PDA

View Full Version : Liberty candidates vetted by central group?




ninepointfive
10-26-2012, 02:13 PM
Been thinking about some of the "more popular" liberty candidates, and the "less popular" candidates on this board.


Bills, Bentivolio, Massie, Hightower et. al seem to have been vetted by the Paul's or those associated with the Pauls or C4L. They have seen much more traction
Then other candidates like Tisha Casida, for example, where she's aligned - but receives not even an acknowledgement.



Does anyone know how the other candidates have been vetted and picked? Sure, one could speculate - but someone in the know must have an answer.

sailingaway
10-26-2012, 02:32 PM
as far as the board is concerned, no one pushed Tisha until really late and she was in a controversy blaming YAL for stuff when I at least first heard of her. I have no idea what happened, but I was already supporting candidates.

As far as support on this BOARD is concerned, you make your case, generally.

I do believe Kerry was supported BECAUSE Ron's supporters supported him. Others were more top down (but you will note Cruz does not have a forum here, nor as much support, although I think those in Texas are largely (not all) voting for him.)

We knew Massie and Hightower from Rand's campaign so they had people here who liked them.

as for the organizational support, I dunno.

GunnyFreedom
10-26-2012, 02:37 PM
Gigi Bowman is already doing that, and she is doing it well.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 02:58 PM
The people on this forum have been doing that from the beginning.

We have two new ones in Oklahoma that sound interesting, Mullin and Bridenstine. Of course, the big deal is the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk--and the only place to walk the walk is on Capitol Hill.

Once they get in office and start casting actual votes, we ensure that the cream rises. All we have to do then is spread the word.

Uriah
10-26-2012, 03:28 PM
Tisha Casida is running as an independent. I don't think either of the Pauls would endorse her for that reason alone. IMO she is great and I hope she wins.

Bastiat's The Law
10-26-2012, 03:33 PM
She's running an indie vanity campaign. People just realize its a waste of time I think.

itshappening
10-26-2012, 03:56 PM
Candidates should be endorsed by the Paul's or have taken the time to become known within the community

They should also have some shot at winning i.e running for an open seat in a winnable race

I am hoping after the election and when we think about 2014 that state Sen. Tom Davis will get a subforum so we can encourage him to run in the 2014 SC GOP primary for U.S Senate

Taking out Lindsey Graham should probably be our main focus unless we can quickly identify candidates for other US senate races and the primaries quickly enough to support them.

The problem is there is a lack of viable candidates and the Establishment usually has a head start on us in that they have an elected official already lined up in a strong financial position for the seat so focusing on one or two races where our resources can pay off is important.

specsaregood
10-26-2012, 04:10 PM
We knew Massie and Hightower from Rand's campaign so they had people here who liked them.


Probably doesnt hurt that they are both members here. :)

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 04:16 PM
They should also have some shot at winning i.e running for an open seat in a winnable race.

Bridenstine primaried Sullivan (R, OK-1) right out of the House. Hardly an open seat, but obviously winnable (at least, he found a way). He hasn't proven himself with a single vote yet, but I appreciate him just for that. I don't see how he could be worse than Sullivan.

So, I don't think 'open seat' should be a criterion. And 'winnable' is in the eye of the beholder...

GeorgiaAvenger
10-26-2012, 04:27 PM
The people on this forum have been doing that from the beginning.

We have two new ones in Oklahoma that sound interesting, Mullin and Bridenstine. Of course, the big deal is the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk--and the only place to walk the walk is on Capitol Hill.

Once they get in office and start casting actual votes, we ensure that the cream rises. All we have to do then is spread the word.

Bridenstine looks good. He understands credit cycles.

http://jimbridenstine.com/html/economy.php

My criteria for foreign policy is that I won't support any war hawks, and while they don't have to be 100% non-interventionist they need to be more on the dove side. For example, Allen West is a war hawk, and Mike Lee is more of a dove.

This is all he says on the issue:


I have been a Navy pilot for 10 years. I am deeply concerned that our national security objectives have been compromised for a domestic agenda that restricts freedom, punishes achievement, cripples the economy, and makes us less competitive in the world.

The START Treaty should have been renegotiated to allow the U.S. to develop a ballistic missile intercept capability and reduce the 10,000 unit Russian advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

nobody's_hero
10-26-2012, 05:09 PM
I think it's simply that most folks are out of money to be spending on politics, so I wouldn't over-analyze it.

DeMintConservative
10-26-2012, 05:15 PM
Taking out Lindsey Graham should probably be our main focus unless we can quickly identify candidates for other US senate races and the primaries quickly enough to support them.


I wish, but that's a waste of time. Best hope is that Romney offers him a cabinet position. And if that happens, Nikki Haley will run away with the nomination - half of the party is staunchly on her sude and the other half will jump in joy with the opportunity of sending her to Washington.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 05:17 PM
I wish, but that's a waste of time.

Trying to take out Jim Sullivan was a waste of time, too. Except it wasn't, and he's gone.

Pisces
10-26-2012, 05:22 PM
I wish, but that's a waste of time. Best hope is that Romney offers him a cabinet position. And if that happens, Nikki Haley will run away with the nomination - half of the party is staunchly on her sude and the other half will jump in joy with the opportunity of sending her to Washington.

That's very similar to what the conventional wisdom was about defeating Dewhurst for the Republican Senate nomination in Texas. Due to his huge warchest, strong organization and universal name id in Texas, Dewhurst had pretty much the same advantage as an entrenched incumbent. I know a lot of people here aren't big fans of Ted Cruz, but his defeat of Dewhurst was pretty amazing. Potential liberty candidates should study how he ran his campaign to get an idea of how to win a race when you are completely outgunned.

itshappening
10-26-2012, 05:57 PM
Attempting to replace Graham with Tom Davis is hardly a waste of time.

Graham is not considered conservative enough by many in the SC GOP, has been censured by county parties and is openly supporting Democrats.

With enough money and the right campaign Davis could beat him.

sailingaway
10-26-2012, 06:06 PM
[QUOTE=itshappening;4702438]Attempting to replace Graham with Tom Davis is hardly a waste of time.

Graham is not considered conservative enough by many in the SC GOP, has been censured by county parties and is openly supporting Democrats.


Heck, a Ron Paul DEMOCRAT who became a Dem only just before the deadline to run, and who didn't get the Dem party endorsement (Lindsay did) got 42% against Lindsay last time.

I think it is pretty much a given we'll be supporting Davis in that. AT least I have seen a lot of enthusiasm for it, and no PAUL supporters against it.

CaseyJones
10-26-2012, 06:08 PM
oh we Are taking out Graham