"They who can give up essential liberty--"

[UtahApocalypse]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

anything else is not acceptable. I don't care if you've got to "play the game" and "its just how politics is"

I will not support, or accept any candidate that takes a stance for political gain. you either have principles or you don't

Today is the most depressing day in the last 4 years for me..... Today I have realized that only Ron Paul of 2007 was a Hope for America. there is not, and it has become clear that there will not be anyone like him again.

Even long time members here are selling out in a ever increasing rate with comments about doing what you need to win. It's not acceptable. I loved Ron Paul, I loved the Grassroots, and that was for one reason.... We were principled, Uncompromising and Stood up for what we believed no matter how many mocked, laughed, or chastised us.

The media ignored us; we did not compromise instead we made history with the creation of the "money bomb" which is now a political tool that no candidate can match. The nation laughed at us for wanting to eliminate taxes and end the fed; We did not back down we held the first American "Tea Party" in over 200 years.... to which now it has been hijacked and mainstream

I will not compromise my personal beliefs in order to win. A victory gained by special favors, or by saying the 'right' rhetoric is wrong. I rather continue to lose elction after election rather then give away my soul for a victory.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

[LittleLightShining]

+ infinity

[A. Havnes]

I wish, out of all of Franklin's quotes, that one would pop up more often. People forget about those principals all the time, feeling that the government should be able to suspend our natural rights during wartime while holding the naive belief that those rights will be returned once victory is achieved.

Great way to reaffirm your beliefs and goals, though. Just post it out loud! Remind us all of what we need to be doing, rather than argue over things like, "Is so-and-so a neocon?"

[MRoCkEd]

How is that quote at all relevant?
Framing your message in a more palatable way in order to get elected so you can enact real change is not akin to giving up liberty for safety.

You say you would rather candidates run on 100% libertarian platforms and continue to lose instead of building coalitions to win elections and then using the electoral office to promote liberty. Okay, fine. We may not make any meaningful policy change, but at least we remain "pure."

People don't seem to understand the difference between running to win and running to spread a message. Ron Paul's presidential run was not about winning, but about getting libertarian ideals out there. He knows what he has to do to get elected to congress:


Do you wonder how Ron Paul stays elected year after year? It's not "Ron Paul R3volution" signs, voting to bring our troops home, or fighting to end the Federal Reserve. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Rep. Paul is known as a family man, doctor, and principled conservative in his congressional district. The Ron Paul you saw running for president is very different from the Ron Paul you see running for Congress.

You won't see TV ads discussing the war, Federal Reserve, or War on Drugs in his congressional district races. Instead, you'll see videos like this (http://tinyurl.com/theronpaulstory), receive a copy of the Paul Family Cookbook in the mail every year, and hear from a candidate that fights big government and wants to lower your taxes.

If Ron Paul had tried entering congress by bashing the war on drugs and talking about blowback, he would not have been elected. He would not have been able to spread the message like he does now. Similarly, when we demand our other liberty candidates to act like Ron did during his presidential run, we are asking them to get a cool 1-10% of the vote. How about they play a little politics to get elected, and then become purists.

[brandon]

How is that quote at all relevant?
Framing your message in a more palatable way in order to get elected so you can enact real change is not akin to giving up liberty for safety.

You say you would rather candidates run on 100% libertarian platforms and continue to lose instead of building coalitions to win elections and then using the electoral office to promote liberty. Okay, fine. We may not make any meaningful policy change, but at least we remain "pure."

People don't seem to understand the difference between running to win and running to spread a message. Ron Paul's presidential run was not about winning, but about getting libertarian ideals out there. He knows what he has to do to get elected to congress:



If Ron Paul had tried entering congress by bashing the war on drugs and talking about blowback, he would not have been elected. He would not have been able to spread the message like he does now. Similarly, when we demand our other liberty candidates to act like Ron did during his presidential run, we are asking them to get a cool 1-10% of the vote. How about they play a little politics to get elected, and then become purists.

MRocked, what you fail to understand (or fail to admit to yourself) is that there is a huge difference between "framing your message in a more palatable way" and making statements that directly contradict the fundamental aspects of liberty.


No one is saying Rand should win by "bashing the war on drugs and talking about blowback." What we are saying is that he shouldn't take the opposite position and support the war on drugs and preemptive warfare. Unfortunately this is exactly what he has done. Simply remaining silent on the issue would have been acceptable for me.

[rp08orbust]

How is that quote at all relevant?
Framing your message in a more palatable way in order to get elected so you can enact real change is not akin to giving up liberty for safety.

It's not Rand's "framing" of his positions that has been making me uncomfortable, it's some of his positions themselves.

[MRoCkEd]

No one is saying Rand should win by "bashing the war on drugs and talking about blowback." What we are saying is that he shouldn't take the opposite position and support the war on drugs and preemptive warfare. Unfortunately this is exactly what he has done. Simply remaining silent on the issue would have been acceptable for me.
I've seen him trying to remain silent on these issues, but when forced to give a position being as vague as possible.
Drugs: This is mostly a state issue.
War: Congress must declare war, and then decisions are left with the commander in chief.

[LittleLightShining]

How is that quote at all relevant?
Framing your message in a more palatable way in order to get elected so you can enact real change is not akin to giving up liberty for safety.

You say you would rather candidates run on 100% libertarian platforms and continue to lose instead of building coalitions to win elections and then using the electoral office to promote liberty. Okay, fine. We may not make any meaningful policy change, but at least we remain "pure."

People don't seem to understand the difference between running to win and running to spread a message. Ron Paul's presidential run was not about winning, but about getting libertarian ideals out there. He knows what he has to do to get elected to congress:



If Ron Paul had tried entering congress by bashing the war on drugs and talking about blowback, he would not have been elected. He would not have been able to spread the message like he does now. Similarly, when we demand our other liberty candidates to act like Ron did during his presidential run, we are asking them to get a cool 1-10% of the vote. How about they play a little politics to get elected, and then become purists.

So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to sell out to get elected.

I worry for the future of our youth in the movement. They are being indoctrinated by failed political hacks like Michael Rothfeld about playing power politics rather than standing on principle.

Sad, very sad.

[Son of Detroit]

How at all is that quote relevant to this situation?

[MRoCkEd]

So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to sell out to get elected.

I worry for the future of our youth in the movement. They are being indoctrinated by failed political hacks like Michael Rothfeld about playing power politics rather than standing on principle.

Sad, very sad.
I'm saying candidates should run as libertarian-leaning conservatives, win, and then legislate as pure libertarians.
I prefer this to them running as pure libertarians, losing, and then not having a chance to legislate at all.

If your "principles" dictate that you must be 100% up-front with all positions, controversial or not, fine, but don't expect to get very far in the political process. These methods might work to "educate the masses," which certainly has its purpose but unfortunately this does not get people into office.

[LittleLightShining]

I'm saying candidates should run as libertarian-leaning conservatives, win, and then legislate as pure libertarians.
I prefer this to them running as pure libertarians, losing, and then not having a chance to legislate at all.

If your "principles" dictate that you must be 100% up-front with all positions, controversial or not, fine, but don't expect to get very far in the political process. These methods might work to "educate the masses," which certainly has its purpose but unfortunately this does not get people into office.

Why did you start supporting Ron Paul? Was it because of the Paul family cookbook and his experience as a physician? Or did his message light a spark?

If the goal is always to "win", and if "winning" is dependent on making a message "more palatable", does it logically follow that once the candidate has won that candidate will not seek to continue to win? Therefore never fully arriving at that principled position for fear of losing?

[klamath]

..

[MRoCkEd]

Why did you start supporting Ron Paul? Was it because of the Paul family cookbook and his experience as a physician? Or did his message light a spark?

If the goal is always to "win", and if "winning" is dependent on making a message "more palatable", does it logically follow that once the candidate has won that candidate will not seek to continue to win? Therefore never fully arriving at that principled position for fear of losing?
Once again, Ron Paul's presidential run was never about winning, nor should it have been. It was about getting the message out there, and it woke up many people including myself. Education is very significant, and if running for office on a no-holds-barred, 100% libertarian message is the best way to get out this message (and is worth losing) then so be it.

However, I believe that actually winning elected offices also serves an important role. We have an incredible chance to elect the best Senator in a century. I would be disappointed if he blew those chances by caring too much about "running on principle." I have reason enough to trust Rand will do what is right when he is elected. If I'm wrong and he becomes a status-quo career politician, then I guess we'll know that the anarchists are right and electoral politics is futile.