Calling all liberty-loving democrats

[Acala]

On another thread, Moostraks made a great point.

What we need to do now is start working in the ranks of the democrats to promote liberty candidates. The equivalent of a Tea Party but based on anti-war etc. Then we can send some liberty candidates in on the democrat tide.

The statists maintain power by keeping the country divided. By working both sides we can defeat that factionalism. Even use it to the advantage of liberty since so many people just vote a straight ticket.

Over time you could start piling up non-interventionists/social libertarians on the democrat side of the house and fiscal conservatives on the other side. And when they meet in the middle, voila!

Volunteers???????

[amy31416]

I like the idea, but I lose my shit when they start waxing poetic about this health care mandate and the wonders of welfare or the greatness of gun control.

I don't know how to overcome that.

[JamesButabi]

I like the idea, but I lose my shit when they start waxing poetic about this health care mandate and the wonders of welfare or the greatness of gun control.

I don't know how to overcome that.

Praise the concept of a group of voluntary individuals in an agreement together to provide each other with health care. Deplore the corporatist, government laden beauracracy we currently have.

Im not really sure how to approach the 2nd amendment from a Liberty / Democrat standpoint.

[Monarchist]

Praise the concept of a group of voluntary individuals in an agreement together to provide each other with health care. Deplore the corporatist, government laden beauracracy we currently have.


Why do you hate poor blacks and Latinos and want to throw the elderly out in the streets, you fascist, racist teabagger?

Because that's exactly how the conversation will go.

[LibertyVox]

We should appeal to everybody...including the Tea Party. That's right, Tea Party is not the Liberty movement. Parthenogenesis has long occurred. Tea Party has its own face, and that face is has a bipolar disorder. And it appears that most of the time that face is an ugly one because it mimics the GOP.

So those who love Liberty and see much wisdom in what RP says have their work cut out for them, because like it or not I don't think the face of this country both internally and externally will change much until as usual the water passes under the bridge. The only reason the current wars for instance, became unpopular in this country is when those who started this war became mealy mouthed about it to the extent of hiding their faces. And the sheeple sense it aposteriori, not when the monstrosities too numerous to list were at their peak.
What the country needs is a somewhat rapid spread of good ideas among its populace but more importantly among the elite.

This is not to to say that good thins have not been achieved already or that some difference has not been made. I believe more people have now heard of things like Austrian economics, non aggression, non intervention, individualism etc--things hitherto considered fringe or glossed over with inaccurate meanings or simply dismissed as belonging in the past-- than ever before.

[Sentient Void]

Why do you hate poor blacks and Latinos and want to throw the elderly out in the streets, you fascist, racist teabagger?

Because that's exactly how the conversation will go.

Easy, know the facts and talk about how lacks and latinos are actually being hurt and held down by such policies. One must *own* their stances and be ready to defend them with logic, and with confidence.

Rail against corporatism as well. Rail against DADT, DOMA, gay marriage, etc. Rail against the Patriot Act, the war(s), military imperialism, bailouts, etc. Talk about how the current policies have led to making the situation worse for minorities and use the simple logic of liberty and economics to defend the position.

None of the other dems will be able to compare. Admittedly, you have to know your shit and know how to state them confidently and matter-of-factly.

[low preference guy]

I like the idea, but I lose my shit when they start waxing poetic about this health care mandate and the wonders of welfare or the greatness of gun control.

I don't know how to overcome that.

That's a pretty nice attribute. I wish more people did that instead of drooling over a guy telling them how awesome is to have a gun against their heads.

[Brian4Liberty]

We have a lot of people who have supported Ron Paul that were Democrats. In areas like California, we need them to run for office. We have two years, less than that until the next Primaries. We need our Democrats to run!

[Brian4Liberty]

This will be a good thing to work on in our local Ron Paul meet-up groups.

[Maximus]

We need people to run as Democrats using John Dennis' positions, we will win in the liberal states

[Acala]

I like the idea, but I lose my shit when they start waxing poetic about this health care mandate and the wonders of welfare or the greatness of gun control.

I don't know how to overcome that.

With care and practice it can often be done. With the health care bill I start by pointing out how it was a backroom deal with the insurance and medical industries and then move on to how government regulation has always been designed to pour money into the coffers of the medical industry and how subsidy just increases prices while making the poor ever more dependent on government. Etc. Government intervention in health care really HAS screwed the people the democrats want to help. Explain it.

Same with welfare. Has the war on poverty eliminated poverty or made it worse? Are the poor more or less economically mobile now that they were fifty years ago? Who administers, and profits from, food stamps? Etc.

Gun control is harder, but I say "You want Dick Cheney to control all the guns?" "You want the local thug police to have all the guns?" "You want women to be raped because they can't own a gun?"

But what I am REALLY thinking is that we need to control the agenda. In the democratic primaries you just HAMMER on the issues where we rule - foreign policy, drug war, corporatism, welfare for businesses, etc. Be like Al Green and evertime they ask you a question point out that your opponenet cluster bombs children. Question: "Do you support gun control?" Answer: "Did you know that my opponent advocates using guns to kill people in other countries to protect corporate interests?" Question: "Why do you keep going back to that same subject?" Answer: 'Because real human beings are dying or being physically and mentally ruined and the nation is being bankrupted because my opponent supports endless, unwinnable war. Do YOU think there is a more important issue in this election? I don't." I really think you could have some heads spinning.

And then when you win the nomination, you eat the neo-con alive by being more fiscally sound but calling him out on the war mongering etc.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'll promote anyone who will run against Issa in my district. Or do it myself under the democratic ticket, if necessary.

Serious.

[BuddyRey]

Im not really sure how to approach the 2nd amendment from a Liberty / Democrat standpoint.

As an ex-liberal, this is a challenge I just couldn't resist. It's a work in progress, but how about this?

"Firepower is girl-power. Every day in the U.S., approximately 550 rapes are prevented with handguns - many without the owner actually having to fire the weapon. Nothing is more empowering to the women of America than the knowledge that they can stand their ground on a level playing field, and unfortunately, the best leveler continues to be hot lead. Until this changes, no conscientious woman should ever permit some sanctimonious boys' club on Capitol Hill to put her and her sisters, mothers, and daughters at risk by restricting their right to personal protection.

Arms equality is racial equality. Few people know that the very first "gun control" laws in the United States were drafted with the express purpose of keeping African-American slaves and freemen under the crushing authority of well-heeled agrarian business interests who had the clout to buy silent complicity in their state governments. Stripped of their human rights by this alliance of big business and government, racial and economic equality continued to elude blacks for decades, even after they were freed from the slavemaster's field and fiefdom. How much less innocent blood would lie stale and curdled on the pages of history today if every skulking killer in a white robe and hood whose aim was to tear asunder human life and limb with a hangman's noose or a firebomb was denied that opportunity? In the words of the immortal champion of civil rights, Malcolm X, 'Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down.' In the case of an oppressed minority, the recognized right of self-defense is not just an afterthought, but a practical necessity."

[RedStripe]

When you start working with liberals to find common cause and common solutions you realize that the true solution lies outside the realm of elections, campaigning, and politics.

My 2 cents.

[oyarde]

Liberty Loving Democrats ??? What is that? Nearly all Dem supported govt spending is UnConstitutional . Liberty haters ,big govt lovers , tax and spend thieves would be more accurate .

[Acala]

Liberty Loving Democrats ??? What is that? Nearly all Dem supported govt spending is UnConstitutional . Liberty haters ,big govt lovers , tax and spend thieves would be more accurate .

This describes most elected republicans just as well. But there are many democrats out there who are as disillusioned with the statist BS being shoveled by the deomcratic party as are the republicans.

And if we can't figure out a way to bridge the gap - and bring Ron Paul's statement that freedom brings us together - into fruition, you can forget about changing this country through politics. As long as the two party factions hate each other and consider that the twain shall never meet, there is no poltical solution.

[wormyguy]

We need people to run as Democrats using John Dennis' positions, we will win in the liberal states

No, you'll merely watch the Democrat come in third behind the Green Party candidate. With the Democrats, it's best just to wait for the odd Jim Traficant or Larry McDonald to slip through incognito in a partisan yet politically disinterested district.

[silentshout]

As a former Democrat living in California, i would love to help. Many people are disillusioned with Obama and his handling of the wars, guantanamo, and civil liberties.

[Stary Hickory]

I am for this but there has to be more to them than just anti-war. If they are pro statism and oppressing people here at home they are useless to me.

[BuddyRey]

Bump!

[muzzled dogg]

re: gun control remind them about jim crows laws and how blacks werent allowed to own guns

[muzzled dogg]

re: health care remind them individual choice is always better, like the choice from a diverse selection of yuppie organic local fair trade gouda at whole foods / trader joes. wouldnt they rather that than stale govt cheese?

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll promote anyone who will run against Issa in my district. Or do it myself under the democratic ticket, if necessary.

Serious.

Have you registered as a Democrat in the past?


No, you'll merely watch the Democrat come in third behind the Green Party candidate.

The Democrat will always win the General Election in areas where the population is 2/3 Democrat. It doesn't matter who is running.


As a former Democrat living in California, i would love to help. Many people are disillusioned with Obama and his handling of the wars, guantanamo, and civil liberties.

A registered Democrat? What office do you want to run for? CA Assembly? US House? ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

Where are our next Bob Conleys? For those who don't remember, he was the Ron Paul Democrat who ran against Lyndsey Graham.

[Flash]

Where are our next Bob Conleys? For those who don't remember, he was the Ron Paul Democrat who ran against Lyndsey Graham.

They're in the New Hampshire state house. From what I heard, there were a few Free State Democrats elected.

[Brian4Liberty]

They're in the New Hampshire state house. From what I heard, there were a few Free State Democrats elected.

Great. In a few years they can run for US Congress.

[Imperial]

This is my plan for 2012. The precinct where my college is located apparently gives the DFL in Minnesota its strongest performance every year. With no big open races, I plan on encouraging my classmates to vote for the guy who will give them the best issues possible (pro civil liberties, anti war, anti drug war). Maybe it will turn a few heads in the process.

[erowe1]

If there really are any Democrats who are close to Ron Paul's platform (and by close, I mean closer than most other Republicans), then what we really need to encourage those Democrats to do is stop voting Democrat and join us in the faction of the GOP that we represent. There are just too few of us to divide our numbers between both major parties.

We need to band together and focus all our energies on the GOP, transform it into an old right style GOP, and present that as an actual alternative versus the Dems, rather than cut ourselves into two parts, put both parts in different parties, and have them both fail to accomplish anything.

[speciallyblend]

We need people to run as Democrats using John Dennis' positions, we will win in the liberal states

rpf members said this years ago including myself, yet not many acted on it!!

the republican brandname is a liability(colorado for example) and it should be the way the failed gop has run things in their house!! we did get around 47% for a ron paul republican in a heavy blue county!! but the r next to his name on the ballot is what lost him the election!

[FrankRep]

The New Democrat - Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, Fiscally Conservative
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267622


According to Bob Conley, the Democrat nominee for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, “The New Democrat is the Old Democrat.” And that Democrat is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and fiscally conservative.

[Brian4Liberty]

If there really are any Democrats who are close to Ron Paul's platform (and by close, I mean closer than most other Republicans), then what we really need to encourage those Democrats to do is stop voting Democrat and join us in the faction of the GOP that we represent. There are just too few of us to divide our numbers between both major parties.

We need to band together and focus all our energies on the GOP, transform it into an old right style GOP, and present that as an actual alternative versus the Dems, rather than cut ourselves into two parts, put both parts in different parties, and have them both fail to accomplish anything.

There are places where only a Democrat will win. Win the Primary, and you win the General. Every Ron Paul style person that becomes a member of Congress will accomplish a lot.

[acptulsa]

I like the idea, but I lose my shit when they start waxing poetic about this health care mandate and the wonders of welfare or the greatness of gun control.

I don't know how to overcome that.

When the fourteen intelligence agencies failed to prevent 9/11/01, no one fixed the real problem--they just added a fifteenth layer of bureaucracy (the DHS) designed to force the other fourteen layers of the onion to play well together. The result may or may not have made us safer (probably not), but at the terrible cost of personal liberties. And the vice president profited from it.

We libertarians stood with liberals and said, 'you conservatives shouldn't trust government that much.' And we did it because you were right.

When the various agriculture watchdog agencies failed to prevent salmonella from getting into a huge batch of peanut butter about a year and a half ago, no one fixed the real problem--they just added a new batch of regulations so hard for small business to meet and so Draconian that (had it not been for a last-minute amendment that narrowly addressed the concern) it would have made it a federal offense for farmers to sell crops at farmers' markets. And the Secretary of Agriculture profited from it.

We libertarians then stood with conservatives and said, 'you liberals shouldn't trust government that much.' And we did it because they were right.

The vp, of course, is Halliburton stockholder Cheney and the Ag. Secretary is Monsanto stockholder Vilsack.

There's a saying down South: 'If you can't fix it, @$& it.' And you, Mr. or Ms. Liberal, haven't fixed it. So, excuse us while we try something else.

[moostraks]

If there really are any Democrats who are close to Ron Paul's platform (and by close, I mean closer than most other Republicans), then what we really need to encourage those Democrats to do is stop voting Democrat and join us in the faction of the GOP that we represent. There are just too few of us to divide our numbers between both major parties.

We need to band together and focus all our energies on the GOP, transform it into an old right style GOP, and present that as an actual alternative versus the Dems, rather than cut ourselves into two parts, put both parts in different parties, and have them both fail to accomplish anything.

You really don't have much faith in the message if you think that it can only be effective by co-opting one of the parties. Some people will never see themselves as Republicans and we will shoot ourselves in the foot by limiting the message. The message is right and as such will speak to the core of all people as long as it is handled carefully.

The reason we will not get traction is by not playing by their rules. They want to make this an issue where both parties look the same I say bring it on because we have the better message and they just want to create more bondage. Point out how this is occurring and you win hearts and minds.:)

[Theocrat]

On another thread, Moostraks made a great point.

What we need to do now is start working in the ranks of the democrats to promote liberty candidates. The equivalent of a Tea Party but based on anti-war etc. Then we can send some liberty candidates in on the democrat tide.

The statists maintain power by keeping the country divided. By working both sides we can defeat that factionalism. Even use it to the advantage of liberty since so many people just vote a straight ticket.

Over time you could start piling up non-interventionists/social libertarians on the democrat side of the house and fiscal conservatives on the other side. And when they meet in the middle, voila!

Volunteers???????

I'm afraid that is another one of those ideas which sounds good on paper but in reality, it won't happen. We need to realize one thing when confronting Democrats and "trying to win them over to our side": they already think they're the ones who believe in liberty, and we're the tyrannical, oppressive ones.

The only issue we may agree with them on is ending the wars, but that isn't the only issue that maximizes liberty. They would still support more government spending on education, entitlements, and enforcement of unconstitutional policies. I'm convinced that if we could stop the wars in one week with anti-war Democrats, the next week they would be pushing our legislatures to spend and tax us in order to take care of us.

The Democrats here in Illinois are vicious about those sorts of things. I've found it hard to even reason with them about stopping these wars. But it's the social issues which knocks out any conversation towards a more liberty-oriented solution to our government. And in terms of economic policies, shrinking government just isn't in their political worldview.

[moostraks]

I'm afraid that is another one of those ideas which sounds good on paper but in reality, it won't happen. We need to realize one thing when confronting Democrats and "trying to win them over to our side": they already think they're the ones who believe in liberty, and we're the tyrannical, oppressive ones.

The only issue we may agree with them on is ending the wars, but that isn't the only issue that maximizes liberty. They would still support more government spending on education, entitlements, and enforcement of unconstitutional policies. I'm convinced that if we could stop the wars in one week with anti-war Democrats, the next week they would be pushing our legislatures to spend and tax us in order to take care of us.

The Democrats here in Illinois are vicious about those sorts of things. I've found it hard to even reason with them about stopping these wars. But it's the social issues which knocks out any conversation towards a more liberty-oriented solution to our government. And in terms of economic policies, shrinking government just isn't in their political worldview.

Then don't sweat it as it isn't your calling. Thing is, some folks came here by way of the Democrat party and understand how this message benefits their ideals. Those are the people that can translate the message of liberty best to those from the democrat party who might be receptive to turning things around.

It isn't a message that plays to one party, as generally the hardest people we can see associating with a message we feel is right is those with whom we feel we share the least in common. It doesn't mean they can't accept it but that we might not be the best messenger.

[osan]

I like the idea, but I lose my shit when they start waxing poetic about this health care mandate and the wonders of welfare or the greatness of gun control.

I don't know how to overcome that.

Understanding the goal/objective, keeping you eyes firmly fixed on it, and exercising intelligent self control is how you do it.

Simple, but not easy.

[osan]

re: health care remind them individual choice is always better, like the choice from a diverse selection of yuppie organic local fair trade gouda at whole foods / trader joes. wouldnt they rather that than stale govt cheese processed dairy product?

There. Fixed it for you.

[amy31416]

Understanding the goal/objective, keeping you eyes firmly fixed on it, and exercising intelligent self control is how you do it.

Simple, but not easy.

Yep...I do need to work on self-discipline. :o

[Acala]

I'm afraid that is another one of those ideas which sounds good on paper but in reality, it won't happen. We need to realize one thing when confronting Democrats and "trying to win them over to our side": they already think they're the ones who believe in liberty, and we're the tyrannical, oppressive ones.

The only issue we may agree with them on is ending the wars, but that isn't the only issue that maximizes liberty. They would still support more government spending on education, entitlements, and enforcement of unconstitutional policies. I'm convinced that if we could stop the wars in one week with anti-war Democrats, the next week they would be pushing our legislatures to spend and tax us in order to take care of us.

The Democrats here in Illinois are vicious about those sorts of things. I've found it hard to even reason with them about stopping these wars. But it's the social issues which knocks out any conversation towards a more liberty-oriented solution to our government. And in terms of economic policies, shrinking government just isn't in their political worldview.

I find Republicans just as stubbornly irrational about the world empire, the war on drugs, and other very important issues, and most of them are actually pretty luke warm when it comes to REALLY gutting the nanny state.

However, I think you are missing the point when you concern yourself with what democrats think. Al green got 28% of the vote. That means a third of the vote was cast WITHOUT any thinking at all. That is about 10 TIMES the vote total most Libertarian candidates get. Just being the nominated candidate of EITHER party - even if you are nothing but a ham sandwich in a suit - gets you ten times the votes of whatever brilliant thinker the Libertarians put on the ballot.

In other words, you don't have to persuade a majority of democrats to support the entire liberty package. Elections are not about reason or intellect or persuasion. If they were, the Libertarians would win every time. They are about emotions and partisanship. Use emotions to get the democratic nomination (by hammering on the war relentlessly) in safe democrat districts and let partisanship carry you in the general election.

[osan]

I find Republicans just as stubbornly irrational about the world empire, the war on drugs, and other very important issues, and most of them are actually pretty luke warm when it comes to REALLY gutting the nanny state.

Yah - HELLO.

Since the days of Reagan when I was just a kid of 22 I could never understand this slavish adherence to the "platform" when so many of the so-called "planks" were rotten to the core.

There is only ONE issue of true, radical, and central significance: liberty. Everything else is window dressing for which each of us is entitled to choose for himself.

Most people just don't get it. At all.


Elections are not about reason or intellect or persuasion. If they were, the Libertarians would win every time. They are about emotions and partisanship.Fabulously well stated. +rep


Use emotions to get the democratic nomination (by hammering on the war relentlessly) in safe democrat districts and let partisanship carry you in the general election.This is worth a try, but methinks it will fail unless you lie through your teeth.

Example: you say everything dems want to hear, but what about the things they don't? Do you omit/repudiate them (guns, banning abortion, etc.)? If you do not, even though you come out strongly in favor of gay rights or sex with barnyard animals or whatever it is those people whine about incessantly, you will be kicked to the curb. I believe that it is pretty much an all or nothing deal, and if I am sufficiently right on that point, then either you have to lie or you will go nowhere.

Given this truth about how people operate, one is not left with much reason to feel particularly optimistic about the future of the nation.

[mczerone]

As an ex-liberal, this is a challenge I just couldn't resist. It's a work in progress, but how about this?

"Firepower is girl-power. Every day in the U.S., approximately 550 rapes are prevented with handguns - many without the owner actually having to fire the weapon. Nothing is more empowering to the women of America than the knowledge that they can stand their ground on a level playing field, and unfortunately, the best leveler continues to be hot lead. Until this changes, no conscientious woman should ever permit some sanctimonious boys' club on Capitol Hill to put her and her sisters, mothers, and daughters at risk by restricting their right to personal protection.

Arms equality is racial equality. Few people know that the very first "gun control" laws in the United States were drafted with the express purpose of keeping African-American slaves and freemen under the crushing authority of well-heeled agrarian business interests who had the clout to buy silent complicity in their state governments. Stripped of their human rights by this alliance of big business and government, racial and economic equality continued to elude blacks for decades, even after they were freed from the slavemaster's field and fiefdom. How much less innocent blood would lie stale and curdled on the pages of history today if every skulking killer in a white robe and hood whose aim was to tear asunder human life and limb with a hangman's noose or a firebomb was denied that opportunity? In the words of the immortal champion of civil rights, Malcolm X, 'Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down.' In the case of an oppressed minority, the recognized right of self-defense is not just an afterthought, but a practical necessity."

Very good practical arguments, but there's more evidence and logic that can be used.

Another argument to make to people that want to regulate certain firearms, or to prohibit them altogether: How effective is a ban ever going to be? Whether a "liberal" thinks they are crazy or not, there are people out there that take the position that "they can pry them out of my cold dead hands." These stalwarts would literally amass a stockpile of weapons to defend their rights as they see them - even if you as a regulator don't agree that they have such a right. Are these liberals willing to send SWAT teams into certainly dangerous situations, where the only outcome involves death of the gun owner, merely to prevent them from having weapons? I'd have to imagine that those who value peace and life would balk at forcing these destructive conflicts.

But even then, a number would still say, "well, maybe those who already have guns should be able to keep them if they do so responsibly, but we can at least ban the sale or transfer, to make sure that "untrustworthy" people don't get their hands on these dangerous weapons." But then there's the cliche "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns" argument. Certainly those law-abiding citizens will go along with such a ban on sale/acquisitions, but there will still be some demand (like drugs, if they are amenable to legalization of pot, they should get this argument). Those who demand the banned weapons may have to go through more to get them, but they'll still get them. And the means of getting these prohibited items is necessarily through "criminals" who are more disposed to using fraud and force because the law will not honor their business contracts. And when these people have the contraband, the law-abiding will have little to no recourse to defend themselves ex ante or to seek restitution ex post. Ask if they understand the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, and then see if they understand that some people feel the same about personal arms.

And finally, use the argument to push a coherent theory of property rights: no one is forcing these people to use guns or to allow them on their property. They have every right to ban any and all weapons from their controlled property, and we can't argue against that except to question the logic of their ban and to try to persuade them either by abstention of dealing with them or through peaceful conversation. Further along this line, remind them that per Supreme Court Constitutional law the police and governments have no duty to protect them - they might know that some nefarious person is going to invade their home or jump them on the street, but even if they go to the police, the police do not have to help them defend their person or property. Thus the only way to assuredly protect your property is though personal means, and would you rather be left with just your fists, or would you like access to mace, tazers, or personal firearms, possibly even the fully automatic concealable type? Any prohibition of these means of defense necessarily favors those who are already willing to work outside the law, and funnels funds for your defense away from yourself and to those who are only bound to defend the state apparatus and not the people who live under it.

So where does that leave you, if any of your arguments are effective? Is the liberal left endorsing the absolute right to wave your weapons around willy-nilly, are they endorsing gross negligence and allowing vast risk of random death? No, it does not, and you must be there to show them that what they should really be striving after is a prohibition on the use of force. Any person always has the ability to hit, punch, kick, swing bats at, or use any type of potentially deadly force against others. The only way to combat violence is by condemning violence. Banning Bats and steel pipes, severing arms and legs, banning bleach or other poisons would indeed limit people's ability to act on their destructive desires, but proposing these draconian measures wouldn't eliminate violence. So convince them that they should strike the root of the problem, and let people own steel pipes and tasers and fully automatic concealable weapons, but put an absolute ban on using these products for aggression.

Once you've put the issue in this framework, and driven home the point of non-aggression, you'll be able to have further discussions on any other political issue, and you'll have the beginnings of a newly forged libertarian who can see the difference between prohibiting force and prohibiting things.

[Brian4Liberty]

Use emotions to get the democratic nomination (by hammering on the war relentlessly) in safe democrat districts and let partisanship carry you in the general election.

Exactly.

Most Congressional races don't have any media coverage at all. People simply vote R or D, and they have no idea where that candidate stands on issues. Really no need to "hammer" on anything. A Ron Paul Democrat would just need to put a few key points that match up with most Democrats in his written statement in the Voter Guide. It's not like anyone would be getting an interview on MSNBC in a low profile race. People vote on whether they like your name or profession on the ballot. Case in point: Alvin Greene in South Carolina. He didn't win the Primary based on anything other than people liking his name.

During Ron Paul's Presidential run, we had lots of Democrats that didn't want to switch to Republican to vote for Ron in the Primary. There must be a few of them willing to run in heavy Democrat districts.

[Krugerrand]

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. I think union workers can be won over with arguments against government deciding which corporations win. Sound money is another winning argument. Union workers don't want the dollars they earn being devalued so that more dollars can be printed for Wall Street bailouts.