Anyone think we can gain support from Blue Dog Democrats?

[AgentforPathfinder]

If any of them really exist anymore...

I am not sure why many Ron Paul supporters seem to think reforming the Republican Party is the right answer. Sure we should try, but we might as well try equally for the Democrat party. Even though Democrats have recently proven themselves to be big phonies in terms of ending the war, their entitlement programs cost far less than a hawkish Republican's military budget. Many I know voted for Gary Johnson so Romney would lose as he seemed so gung ho about attacking Iran. Yet many other Ron Paul supporters actually voted for Romney.

The "Grand Old Party" has never really been the Liberty Party. It evolved from the Federalist Party which opposed Jefferson's ideas. It eventually evolved into the Imperialist Party when Lincoln conquered the South, and the Indians were conquered during reconstruction. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, and so the railroad crossed the country through the Indian's land. After the Indians were crushed the US annexed Alaska and Hawaii. By this point it was the party of millionaire tycoons like Rockefeller and Morgan, who wanted the US to become like the British Empire, and then invented the Federal Reserve (which they snuck in through a Democrat). Then come WWI and WWII, which had to be sold through populists (the Democrat Party) like FDR. After that comes the Cold War, McCarthyism, anti-communist CIA coups, Red Scare, and Vietnam War (both by Dem Johnson and Rep Nixon). This is not very Liberty oriented stuff.

The Democrat Party was the Populist Party: via Kennedy, Al Smith, WJ Bryan, etc... Sure it got infiltrated by socialists, communists, and libertines, and is now ruined, but it origins are populist. Republicans have never been populist. For ONE year under Reagan, 1980, before he got shot by John Hinckley, was the Republican a populist party. It was full-blown Neo-Con and about the CIA after that.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Republicans have always been the party of the American Empire and corporatism

[supermario21]

Jim Traficant was a blue dog and he pretty much was a Ron Paulite in terms of his policy.

[sailingaway]

I think for the most part they are globalists/neocons. I'd put almost put Clinton, but for some red meat (leftist version) rhetoric, into that camp. We do better with progressives who actually, really, truly prioritize war and civil liberties and are frustrated with it just getting lip service, imho.

Jeffersonian Democrats.

As Ron Paul said, we need to reform all parties. Some of us would better fit there, and it would absolutely make more sense in some states to push a Democrat candidate. Is that something you are interested in?

[Confederate]

They're pretty much extinct at the national level.

[AgentforPathfinder]

As Ron Paul said, we need to reform all parties. Some of us would better fit there, and it would absolutely make more sense in some states to push a Democrat candidate. Is that something you are interested in?

Yeah, I guess.

[AuH20]

FDR purged any true populist remnants from the Democratic party starting in the 1930s.

[cajuncocoa]

They do tend to be globalists, but I have encountered many self-described Blue Dog Democrats online who are supportive of Ron Paul.

[sailingaway]

They do tend to be globalists, but I have encountered many self-described Blue Dog Democrats online who are supportive of Ron Paul.

I think there are regional differences and I don't mean to collectivistly write them off. I just meant that as a group I don't see it, I'm sure many in there are in there for their own reasons and may be in line with us.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, I guess.

What state are you in?

[supermario21]

Midwestern Blue Dogs are fertile ground. Look at Kentucky, for example. Southern Blue Dogs are now all Republicans.

[fr33]

Well one reason might be that we don't have enough people to "take over" 2 parties at once. I could be wrong.

[Vanilluxe]

California has some ripe RP Democrats for picking. John Dennis could really rally them.

[AgentforPathfinder]

What state are you in?

I'll tell you via PM when I get more comfortable with this forum.

[sailingaway]

I'll tell you via PM when I get more comfortable with this forum.

Don't worry about it. I was just hoping you could hook up with some of our people in your area, and get their take on the party structures there, but you do need to be comfortable with us before that.

We obviously have fewer active in the Dem party, but it comes up from time to time that people would like to go that route as well, so it is definitely a path worth pursuing.

[acptulsa]

Our ranks are chock full of former Democrats. Now that the Democratic Party has proven itself uninterested in either civil liberties or peace, this movement is truly a 'bipartisan effort'. And the major corporatism in D.C. has led many to believe that regulation and welfare are much, much better done at the local, county or state level than at the federal level. After all, most federal welfare systems just give money to the states and counties to use anyway. Why not cut out the corporatist middleman? What good is federal micromismanagement doing the poor? What's the advantage to us to concentrate power in Washington--doesn't that just allow corporations to bypass state legislatures when buying influence and do 'one stop shopping' in D.C?

I don't know if bluerepublican.com is still up and running, but you might find it interesting if it is.

Anyone adult enough to understand that carrying a voter registration card with an 'R' on it doesn't automatically turn you into a mouth breathing, warmongering fundamentalist is liable to have already switched.

[sailingaway]

Our ranks are chock full of former Democrats. Now that the Democratic Party has proven itself uninterested in either civil liberties or peace, this movement is truly a 'bipartisan effort'. And the major corporatism in D.C. has led many to believe that regulation and welfare are much, much better done at the local, county or state level than at the federal level. After all, most federal welfare systems just give money to the states and counties to use anyway. Why not cut out the corporatist middleman? What good is federal micromismanagement doing the poor?

I don't know if bluerepublican.com is still up and running, but you might find it interesting if it is.

he still tweets

[compromise]

Aren't Blue Dogs pretty much Dixiecrats?

[acptulsa]

Aren't Blue Dogs pretty much Dixiecrats?

Those are (were) Yellow Dogs. Or, at least, I assume that's who you mean. Yellow and Blue Dog were terms invented by Dixiecrats so they could identify themselves as liberals vs. conservatives who continued the tradition of boycotting the GOP from the Civil War respectively.

[AgentforPathfinder]

Aren't Blue Dogs pretty much Dixiecrats?

That and "ethnics" from the Rust-Belt, Midwest, and Jersey. Mostly Catholic.

[acptulsa]

That and "ethnics" from the Rust-Belt, Midwest, and Jersey. Mostly Catholic.

It's the libeal ones who are Blue Dog, and they are not hardly limited to 'ethnics'. Yellow Dogs from that area are mostly limited to 'ethnics'. A Yellow Dog Democrat is basically defined as anyone who is conservative, but would sooner vote for a yellow dog than a Republican (for whatever reason).

[erowe1]

Support for what? Republican primaries? General election?

If you mean the primaries, then there's only one scenario where crossover support would promise to be in our favor, and that's if the following things all hold true:
1) The Republican primaries are a drawn out process with no early clear winner
2) Rand is one of the top two candidates
3) The Democrat primaries end early, such that Democrats cannot make a difference in the nominee of their own party, but only the other party

If those things happen, crossover votes for Rand will be a factor in the primaries. If not, they won't.

Any time those three things all happen, crossover votes always become an important factor.

[acptulsa]

Support for what? Republican primaries? General election?

If you mean the primaries, then there's only one scenario where crossover support would promise to be in our favor, and that's if the following things all hold true:
1) The Republican primaries are a drawn out process with no early clear winner
2) Rand is one of the top two candidates
3) The Democrat primaries end early, such that Democrats cannot make a difference in the nominee of their own party, but only the other party

If those things happen, crossover votes for Rand will be a factor in the primaries. If not, they won't.

Any time those three things all happen, crossover votes always become an important factor.

Of course, the Democratic primaries won't necessarily have to end early if all of the Democratic candidates are equally and obviously repugnant. And that is conceivable. Biden, for example, is an unabashed and unrepentant warmonger from way back.

[GunnyFreedom]

Northeast NC is slam full of constitutionally conservative democrats.

[erowe1]

Of course, the Democratic primaries won't necessarily have to end early if all of the Democratic candidates are equally and obviously repugnant. And that is conceivable. Biden, for example, is an unabashed and unrepentant warmonger from way back.

I disagree. If Democrats have a chance to make a difference in who the Democrat nominee is, they'll do that. The only way they'll resort to settling for making a difference in who the GOP nominee is, is if they can't make a difference in their own party.

At least in any significant numbers.

But I don't mean to imply that the scenario I described is unlikely. It can definitely happen, and has happened many times.

McCain beat Bush in Michigan in 2000 because of Dem crossovers, in that exact set of circumstances.
Santorum got a lot of crossover votes in Michigan in the same situation.
Hillary beat Obama in a lot of states in 2008 because of Republicans voting for her after their own race had been decided.

That's 3 out of the last 4 elections.

[thoughtomator]

We do better with progressives who actually, really, truly prioritize war and civil liberties and are frustrated with it just getting lip service, imho.

IMO there really are no "progressives" who prioritize those things above having a Democrat in office. Notice how the anti-war crowd completely disappeared once Obama got in office and has not resurfaced since.

[acptulsa]

IMO there really are no "progressives" who prioritize those things above having a Democrat in office. Notice how the anti-war crowd completely disappeared once Obama got in office and has not resurfaced since.

'Were immediately ignored by CNN' =/= 'completely disappeared'.

[AuH20]

IMO there really are no "progressives" who prioritize those things above having a Democrat in office. Notice how the anti-war crowd completely disappeared once Obama got in office and has not resurfaced since.

Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Wolfe are in the EXTREME minority. Most progs like riding on the Obama steamroller.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have personally met a dem who is also a RP fanboy. I've said it a few times on these forums before, but I still think people who are doing the electoral politics nonsense should run in both parties to make the public conversation about liberty instead of statism.

[Occam's Banana]

First things first. My understanding is that there are too many fat libertarians ...

[AgentforPathfinder]

First things first. My understanding is that there are too many fat libertarians ...

Are you trolling me?

[heavenlyboy34]

First things first. My understanding is that there are too many fat libertarians ...
There are too many fat people in general. The good thing is they can be used to make Soylent Green when TSHTF.