling government, which makes him even more of a viable candidate.

My principles say that government's role should only be to enforce the non aggression principle and enact property rights. Voting for anyone outside of that would be comprimising my principles.

Perfect agreement is never possible.

But there has to be some "deal breakers", some core principles that cannot be compromised.

Like non-interventionism or non aggression.

[torchbearer]

here is my take- if ron got elected by pandering, but when elected voted his true principles. it matters not.
it is how they act once elected that matters.
for instance, most politicians lie about being pro-small government- then when elected, vote for more government.
which is more important? the fact that they paid lip-service or the fact that they voted against liberty principles?

now, i'd say it isn't ok to vote for legislation that is against your principles just to get elected.

[Elwar]

I do see your point and agree. You can never find someone 100%. I guess more my point is if you did support someone, even with a a few "flaws" that you have come to accept would you still support them, or the group if they CHANGED what their principles were.

If they changed their principles because they sold out (just to win) I would not support them. If they changed their principles because they had a true change of heart, I would hold off my support until they proved themselves (ala Glenn Beck, who hasn't proved himself). And that's only if they changed their principles toward my beliefs.

For something like the CFL...if they became pro-war just to win elections. Then no.

[LittleLightShining]

If they changed their principles because they sold out (just to win) I would not support them. If they changed their principles because they had a true change of heart, I would hold off my support until they proved themselves (ala Glenn Beck, who hasn't proved himself). And that's only if they changed their principles toward my beliefs.

For something like the CFL...if they became pro-war just to win elections. Then no.

Why else would they become pro-war? Or be willing to bend on that issue?

[Elwar]

here is my take- if ron got elected by pandering, but when elected voted his true principles. it matters not.
it is how they act once elected that matters.
for instance, most politicians lie about being pro-small government- then when elected, vote for more government.
which is more important? the fact that they paid lip-service or the fact that they voted against liberty principles?

now, i'd say it isn't ok to vote for legislation that is against your principles just to get elected.

That's why people need to look at a politician's record. Politicians pander, as long as they don't flat out lie but stand up in front of a national teachers union and say "I want better education for our children. I support teachers. etc" while leaving out the fact that they want to end the Department of Education in order to achieve that, then that's legit.

It's the voting that counts. Though, even voting records can be deceiving. Someone might vote against a tax cut because they want that one to fail so that another bill with a bigger tax cut would pass.

Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills while in office. He wouldn't even allow specialized license plates to pass because he felt it was a waste of government resources. That shows how he'll run his presidency far more than anything that will come out of his mouth in the next 3 years. Same with Ron Paul ("Dr. No").

[AuH2O]

The point is HE wouldn't but Hopper, Rothfeld and Tate would.

I think if you knew any one of those people as well as you claim to (or ought to, as much as you talk about them), I don't imagine you'd say that.

[Pennsylvania]

That depends. I am for open borders but I was very much as supporter of Ron Paul and would have loved for him to be president. Would that mean that I traded my principles for a win?

I agree with you on this issue, and no, I don't think you've compromised your principles. We have to accept that, for now, someone is going to be in office, so you might as well have your say in who that is. Anyway, even if Ron does support a wall or some other stupid nonsense, he still supports sending NAFTA straight to hell, ending social security, and ending the war on drugs. These are all factors that significantly affect the condition of migrant workers.

[LittleLightShining]

I think if you knew any one of those people as well as you claim to (or ought to, as much as you talk about them), I don't imagine you'd say that.

I know enough to know I'm right. I've had enough discussion about and done enough research on both Rothfeld and Hopper to know that they are absolutely willing to make full-time jobs out of directing organizations that they don't completely agree with. They have no problem with that. None at all. In Hopper's case she did damage to the Constitution Party because she didn't agree with them on abortion. She knew Rothfeld back in 94 and had him do one of his fabulous training sessions for them. All I can see is that the seriously pro-life people mostly stuck with the CP and the rest ended up in the GOP-- right where Rothfeld wants us to go, too.

[constituent]

I guess I see elections in a different light than most folks here, but to me elections are more important for the impact they have on public opinion than the position they might earn us in the pecking order...

[Romulus]

Trade your principles to "win" and you've already lost.

qft

[klamath]

People keep saying 'OUR" principles. There is no "OUR" principles. There are your principles and there are my principles. Everybody makes there own choice of what is violating their own principles.
Everyone makes their own choice even RP. RP endorsed Bachmann and McClintock even though they don't agree with his principles on foreign policy.
You as an individual can make your own choices on your principles and act accordingly.
Nobody else can tell you that you are violating "OUR" principles. Oh they can but they are full of it.

[LittleLightShining]

People keep saying 'OUR" principles. There is no "OUR" principles. There are your principles and there are my principles. Everybody makes there own choice of what is violating their own principles.
Everyone makes their own choice even RP. RP endorsed Bachmann and McClintock even though they don't agree with his principles on foreign policy.
You as an individual can make your own choices on your principles and act accordingly.
Nobody else can tell you that you are violating "OUR" principles. Oh they can but they are full of it.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#statement

[torchbearer]

People keep saying 'OUR" principles. There is no "OUR" principles. There are your principles and there are my principles. Everybody makes there own choice of what is violating their own principles.
Everyone makes their own choice even RP. RP endorsed Bachmann and McClintock even though they don't agree with his principles on foreign policy.
You as an individual can make your own choices on your principles and act accordingly.
Nobody else can tell you that you are violating "OUR" principles. Oh they can but they are full of it.

i guess it was wrong of people to assume natural rights as being universal.

[klamath]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#statement

Who started the Campaign for liberty?

[RP4EVER]

i will weigh in on this briefly because i'm tired of the crap. If you don't like what C4L has done; there is a solution....leave. Drop the BS and leave simple as that. I don't agree with what they've done but I get why; unlike most of you.

Politics is a game you have to play at some point to make a difference. Ron Paul knows the Republicans have a shot at the house; by playing his cards right he can make the most of this; possibly getting his Audit passed. A few dollars here a word of endorsement there means someone will owe their seat to him and be a lot more willing to play ball by his rules

The issue is not the power; the issue is what you do with it.

Would those of you who wish to play by certain rules like to see all of the sweat we've put in go down the drain?

I thought the reason C4L was formed was to help get the message out by all means.

In closing; what do you think would happen if Ron went back to the fringe of the party. Take a look at 2004; 2006 and 2008 for a hint.

[UtahApocalypse]

i will weigh in on this briefly because i'm tired of the crap. If you don't like what C4L has done; there is a solution....leave. Drop the BS and leave simple as that. I don't agree with what they've done but I get why; unlike most of you.

Politics is a game you have to play at some point to make a difference. Ron Paul knows the Republicans have a shot at the house; by playing his cards right he can make the most of this; possibly getting his Audit passed. A few dollars here a word of endorsement there means someone will owe their seat to him and be a lot more willing to play ball by his rules

The issue is not the power; the issue is what you do with it.

Would those of you who wish to play by certain rules like to see all of the sweat we've put in go down the drain?

I thought the reason C4L was formed was to help get the message out by all means.

In closing; what do you think would happen if Ron went back to the fringe of the party. Take a look at 2004; 2006 and 2008 for a hint.

I would rather loose every election then compromise on the issue of foreign policy an inch. That is THE issue period. Any other issue maybe could be tweaked but not that one.

[Flash]

That depends. I am for open borders but I was very much as supporter of Ron Paul and would have loved for him to be president. Would that mean that I traded my principles for a win?

I'm no Reagan Republican but I tend to agree with this statement,

“Someone who agrees with you 80 per cent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 per cent traitor.” -- Reagan

Starting huge ideological wars over stupid things like earmarks isn't going to get us anywheres. I think I would like for a candidate to be:
1) Anti-War
2) For economic freedom
3) Audit/Abolish the Federal Reserve OR just allow competing economic currencies.
3) Believes in the Constitution (No CIA, Department of Homeland Security, or any of that nonsense)
4) Limit size of governmetn

[LittleLightShining]

i will weigh in on this briefly because i'm tired of the crap. If you don't like what C4L has done; there is a solution....leave. Drop the BS and leave simple as that. I don't agree with what they've done but I get why; unlike most of you.

Politics is a game you have to play at some point to make a difference. Ron Paul knows the Republicans have a shot at the house; by playing his cards right he can make the most of this; possibly getting his Audit passed. A few dollars here a word of endorsement there means someone will owe their seat to him and be a lot more willing to play ball by his rules

The issue is not the power; the issue is what you do with it.

Would those of you who wish to play by certain rules like to see all of the sweat we've put in go down the drain?

I thought the reason C4L was formed was to help get the message out by all means.

In closing; what do you think would happen if Ron went back to the fringe of the party. Take a look at 2004; 2006 and 2008 for a hint.

Ron has never compromised on principle-- and certainly never on his non-interventionist foreign policy position.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

People keep saying 'OUR" principles. There is no "OUR" principles. There are your principles and there are my principles. Everybody makes there own choice of what is violating their own principles.
Everyone makes their own choice even RP. RP endorsed Bachmann and McClintock even though they don't agree with his principles on foreign policy.
You as an individual can make your own choices on your principles and act accordingly.
Nobody else can tell you that you are violating "OUR" principles. Oh they can but they are full of it.

Fortunately the CFL conveniently published a Statement of Principles to clarify. Maybe they published it so each individual could determine if CFL is a good fit for them. Link provided below or you can just click the "about us" link on the home page:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

Closes with:



The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.

Good principles. Watching the implementation from the sidelines but it appears a lot of members aren't all that excited about CFL right now.

[Stary Hickory]

This whole C4L has gotten way out of hand....relax and try not to go nuts. The explanation was decent enough from Tate, it may have been a bad way to do things but it was not malicious nor does it mean C4L is anti liberty.

[RP4EVER]

Ron is first and foremost a person; but he is a politician. As I told someone else; no amount of money can outspend the party hacks if they try to force him from Congress.

Utah and littlelight: the option of leaving C4L is still open to you guys as I said.

If you aren't prepared to win an election or let me rephrase if you are prepared to stay on the fringe do so.....but do not badmouth C4L on a public forum......not when those of us who still care are fighting hard to make it better. By broadcasting stuff like this post you are ruining any hope of taking this country back.

[Bman]

If Americans voted on principle rather than who they were told had a chance to win, I'd imagine our current leadership would look much different than it currently does.

Welcome to the flock my sheeple.

[UtahApocalypse]

Ron is first and foremost a person; but he is a politician. As I told someone else; no amount of money can outspend the party hacks if they try to force him from Congress.

Utah and littlelight: the option of leaving C4L is still open to you guys as I said.

If you aren't prepared to win an election or let me rephrase if you are prepared to stay on the fringe do so.....but do not badmouth C4L on a public forum......not when those of us who still care are fighting hard to make it better. By broadcasting stuff like this post you are ruining any hope of taking this country back.

Oh don't worry I left C4L and will not go back until John Tate is gone and many other changes are made.

[Flash]

Ron has never compromised on principle-- and certainly never on his non-interventionist foreign policy position.

I would say he doesn't compromise on some of his core issues. He did give a dual endorsement to Ralph Nader & Cynthia & Baldwin later year.

[klamath]

Ron has never compromised on principle-- and certainly never on his non-interventionist foreign policy position.

I think you need to narrow down the candidates you support including RP.

RP endorsed and raised money for Michelle Bachmann. This is what Bachmann says about Iran.

"Bachmann says in dealing with Iran, diplomacy "is our option," but that other options, including a nuclear strike, shouldn't be taken off the table"

It looks like you may have to find a more principled candidate than RP. Seems he compromised his principles.

[angelatc]

These points bring me to a question that kept me up last night "Would you trade off some of your principles to win?"



In politics you always have to give up something to get something. The never-ending wars was supposed to be our one uniting factor.

[AuH2O]

In politics you always have to give up something to get something. The never-ending wars was supposed to be our one uniting factor.

Not that I'm for never-ending wars, but says who?

[tpreitzel]

Here's a solution. Stop funding the C4L.

1. Create or name a parallel entity, e.g. G4L. Create a logo and allow the use of the logo with some restrictions in case of abuse by a local chapter. All matters will be settled by a vote including the job of webmaster (communications director). Communications director will simply exist as a mechanism for coordination, e.g. RPFs. Insist that each local chapter's business contain the G4L logo overlaid with their state flag along with a unique identifier to identify the specific chapter.
2. Since some of the low-level structure is already in place via the C4L, simply use the structure already in place, but eliminate the C4L HQ along with its status. If desired, members of the C4L would automatically be members of the G4L.
3. Money would be raised locally through some mechanism. Money raised by a local chapter COULD be used to help, e.g. start, assist, another chapter on a VOLUNTARY basis only.
4. Events originating by local chapters could be coordinated by a group of chapters within the state or across state lines via a website, e.g. RPFs, to fund events with headliners like Ron Paul. The G4L logo would eventually gain recognition on national scale.
5. A coordinating website, e.g. RPFs, would preferably have the ability to process a vote for matters on a national scale.

[LibertyEagle]

Not that I'm for never-ending wars, but says who?

Dr. Paul?