Yesterday's elections convinces me that we need to run as a bloc

[johnrocks]

Libertarians/paleo conservatives/fiscal conservatives need to learn to vote as a bloc like the neo/social cons do, until then, I'm afraid we're gonna lose more than we win.

Too many get sidetracked on one issue; I admit that I do; and will disregard a candidate and then what happens, the party favored neo con or social con wins.

Instead of getting pissed that someone doesn't feel the same as we do on the War on Drugs for example and disregarding them, why not look at the issues that we can possible effect such as foreign policy,fiscal matters,the Federal Reserve etc.?

Being more pragmatic may seem dull to many but when you see the same statist SOB's go back in after so much money and time is spent, it gets to the point where we need to try to get on the same page or just say screw it.

[RedStripe]

You might be right to some extent, but to be brutally honest the biggest problem is that the entire electoral system is a mess and makes very little sense. That's why we have an entrenched two party system that makes it almost impossible to crack the establishment's ideological hold on the political reigns.

We need electoral reform across the board. We need viable third parties who can win consistently at the state and local level to put pressure on the main parties. Until then they simply won't take anyone outside their narrow paradigm seriously.

[johnrocks]

You might be right to some extent, but to be brutally honest the biggest problem is that the entire electoral system is a mess and makes very little sense. That's why we have an entrenched two party system that makes it almost impossible to crack the establishment's ideological hold on the political reigns.

We need electoral reform across the board. We need viable third parties who can win consistently at the state and local level to put pressure on the main parties. Until then they simply won't take anyone outside their narrow paradigm seriously.

I agree 1000% that we need reform that would level the playing field so to speak, all the more reason we need to vote as a bloc, blacks,unions, neo cons, Jews,social cons and every other special interests does and all of those I mentioned have a voice at the table, meanwhile our votes are scattered across several candidates and parties;some decided the best move was to not even vote and we are at the back of the bus getting laughed at,called "kooks" and taken for granted.

[angelatc]

We need funding. There were (and are) massive amounts of candidates that run on platforms I could support, but they're simply out-spent.

The third party talk is nonsense, and it directly contradicts what Ron Paul said we should do.

[Southron]

What our candidates need to do if they lose their bids for federal office is humble themselves and run for state positions.

We must build a power base to work from.

I'm challenging any of our candidates who lose to run for an easier to win office.

I think we need to be selective about the federal races we get behind. I had much rather pour into a state race and win than run an educational campaign at the federal level

[angelatc]

What our candidates need to do if they lose their bids for federal office is humble themselves and run for state positions.

We must build a power base to work from.

I'm challenging any of our candidates who lose to run for an easier to win office.

I think we need to be selective about the federal races we get behind. I had much rather pour into a state race and win than run an educational campaign at the federal level

Yes, I think that's right. But that's a tough sell - today's youth wants everything right now.

[klamath]

The reason Rand is doing well is because (though uneasy) we have a coalition with the likes of Redstate. If it was just us supporting Rand and Redstate was supporting grayson Rand would be losing.

[reardenstone]

We need funding. There were (and are) massive amounts of candidates that run on platforms I could support, but they're simply out-spent.

The third party talk is nonsense, and it directly contradicts what Ron Paul said we should do.

I thank Ron Paul for being the best spokesman for freedom we could ever wish for but the movement is beyond one person now and I really dislike having to be associated with neocons by proxy by taking the same party name.

Libertarians are on the ballots in about 48 states if not all 57, er I mean 50. If every small l and small government republican and every libertarian voted we could win some elections.

Libertarianism also has crossover appeal and especially so if the more left and libertarian views are given voice to form an anti-corporate center libertarianism somewhere between the urbane Cato and the left mutualists. Many Democrats would find it easier to vote or claim association with libertarians who are progressive via freedom rather than vote Republican even if the Republican was anti-war.

[reardenstone]

The reason Rand is doing well is because (though uneasy) we have a coalition with the likes of Redstate. If it was just us supporting Rand and Redstate was supporting grayson Rand would be losing.

And he is speaking more like a neocon which consolidates republicans but repels potential crossover voters from the Democrat party.

[klamath]

And he is speaking more like a neocon which consolidates republicans but repels potential crossover voters from the Democrat party.

Yes but the best democrat politician votes with RP 40% the time while it takes the worse republican to only vote with RP 40% of the time. I once thought the democrats would be better than the Republicans on the war but I was wrong. The record of the Obama democrats plus the record of the democrats from Wilson on show they are really the war party more than the Republicans.

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://onlyonce.blogs.com/onlyonce/2007/06/the_80_percent_.html

The 80 Percent Rule (Not the 80/20 Rule)

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said about the Republican Party that there are a lot of people in it with a lot of different views, but that as long he agreed 80% with someone, he was solidly "with them." The older I get, the more I find this to be a great rule of thumb.

Certainly in politics, it must be true. In a two-party system that handles an infinite number of issues, you're never going to agree 100% with someone. You just have to get close. That's why it will be interesting to see how things like the candidacy of Giuliani works, with him running as a pro-choice Republican.

I also find it true in the non-profit fundraising world. I am currently raising a lot of money for Princeton from my classmates, and of course everyone has different opinions about what the University is doing today, in particular about some of their policies around admissions, expansion, and athletics. But in the end, the argument that "you're never going to agree 100%...but are you at least at 80%?" seems to work well to persuade people to donate.

And of course, this 80% rule is very true in running a business as well. You can't expect your employees to agree with 100% of your decisions. But your employees also realize that they will never agree with 100% of their company's decisions. At about the 80% rule, with enough transparency around decision-making to make the missing 20% at least seem rational, you have a winning formula.

[teamrican1]

I don't really see what yesterday had to do with anything you just said. We lost Yesterday because the neocon bloc is more powerful than our bloc at both the national level and within the State of Indiana. The neocons have the numbers and the media in their pockets. Cleaving otherwise small government conservatives from their neocon foreign policy beliefs are the most daunting task we face as a movement, because until that happens we will continue to be a minority movement within the GOP.

[Badger Paul]

"Cleaving otherwise small government conservatives from their neocon foreign policy beliefs are the most daunting task we face as a movement, because until that happens we will continue to be a minority movement within the GOP."

That is the challenge we face and that's what we have to do. Persuade.

[AuH20]

The neos and their religious right allies are in serious trouble because of the outright failures of the Bush Administration. Their ideology is filled with holes. Note how our poll numbers have dramatically increased as opposed to 4 years ago? They thought they killed the old right with the ascent of the Bushes, but in fact, the old right was thrown into a temporary state of hibernation. ;)

[johnrocks]

I don't really see what yesterday had to do with anything you just said. We lost Yesterday because the neocon bloc is more powerful than our bloc at both the national level and within the State of Indiana. The neocons have the numbers and the media in their pockets. Cleaving otherwise small government conservatives from their neocon foreign policy beliefs are the most daunting task we face as a movement, because until that happens we will continue to be a minority movement within the GOP.

We have to convince that 60-70% that don't even vote and a lot of them I would think are just like us, to register and vote and so many just vote who the media, other party leaders,friends etc. likes, education is a great tool also, my issue is too many have an all or nothing mentality and that type mindset just doesn't cut it in the real world, now, who decides what is and what isn't a deal breaker I suppose is the tough part but I'm not going to allow the drug issue or even abortion to get in the way of supporting people who farther our cause on things from foreign policy to the federal reserve!

[itshappening]

the neocons boosted Stutzman yesterday i.e Beck and co, they didnt like Hostettler.

We do badly when the establishment runs multiple candidates, in head 2 heads like Kentucky we have done very well

Hostettler also had little money while Stutzman had good money

I think we have to pick our battles one at a time.

Someone to look at next is Ken Buck in Colorado and Schiff in CT

[Brian4Liberty]

Libertarians/paleo conservatives/fiscal conservatives need to learn to vote as a bloc like the neo/social cons do, until then, I'm afraid we're gonna lose more than we win.


To expand on that: it has become very clear that the establishment picks and funds a single candidate in Primary races. The mainstream media then gives that candidate their full support (attention). The fix is in.

As long as we have multiple non-mainstream candidates, we will lose almost every time.

And as long as candidates are chosen on some issue other than fiscal conservatism (reducing government size and spending), fiscal conservatism itself will take a backseat, and nothing will change. Candidates will pay the mandatory GOP lip-service to spending, but when people are chosen based on other issues, spending will take a back seat.

[AuH20]

the neocons boosted Stutzman yesterday i.e Beck and co, they didnt like Hostettler.

We do badly when the establishment runs multiple candidates, in head 2 heads like Kentucky we have done very well

Hostettler also had little money while Stutzman had good money

I think we have to pick our battles one at a time.

Someone to look at next is Ken Buck in Colorado and Schiff in CT

To be honest, Beck isn't too keen on statewide elections. I think if he had sat down and talked with a constitutional scholar like Hostettler, he would have been instantly won over. Hoss incorporates John Jay and James Madison into his speeches like he personally knows them. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

. Someone to look at next is Ken Buck in Colorado and Schiff in CT

At least we are on the same page as DeMint (and Tea Partiers?) in the Buck race.

[teamrican1]

At least we are on the same page as DeMint (and Tea Partiers?) in the Buck race.

I personally wouldn't send any money to Buck because of his foreign policy. That's the biggest issue that separates us from the rest of the GOP/Conservative/Whatever movement and I dont' think there is any easy solution to it. I think for a lot of us, non-interventionism, or a least the absence of interventionist leanings, is a non-negotiable point. And of course for the establishment GOP it is the exact opposite. They went after Hostettler so hard precisely because he had the audacity to publicly criticize the war and the empire.

I get the OP's point that we should be trying to make our bloc as big as possible, but the non-interventionist issue makes it really hard for us to form a majority with anyone without outright conversion of a lot of people on this issue to our side, and that's going to take time. When a guy like Ken Buck says we need a "major effort" in Afghanistan that should take at least 10 years and that as a Senator he would just defer to whatever Generals want- well, there is just no way I can get behind someone like that. If that's what the OP means by "expanding our bloc" count me out, because to me that's just outright surrender.

[Southron]

The problem is most of the so-called conservatives are liars.

Look at the "conservative" majority during the Bush years. Most, if not all of the Republicans must have been frauds or the government wouldn't have grown like it did.

At least for now, candidates that run through the Ron Paul revolution momentum can be trusted because it's not an easy way to power.

[reardenstone]

I get the OP's point that we should be trying to make our bloc as big as possible, but the non-interventionist issue makes it really hard for us to form a majority with anyone without outright conversion of a lot of people on this issue to our side, and that's going to take time. When a guy like Ken Buck says we need a "major effort" in Afghanistan that should take at least 10 years and that as a Senator he would just defer to whatever Generals want- well, there is just no way I can get behind someone like that. If that's what the OP means by "expanding our bloc" count me out, because to me that's just outright surrender.


Neocons are bought and sold and cannot be easily converted. They are co-opting the economic message of Ron Paul but they are not connecting the dots to issues of world systems empire and imperialism.

At this point and certainly on the Larry King "Ventura" show: Ron sounded like he was trying to connect more with the Democrats and was winning over Blago to some extent.

Why not try to reform the Democrats OR use the LP and make it less corporate and more about increasing opportunity and freedom then recruit disgruntled Democrats and Republicans into a new fold?

We can't win Democrats because no matter what, they will refuse to vote for anyone with a capital "R" in front of their party name.

[specsaregood]

I personally wouldn't send any money to Buck because of his foreign policy. That's the biggest issue that separates us from the rest of the GOP/Conservative/Whatever movement and I dont' think there is any easy solution to it. I think for a lot of us, non-interventionism, or a least the absence of interventionist leanings, is a non-negotiable point. And of course for the establishment GOP it is the exact opposite. They went after Hostettler so hard precisely because he had the audacity to publicly criticize the war and the empire.


The way to find middle ground here is:
1. Get both sides non interventionist and interventionists to agree that all new wars must be DECLARED by congress.
2. Interventionists have to find a way to pay for the war and fit it into a balanced budget.

They will quickly discover they can't do both of those things, although they technically fit in with their supposed mindset. I was a interventionist until Dr. Paul explained the fiscal problems with that viewpoint.

[Odin]

The best path is to convert independents to our point of view and get them to register and vote in Republican primaries. They are not poisoned by neo-con dogma. Too many Republicans aren't open-minded enough to change their views, but independents may see the issues more logically.