Ron Paul, Romney, or Principles of Liberty?

[UtahApocalypse]

Seeing many here cheerleading the fact that we need to start standing with the GOP and support Romney if he is the Nominee. They are defending endorsements of him, and possible endorsements as political moves. So I ask the following:

Are you with; Ron Paul, the GOP, or The Principles of Liberty.

[cajuncocoa]

Seeing many here cheerleading the fact that we need to start standing with the GOP and support Romney if he is the Nominee. They are defending endorsements of him, and possible endorsements as political moves. So I ask the following:

Are you with; Ron Paul, the GOP, or The Principles of Liberty.I'm with the Principles of Liberty, and I reject those who are not (and/or endorse those who are not)

[moostraks]

I'm with the Principles of Liberty, and I reject those who are not (and/or endorse those who are not)

agreed...

I cannot agree with the go along to get along because just like living with a wife beater, they aren't going to stop beating you because you try to pacify them, they just become more ridiculous in their attempts to prove how it is your fault they behave that way.

[CaptUSA]

I fully understand continuing to work within the GOP - I think this is our best shot.

However, I don't think that means I have to support Romney.

I'm with the Principles of Liberty. I think the best way to achieve this is to continue to build on the gains we have made. Barring a complete collapse, I think this is the only option.

[cajuncocoa]

agreed...

I cannot agree with the go along to get along because just like living with a wife beater, they aren't going to stop beating you because you try to pacify them, they just become more ridiculous in their attempts to prove how it is your fault they behave that way.+rep for best analogy I've heard with regard to this in a long time.

[Icymudpuppy]

I've already abandoned the GOP.

[sunsense]

I've already abandoned the GOP.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?387081-Don-t-give-up-get-energized-and-involved


Personally, I will vote my conscience. Especially after all the cheating at all the primaries, the RNC attempt to change the 5 plurality to 10 (failed). But then removing various States, including Maine's, delegates to reduce Ron Paul's states to below 5.

As I see it, Obama and Romney are Two opposite sides of the big Government coin. Two sides of evil and control. The only difference I can make out is Obama is in bed with the unions and Romney is in bed with the large corporate companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

Oh yes. The statements that Romneys team are bending over backwards is a total joke. Actions speak louder than words and they really think they, or the Ron Paul team, can be fool us by a few obvious, concessions to get our vote, is particularly offensive and pathetic.

[DeMintConservative]

If you believe it's impossible to be with the Principles of Liberty and simultaneously vote for Romney, then stop caring about the GOP. Most likely a major party isn't for you. Just accept that and move on.

[sunsense]

If you believe it's impossible to be with the Principles of Liberty and simultaneously vote for Romney, then stop caring about the GOP. Most likely a major party isn't for you. Just accept that and move on.


Don't worry RINO. We are going to replace you.

[sailingaway]

I missed a thread where people were saying 'we must now fall in line with Romney?'

link?

[sailingaway]

If you believe it's impossible to be with the Principles of Liberty and simultaneously vote for Romney, then stop caring about the GOP. Most likely a major party isn't for you. Just accept that and move on.

LOL!

That isn't how you CHANGE a party.

[LibertyEagle]

If you believe it's impossible to be with the Principles of Liberty and simultaneously vote for Romney, then stop caring about the GOP. Most likely a major party isn't for you. Just accept that and move on.

What are you talking about? Political parties are inanimate objects. Why would I "care" about it? I have been registered as a Republican all my life, but it is a tool and nothing more than a tool.

I want my country back. To the extent that the GOP can be helpful in doing that, great. But, liberty is my goal.

How about you?

[LibertyEagle]

I fully understand continuing to work within the GOP - I think this is our best shot.

However, I don't think that means I have to support Romney.

I'm with the Principles of Liberty. I think the best way to achieve this is to continue to build on the gains we have made. Barring a complete collapse, I think this is the only option.

+1

My gag reflex prohibits my ability to vote for Romney or Obama.

[DeMintConservative]

What are you talking about? Political parties are inanimate objects. Why would I "care" about it? I have been registered as a Republican all my life, but it is a tool and nothing more than a tool.

I want my country back. To the extent that the GOP can be helpful in doing that, great. But, liberty is my goal.

How about you?

Could you take a look at the Justin Amash endorsement thread? I've been writing about the same issue there, so I'd be repeating myself here. Let me know if what I write there answers your doubts.

[DeMintConservative]

LOL!

That isn't how you CHANGE a party.

Of course it is.

You can't change people if they perceive you as hostile to them.

It amazes me the naivete of believing you can afford to not support any GOP candidate except the handful you really like but that the other Republican will keep supporting your candidates and welcome you into the club.

This is bizarrely self-delusional.

[tsai3904]

Our supporters have taken over the Iowa and Nevada GOPs and the establishment type are livid. The Romney campaign had to set up a separate organization for their campaign in Nevada, which is unheard of. In Iowa, the establishment supporters absolutely hate the Iowa GOP and all the Paul supporters in leadership positions. Just take a look at the comments in these articles:

h ttp://theiowarepublican.com/2012/tampa-update-iowa-gop-still-focused-on-ron-paul/
h ttp://theiowarepublican.com/2012/sponsor-the-iowa-delegation-to-the-republican-national-convention-for-only-25000/

I'm surprised some people want to just give everything we've won back to the establishment and let them gloat over our loss. They would love nothing more for us to leave the party because they know we are making an influence.

[tsai3904]

Of course it is.

You can't change people if they perceive you as hostile to them.

It amazes me the naivete of believing you can afford to not support any GOP candidate except the handful you really like but that the other Republican will keep supporting your candidates and welcome you into the club.

This is bizarrely self-delusional.

I have to agree. When Kerry Bentivolio won his primary and Cassis refused to endorse him, many of us were pretty upset. We can't expect them to support our candidates if we never return the favor. The empty blanket support of the winner after primaries is just rhetoric and something our supporters should understand doesn't mean much to us but means the world to the establishment who live by party loyalty.

[Brett85]

Of course it is.

You can't change people if they perceive you as hostile to them.

It amazes me the naivete of believing you can afford to not support any GOP candidate except the handful you really like but that the other Republican will keep supporting your candidates and welcome you into the club.

This is bizarrely self-delusional.

I understand where you're coming from, and have agreed with that sentiment in the past. And I do think that Romney would be an improvement over Obama. However, some of us can't vote for Romney due to conscience reasons. In my case, I'm very concerned about Romney's statement about how he'll attack Iran without even getting approval from Congress. I certainly don't want to undermine Romney or the party in any way, but how am I supposed to continually vote against what my conscience says?

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

A lot of us are in leadership positions in our local Republican parties. Nothing, other than my extreme dislike and genuine fear of Obama, can make me vote for Romney (I am truly undecided between Johnson, Goode, and Romney). However, there are strong liberty-minded Republicans in races in Charlotte and North Carolina, and I will be working my ass off for them. If that helps Romney too, so be it.

[LibertyEagle]

Of course it is.

You can't change people if they perceive you as hostile to them.

It amazes me the naivete of believing you can afford to not support any GOP candidate except the handful you really like but that the other Republican will keep supporting your candidates and welcome you into the club.

This is bizarrely self-delusional.

I understand what you are getting at. I mean, I voted for Ted Cruz and some others in the state that I had some reservations about. But, if I flat out knew the Republican stunk, I didn't vote for them. Supporting the conservatives and not, the others, is one way to inform the party what we want. To just go along and vote for any 'ol trash is what seems "bizarrely self-delusional" to me.

[DeMintConservative]

Because it's unacceptable that some faction of the party takes control of official party structures and then doesn't act in support of the party candidates but only of those they like. You can't do that. Totally unacceptable. The party is a bit tent. If you cant' live with that, stay away from it.

That's exactly why I've been saying that if this keeps on, I'll easily support and vote for some liberal RINO over a Ron Paul Republican. At least I know that RINOs running the party structures will still support me if I'm running for office even if we disagree on a lot of things.

[sailingaway]

Of course it is.

You can't change people if they perceive you as hostile to them.

It amazes me the naivete of believing you can afford to not support any GOP candidate except the handful you really like but that the other Republican will keep supporting your candidates and welcome you into the club.

This is bizarrely self-delusional.\

No, they only support the ones we don't like as much, yet you think WE should support YOUR favorite.

We need to become the party. 'We' left being active (before my time) after Goldwater. I have been GOP since I can vote, you are not more Republican than I am, you maybe more establishment, but establishments can change.

If they cant even support our ONCE IN A LIFETIME candidates like Ron Paul, to the point of having an insulting 'tribute video' instead of the man speaking himself, DESPITE polling showing that WE ARE the swing voters, why on earth would we want to support those of their candidates that we actively dislike?

[LibertyEagle]

I understand where you're coming from, and have agreed with that sentiment in the past. And I do think that Romney would be an improvement over Obama. However, some of us can't vote for Romney due to conscience reasons. In my case, I'm very concerned about Romney's statement about how he'll attack Iran without even getting approval from Congress. I certainly don't want to undermine Romney or the party in any way, but how am I supposed to continually vote against what my conscience says?

You don't.

Romney doesn't stand for one thing that we do. He's all hat and no cattle.

[Brett85]

You don't.

Romney doesn't stand for one thing that we do. He's all hat and no cattle.

I actually disagree with that. I prefer Romney over Obama on issues like taxes, regulations, offshore oil drilling, judges, and things like that. It's just that I don't want to have another President who's never seen a war he didn't like, which is my concern about Romney.

[tsai3904]

I understand what you are getting at. I mean, I voted for Ted Cruz and some others in the state that I had some reservations about. But, if I flat out knew the Republican stunk, I didn't vote for them. Supporting the conservatives and not, the others, is one way to inform the party what we want. To just go along and vote for any 'ol trash is what seems "bizarrely self-delusional" to me.

I think voting for and just saying you will support the GOP nominee are different. Look at the Kerry Bentivolio race. Many of the establishment type are reluctantly supporting Kerry but I doubt they will vote for him. To the establishment, a blanket one line statement in support of the nominee is like a duty to them since they live by party loyalty.

[sailingaway]

Because it's unacceptable that some faction of the party takes control of official party structures and then doesn't act in support of the party candidates but only of those they like. You can't do that. Totally unacceptable. The party is a bit tent. If you cant' live with that, stay away from it.

That's exactly why I've been saying that if this keeps on, I'll easily support and vote for some liberal RINO over a Ron Paul Republican. At least I know that RINOs running the party structures will still support me if I'm running for office even if we disagree on a lot of things.

find it unacceptable all you like.

As a Republican, I think your insular attitude is unacceptable on a PARTY attitude basis, although you are certainly free to your own opinion and control of your own vote. People have to earn our votes, JUST as they do other people's votes. JUST as our guys have to do yours. Our concerns are clear: address them.

[LibertyEagle]

Because it's unacceptable that some faction of the party takes control of official party structures and then doesn't act in support of the party candidates but only of those they like. You can't do that. Totally unacceptable. The party is a bit tent. If you cant' live with that, stay away from it.

Excuse me, but that is nuts. The way you inform others what you will support is through the voting booth. If they want my vote, they will run constitutional conservatives. If they don't, they won't. It's as simple as that.

And bud, I have been registered as a Republican for over 30 years. I'm not going anywhere.


That's exactly why I've been saying that if this keeps on, I'll easily support and vote for some liberal RINO over a Ron Paul Republican. At least I know that RINOs running the party structures will still support me if I'm running for office even if we disagree on a lot of things.

What?

You are making this personal and it's not. If you support the Constitution in all that you do, you know that pesky thing elected reps take an oath to uphold, then chances are, many of us would support you.

We are pretty transparent. We don't care about your hair and we aren't asking you to grant us special favors. We only ask you to abide by your oath of office.

Do you want our votes? It's up to you.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Because it's unacceptable that some faction of the party takes control of official party structures and then doesn't act in support of the party candidates but only of those they like. You can't do that. Totally unacceptable. The party is a bit tent. If you cant' live with that, stay away from it.

That's exactly why I've been saying that if this keeps on, I'll easily support and vote for some liberal RINO over a Ron Paul Republican. At least I know that RINOs running the party structures will still support me if I'm running for office even if we disagree on a lot of things.

I'm regretting I +repped your first post on this thread.

I generally agree with you that we need to work within the party, BUT, I will not support RINOs and establishment candidates just for their support later on. There's a reason we have primaries.

All said, the most recent Republican Presidential candidate closest to most Republicans favorite hero - Ronald Reagan is Ron Paul. That is something we need to keep pushing with.

[DeMintConservative]

I think voting for and just saying you will support the GOP nominee are different. Look at the Kerry Bentivolio race. Many of the establishment type are reluctantly supporting Kerry but I doubt they will vote for him. To the establishment, a blanket one line statement in support of the nominee is like a duty to them since they live by party loyalty.

If non-Ron Paul Republicans, including Romney type of Republicans, who are dominant in that district, don't vote for Bentivolio, then he'll lose, and lose big.

Yet, unless he does something crazy, they'll vote for him.

[sailingaway]

I actually disagree with that. I prefer Romney over Obama on issues like taxes, regulations, offshore oil drilling, judges, and things like that. It's just that I don't want to have another President who's never seen a war he didn't like, which is my concern about Romney.

Judges? Which judge did he appoint that you liked? His record on judicial appointments is awful.

[sailingaway]

If non-Ron Paul Republicans, including Romney type of Republicans, who are dominant in that district, don't vote for Bentivolio, then he'll lose, and lose big.

Yet, unless he does something crazy, they'll vote for him.

You don't control their votes, though. Kerry has to appeal to them, and he will because he has CROSS OVER APPEAL. Our hard fight is the primary, not the general, so much.

That's why we want RON on stage and why Romney should beg him to go there. Ron has what Romney doesn't -- cross over appeal. If Ron speaks, he'll be different from Romney but will show that the voice exists in the party and will draw many many many to the party. Ron is catnip for the apathetic and the apathetic don't vote in the primaries. I should know, I used to be one of them.

And the reason Romney's team doesn't want him is some of his backers are also backing Obama and would rather he win than that Ron's anti corporatist, strict Constitutionalist views get traction, I am sure of it.

[tsai3904]

If non-Ron Paul Republicans, including Romney type of Republicans, who are dominant in that district, don't vote for Bentivolio, then he'll lose, and lose big.

Yet, unless he does something crazy, they'll vote for him.

I believe a lot of Nancy supporters will vote for Kerry because many of her supporters are not in the GOP leadership. The difference is people in leadership often live for power and party loyalty. I can very well see the establishment Nancy supporters saying they'll support Kerry but not voting for him. All they care about is giving the impression that they are loyal to the party so that they can maintain their power.

[DeMintConservative]

I'm regretting I +repped your first post on this thread.

I generally agree with you that we need to work within the party, BUT, I will not support RINOs and establishment candidates just for their support later on. There's a reason we have primaries.

All said, the most recent Republican Presidential candidate closest to most Republicans favorite hero - Ronald Reagan is Ron Paul. That is something we need to keep pushing with.

Well, but in that post I was talking about the Nevada GOP, sorry if that isn't clear.

Sure, if you're an individual with no party responsibilities, then that attitude is mostly fine.

But you can't take over party structures - they are called party structures for a reason - and then refuse to support the candidates your own party picked in the primaries. Again, that's totally unacceptable. If you are a party leader and you can't support the candidates your party picks, you need to quit (unless the primary winner commits a felony or goes Akin on you). The party structures exist to support the party candidates, not the few the local party bosses like.

[LibertyEagle]

Because it's unacceptable that some faction of the party takes control of official party structures and then doesn't act in support of the party candidates but only of those they like. You can't do that. Totally unacceptable. The party is a bit tent. If you cant' live with that, stay away from it.

But, I do want you to expound on this some more. Because I find this to be so illogical, well, it just intrigues me. I also want to try to understand where you are coming from.

[sailingaway]

Well, but in that post I was talking about the Nevada GOP, sorry if that isn't clear.

Sure, if you're an individual with no party responsibilities, then that attitude is mostly fine.

But you can't take over party structures - they are called party structures for a reason - and then refuse to support the candidates your own party picked in the primaries. Again, that's totally unacceptable. If you are a party leader and you can't support the candidates your party picks, you need to quit (unless the primary winner commits a felony or goes Akin on you). The party structures exist to support the party candidates, not the few the local party bosses like.

the people in the party structure do have to support the nominee. Look at all the support the party has been giving Kerry and Bills for example. We should do as much when it is us.

But that is the people who are elected to fill a role, just as when you take a job you don't just refuse to serve someone you don't like, you have taken on a job. That is different. (By the way, the party establishment isn't at all doing more than lip service for Kerry and Bills, so you might want to go tell them to get their act together.)

[DeMintConservative]

Judges? Which judge did he appoint that you liked? His record on judicial appointments is awful.

I disagree, I think it's pretty good. You were never able to answer me what exactly would you have done differently than Romney if you were in his place as the governor of Massachusetts in the issue of judges. He made the nomination process almost apolitical which was a big win for a state where liberal democrats could manipulate the process at will.

But I think the point here is that Romney will nominate better, only if marginally, then Obama.

And politics is not about immanentizing the eschnaton. There are no good outcomes or optimum political arrangements - that's the kind of stuff Marxists believe in. It's a constant struggle of settling to the lesser evil.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, but in that post I was talking about the Nevada GOP, sorry if that isn't clear.

Sure, if you're an individual with no party responsibilities, then that attitude is mostly fine.

But you can't take over party structures - they are called party structures for a reason - and then refuse to support the candidates your own party picked in the primaries. Again, that's totally unacceptable. If you are a party leader and you can't support the candidates your party picks, you need to quit (unless the primary winner commits a felony or goes Akin on you). The party structures exist to support the party candidates, not the few the local party bosses like.

Hhmmm.... Are you talking about the same party structure that lied, cheated, and stole our duly-won delegate slots? Is that the type of actions that you are defending? Because if you are, I think you need to take a long look at yourself.

[Brett85]

Judges? Which judge did he appoint that you liked? His record on judicial appointments is awful.

I'm saying that he'll appoint better judges than Obama, partly due from pressure from Republicans in Congress and the conservative base. He did appoint bad judget in Massachusetts, partly because he had a legislature composed of 90% Democrats that he had to get the nominees through.

[LibertyEagle]

It's a constant struggle of settling to the lesser evil.

No. This is how we got in this mess to begin with.

Sorry, but this is nuts.

[DeMintConservative]

But, I do want you to expound on this some more. Because I find this to be so illogical, well, it just intrigues me. I also want to try to understand where you are coming from.

Really? Why is Romney being forced to build his own operation in Nevada? What are they doing to help Romney and Heller? They're undermining the party by calling the RNC chairman to resign over some faux scandal.

Read this:


Newsflash Chairman Spiker, what’s going on with the Maine delegation is not your problem. It would be nice if the Republican Party of Iowa was as passionate in helping our congressional candidates achieve victory this fall as they are about holding the hands of Ron Paul delegates from Maine. It would seem more appropriate for the Republican Party of Iowa to solicit donations to help win control of the Iowa State Senate than to ask for donations to help Ron Paul delegates from some other state get into the convention.

It is long past time that the big wigs at RPI got their priorities straight.

Do you think people will accept this kind of behaviour?

Party structures exist to help elect Republicans. Not to push ideology. You want to be an ideological warrior, that's fine: stay out of them. Once the primaries are over, then it's your job to support every primary winner, even those you don't agree with ideologically.

[Brett85]

I do think that those who are actually involved in the party structure, those who are actually running for office should endorse Romney for President. But those of us who aren't running for office should be free to vote our conscience, without being accused of "undermining" the party.

[Liberty74]

The GOP is anti-Liberty on practically every issue. This idea that the GOP is the only route to take is a naive one at best. The GOP has made it very clear they want no part of our message. They will chew you up then spit you out once they are done co-opting our message and getting our vote. Hence, what Romney is attempting to do right this minute.

Over 65% of voters want a viable third party option. Ron Paul kicked ass with Independent voters and did not do very well with Republican voters. Independents now make up about 40% of the voters. The GOP is dying. People are leaving both party in droves. There is a huge opportunity there to launch our message and attach it to the Indy party. They have no establishment to deal with, they have no real leader or platform. It could be all ours.

Don't get me wrong. Fight with the Republicans within the party at the state level races. However, our best bet at the national level would be to advance the liberty message with honesty and purity through the Indy option.

[DeMintConservative]

No. This is how we got in this mess to begin with.

Sorry, but this is nuts.

Well, I'm a conservative. That's basically the position of every conservative philosopher I know, from Burke to Voegelin, from Madison to Hayek. Attempts to immanentize the eschaton I'll leave to the other side. There are no perfect political arrangements because men are not angels.

[tsai3904]

Party structures exist to help elect Republicans. Not to push ideology. You want to be an ideological warrior, that's fine: stay out of them. Once the primaries are over, then it's your job to support every primary winner, even those you don't agree with ideologically.

For those in the leadership positions, I think they should state they will support the GOP nominee. Now whether that leads to phone banking or door to door campaigning for the candidate is a completely different story.

[DeMintConservative]

For those in the leadership positions, I think they should state they will support the GOP nominee. Now whether that leads to phone banking or door to door campaigning for the candidate is a completely different story.

No it's not.

If you cant' be effective as a party leader, you need to step down.

If you can only be effective in your support to the selected candidates of your liking, then you need to step down even faster.

And this is true regardless if you're a Ron Paul supporter, a RINO, a conservative or whatever.

Those structures exist to elect republicans. If the concept troubles you, then it's very simple: stay away from them.

[sailingaway]

No it's not.

If you cant' be effective as a party leader, you need to step down.

If you can only be effective in your support to the selected candidates of your liking, then you need to step down even faster.

And this is true regardless if you're a Ron Paul supporter, a RINO, a conservative or whatever.

Those structures exist to elect republicans. If the concept troubles you, then it's very simple: stay away from them.

why aren't you ragging on Wisconsin GOP for not supporting Kerry like that? Why is it only our people who must have no personal opinions?

Happens, I think what the job you take on entails, it entails for public purposes. If the person before you led the phone banking, you should be ready to phone bank, but it seems to me there is a lot of phone banking needed and they would be more effective phone banking for those of the candidates they can stand.

[cajuncocoa]

If you believe it's impossible to be with the Principles of Liberty and simultaneously vote for Romney, then stop caring about the GOP. Most likely a major party isn't for you. Just accept that and move on.Coming from someone with the username DeMintConservative (http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7227331f-50c5-4bab-956b-72f1965643b2&ContentType_id=a2165b4b-3970-4d37-97e5-4832fcc68398&Group_id=9ee606ce-9200-47af-90a5-024143e9974c&YearDisplay=2006) I'm not surprised.

[sailingaway]

Coming from someone with the username DeMintConservative (http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7227331f-50c5-4bab-956b-72f1965643b2&ContentType_id=a2165b4b-3970-4d37-97e5-4832fcc68398&Group_id=9ee606ce-9200-47af-90a5-024143e9974c&YearDisplay=2006) I'm not surprised.

I like De Mint. I don't like his corporatism of the Club For Growth managed trade variety, and we disagree on when the US needs military abroad, but generally, I think he has his principles and lives by them.

I'd push for Ron Paul against ANYONE, but Jim De Mint is better than most of the Senate.

[DeMintConservative]

why aren't you ragging on Wisconsin GOP for not supporting Kerry like that? Why is it only our people who must have no personal opinions?

Happens, I think what the job you take on entails, it entails for public purposes. If the person before you led the phone banking, you should be ready to phone bank, but it seems to me there is a lot of phone banking needed and they would be more effective phone banking for those of the candidates they can stand.

I'm not aware that they aren't supporting Bentivolio as much as any other congressional candidate, I'll check that on his forum.

But if that's the case, I criticize them to the exact same extent. As I said, party structures don't exist to push ideology. And that's just a pretty weak excuse. If there are republican candidates they can't stand (except those extreme cases I mentioned), they need to get out of the way and let other people run things.

[DeMintConservative]

I like De Mint. I don't like his corporatism of the Club For Growth managed trade variety, and we disagree on when the US needs military abroad, but generally, I think he has his principles and lives by them.

I'd push for Ron Paul against ANYONE, but Jim De Mint is better than most of the Senate.

I disagree De Mint is a corporatist. Very far from that.

Corporate welfare is actually my pet issue in politics. I dedicate most of my energy and time in politics to the cause of teaching people that being pro-business and pro-free market are very different things. I wouldn't support DeMint if he was a pro-business conservative.

[tsai3904]

No it's not.

If you cant' be effective as a party leader, you need to step down.

If you can only be effective in your support to the selected candidates of your liking, then you need to step down even faster.

And this is true regardless if you're a Ron Paul supporter, a RINO, a conservative or whatever.

Those structures exist to elect republicans. If the concept troubles you, then it's very simple: stay away from them.

You do understand that people are not able to do things exactly the same for every candidate. People have priorities and time constraints. Are you suggesting that the Chairman of a state GOP must spend EXACTLY the same amount of time and do the EXACT same type of volunteer work for every GOP nominee?

[jointhefightforfreedom]

The GOP is anti-Liberty on practically every issue. This idea that the GOP is the only route to take is a naive one at best. The GOP has made it very clear they want no part of our message. They will chew you up then spit you out once they are done co-opting our message and getting our vote. Hence, what Romney is attempting to do right this minute.

Over 65% of voters want a viable third party option. Ron Paul kicked ass with Independent voters and did not do very well with Republican voters. Independents now make up about 40% of the voters. The GOP is dying. People are leaving both party in droves. There is a huge opportunity there to launch our message and attach it to the Indy party. They have no establishment to deal with, they have no real leader or platform. It could be all ours.

Don't get me wrong. Fight with the Republicans within the party at the state level races. However, our best bet at the national level would be to advance the liberty message with honesty and purity through the Indy option.

I agree , If you believe gop and dems are 2 Heads of the same snake. Either Big Government or Big Corp , and you believe in the principle of freedom , then vote your principl. And let one part of the 2 head snake DIE !

If this was even 50 yrs ago we wouldn't allow this lying and cheating and LACK OF PRINCIPLE in this country!

What happened to Character!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DeMintConservative]

You do understand that people are not able to do things exactly the same for every candidate. People have priorities and time constraints. Are you suggesting that the Chairman of a state GOP must spend EXACTLY the same amount of time and do the EXACT same type of volunteer work for every GOP nominee?

As much as possible. But c'mon, let's be real here: what is the NVGOP doing to help Romney or Heller? Zero. I was told the RNC had to rent offices to install phonebanks because they're keeping party spaces closed. The Iowa GOP is fundraising to seat other state delegates at the RNC (coincidentally delegates who are close to them ideologically) instead of fundraising for Republicans in Iowa? That's absolutely unacceptable. It's simply not your job. Do it in your free-time, not using the party resources and reputation.

[Brett85]

As much as possible. But c'mon, let's be real here: what is the NVGOP doing to help Romney or Heller? Zero. I was told the RNC had to rent offices to install phonebanks because they're keeping party spaces closed. The Iowa GOP is fundraising to seat other state delegates at the RNC (coincidentally delegates who are close to them ideologically) instead of fundraising for Republicans in Iowa? That's absolutely unacceptable. It's simply not your job. Do it in your free-time, not using the party resources and reputation.

Didn't you say before that you voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2004, rather than voting for Bush? Doesn't that make you a "traitor" to the party?

[cajuncocoa]

I like De Mint. I don't like his corporatism of the Club For Growth managed trade variety, and we disagree on when the US needs military abroad, but generally, I think he has his principles and lives by them.

I'd push for Ron Paul against ANYONE, but Jim De Mint is better than most of the Senate.


I disagree De Mint is a corporatist. Very far from that.

Corporate welfare is actually my pet issue in politics. I dedicate most of my energy and time in politics to the cause of teaching people that being pro-business and pro-free market are very different things. I wouldn't support DeMint if he was a pro-business conservative.

DeMint: Patriot Act is Vital Tool in the War on Terror (http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7227331f-50c5-4bab-956b-72f1965643b2&ContentType_id=a2165b4b-3970-4d37-97e5-4832fcc68398&Group_id=9ee606ce-9200-47af-90a5-024143e9974c&MonthDisplay=3&YearDisplay=2006)
that is all.

[LibertyEagle]

No it's not.

If you cant' be effective as a party leader, you need to step down.

If you can only be effective in your support to the selected candidates of your liking, then you need to step down even faster.

And this is true regardless if you're a Ron Paul supporter, a RINO, a conservative or whatever.

Those structures exist to elect republicans. If the concept troubles you, then it's very simple: stay away from them.

Well, I do have to agree that the people in those positions should visibly support the Republican nominee. But, it doesn't follow that the GOP rank-and-file needs to follow along. That is where we differ.

You do realize, don't you, that the GOP leadership that you love so much did not do what you say must be done. They used their positions to cheat and lie to help the candidate of their choosing.

[69360]

I've always been a republican and I'll stick with the GOP. I've been able to support the presidential nominee until this election. I can't vote for Romney. I'll be voting for Johnson unless the GOP succeeds in kicking Johnson off the ballot here in PA. :rolleyes: In that case I wont push any button for president. In my local and state races I can support the GOP candidates.

For what it's worth, I do think Romney is better than Obama, but will not support him.

[ClydeCoulter]

As much as possible. But c'mon, let's be real here: what is the NVGOP doing to help Romney or Heller? Zero. I was told the RNC had to rent offices to install phonebanks because they're keeping party spaces closed. The Iowa GOP is fundraising to seat other state delegates at the RNC (coincidentally delegates who are close to them ideologically) instead of fundraising for Republicans in Iowa? That's absolutely unacceptable. It's simply not your job. Do it in your free-time, not using the party resources and reputation.

Perhaps, once Romney IS nominated (if so) then they will phone bank, etc.. for him.

[ClydeCoulter]

As much as possible. But c'mon, let's be real here: what is the NVGOP doing to help Romney or Heller? Zero. I was told the RNC had to rent offices to install phonebanks because they're keeping party spaces closed. The Iowa GOP is fundraising to seat other state delegates at the RNC (coincidentally delegates who are close to them ideologically) instead of fundraising for Republicans in Iowa? That's absolutely unacceptable. It's simply not your job. Do it in your free-time, not using the party resources and reputation.

//double post

[DeMintConservative]

DeMint: Patriot Act is Vital Tool in the War on Terror (http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7227331f-50c5-4bab-956b-72f1965643b2&ContentType_id=a2165b4b-3970-4d37-97e5-4832fcc68398&Group_id=9ee606ce-9200-47af-90a5-024143e9974c&MonthDisplay=3&YearDisplay=2006)
that is all.

What? How is that related with my post? I didn't and won't disagree with Sailinagway point about FP and military intervention as I wouldn't if he had mentioned national security policies.


Well, I do have to agree that the people in those positions should visibly support the Republican nominee. But, it doesn't follow that the GOP rank-and-file needs to follow along. That is where we differ.

You do realize, don't you, that the GOP leadership that you love so much did not do what you say must be done. They used their positions to cheat and lie to help the candidate of their choosing.

I don't love the GOP leadership, that's a strawman. I don't mind the party leadership taking position on primaries (or even running themselves). As long as they don't use the party resources, I have no problem at all with that.

And I don't think we disagree at all. I don't always vote for the Republican candidates, I've even passed on the top of the ticket. But it's different if you're a party candidate or elected official, a party leader or if you actively try to undermine the party in the national convention. Other than that, we certainly are entitled to make our own judgements: if I see there's a faction of the party that is self-serving, I'll certainly be wary of supporting their candidates in the primaries or care much about them in the general.

[sailingaway]

As much as possible. But c'mon, let's be real here: what is the NVGOP doing to help Romney or Heller? Zero. I was told the RNC had to rent offices to install phonebanks because they're keeping party spaces closed. The Iowa GOP is fundraising to seat other state delegates at the RNC (coincidentally delegates who are close to them ideologically) instead of fundraising for Republicans in Iowa? That's absolutely unacceptable. It's simply not your job. Do it in your free-time, not using the party resources and reputation.

they had the offices long before that. You can google it. They started putting the 'shadow party' in place to try to marginalize the elected State GOP as soon as it was clear Ron's people had a shot at taking the party.

So much for welcome, and unity.

[Vampire]

If you believe it's impossible to be with the Principles of Liberty and simultaneously vote for Romney, then stop caring about the GOP. Most likely a major party isn't for you. Just accept that and move on.

No, what the major party has turned into is the antithesis of liberty. Why should individuals just accept the demise of liberty within a party who's platform yells freedom, constitution, and liberty from the rooftops? Should individuals just move on? Or expose the individuals in the party for the frauds that they are. The latter will help restore the party to what it preaches. Based off of Romney's own record, an individual whom espouses economic and personal liberty would find no reason to vote for him.

[sailingaway]

DeMint: Patriot Act is Vital Tool in the War on Terror (http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7227331f-50c5-4bab-956b-72f1965643b2&ContentType_id=a2165b4b-3970-4d37-97e5-4832fcc68398&Group_id=9ee606ce-9200-47af-90a5-024143e9974c&MonthDisplay=3&YearDisplay=2006)
that is all.

2006

I think he didn't read it at that time and was saying what he had been told. He is a NATIONAL SECURITY conservative, NOT a neoconservative, but NS conservatives don't always know that the guy who agrees with them on foreign policy and subtly tries to move them towards big government abroad and at home is a Trotskyite who wants big state and no privacy. In 2006 I myself was just finding out what was in the Patriot Act, it never occurred to me my government would pass such a thing.

De Mint voted against the final NDAA which had the House indefinite detention of citizens in it. I do think he is now focusing more on civil liberties he just hadn't inquired about. I'll see. that is a big point with me and if he doesn't follow the 4th amendment when he KNOWS it is being violated, it would change my feelings. Right now I consider him a Constitutionalist by his own lights.

[sailingaway]

I'm not aware that they aren't supporting Bentivolio as much as any other congressional candidate, I'll check that on his forum.

But if that's the case, I criticize them to the exact same extent. As I said, party structures don't exist to push ideology. And that's just a pretty weak excuse. If there are republican candidates they can't stand (except those extreme cases I mentioned), they need to get out of the way and let other people run things.

If they can't stand only some? Because then a bunch of State GOP in states where our people won primaries should quit summarily.