PDA

View Full Version : The First Litmus Test For Candidates




osan
03-18-2014, 09:05 AM
Elections are coming. Seats are up for grabs. There are some newbies and there are the incumbents.

How does one get a handle on who these guys are, old or new? Incumbents have their "record", of course, but I think we should be doing more to get them pinned down. I also believe we should be clever about it. Namely, our queries should leak to them the least amount of "lead" possible so that they will be unable to divine any expectations you may have because we all know that most of these people will pander to that if they can manage it. And it most often works like a charm.

What I have in mind is the use of a very simple technique that provides the candidate in question with virtually nothing upon which he can get a foothold in terms of reading the desires of a person asking a question. I am tempted to call this a litmus test, at least of sorts, because it will expose the candidate's basic personality, his way of thinking, and no matter how he answers you are going to get a very telling picture of the person.

The technique is nothing more than the phrasing of a very simple question along these general lines:



"Tell me sir, in the broadest terms what is your greatest concern to which you will apply your energies as (whatever position is in question, be it senator, mayor, or whatever)?"

That's it. No matter how he answers, you will have a vital snapshot into the real man because unless he knows a priori what it is you seek in terms of response, there is no possible way he can hide his true nature, save by the wildest coincidence - a contingency I would not worry about very much because one can always ask more questions to further pin him down.

For me, there is only one right answer. If his response does not in some very strong and convincing way put FREEDOM at the distant top of the list, the candidate's thinking is unsound. Freedom should not be one of those "oh, yeah, of course... that too" deals in the mind of a candidate. It should be the first and foremost concern in his thoughts, desires, goals, and objectives. For me there is nothing else that really matters because the rest becomes details of approach and are secondary to this, the most fundamental consideration of them all. Once the candidate establishes himself this way to one's satisfaction, then he may be queried in terms of practical approach. But until the core of his philosophical basis is identified, the rest is meaningless.

I think we would profit well enough were we to organize an effort to get every candidate running for any office in '14 interviewed where this is the very first question asked. Make that question the first standard for vetting a candidate for suitability. Some will say that once this catches on the candidates will know what is expected and will simply tell us what we want to hear. This would certainly be true, but only to a point. And only to a point can those opposed to proper freedom fake it. I have been amazed to witness how such people, when queried on certain topics with some cleverness have seemed constitutionally incapable of saying certain things forthrightly and without all manner of qualifications.

Here is a short and likely very incomplete list of ways in which a candidate might respond to the question and my analytic take on what it means.



"The state of/threats to our freedom/rights is my most fundamental concern."


The response we seek, couched however it may otherwise be, but the key to look for is a lack of qualification. E.g. "Freedom is my main concern, but we also have to remember that everyone must pay his fare share. This would be a plonker in my book, though depending on circumstance I might be prompted to probe further. I might, for example, ask "what do you mean by paying a fair share?". Pin him down and if unsatisfied, you might ask how being forced to pay squares with freedom. Trust me, these guys are not that god at covering such issues because their minds do not function this way. They believe in the validity of aggression to attain "state" goals. If you are well practiced and paying attention, these sorts will virtually always give themselves away.




"Could you be more specific?"


Dead giveaway of phishing. Could be a good candidate, but almost certainly a plonker. If he is "one of us", his mind should be clearly focused on that which we expect. Otherwise, at the very least he is either not completely on board or is not properly focused. Such a man should be given very close and hard scrutiny at the very least if one is not to dismiss him out of hand. Use your intelligence to consider circumstance. We cannot afford to kick good ones to the curb, given how few there are running. But keep this sort of initial response noted and underlined and watch for it in future events.




Candidate talks a lot but fails to answer the question


Plonker 100% and IMO no need to give any further consideration.




Lists some nonsense social issue such as "gang violence", "abortion", "gay marriage", "war"


In these cases, the focus is clearly away from freedom, which given the nature of the question, should be the reflexive response.

Plonker.




"I'd like to start out by saying..."


Evasion.

Plonker.




Starts spewing statistics


At best, off the mark. More likely, evasion through handwaving. At worst, simply ignoring or failing to comprehend the question, which either way indicates a plonker.

Unless the stats are squarely, clearly, and strongly tied to freedom free of any qualifications, save perhaps the NAP or its equivalent, probably a plonker. Otherwise, if something intrugues you, keep asking the most non-leading questions possible to pin him down more precisely on where he stands WRT rights and make sure he gives his understanding of what rights actually are.




"Ummm... uh...." or "I wasn't expecting that question" or similar


Not focused enough - may not be a plonker, but needs to get his shit straight. On this issue, on this question, there should be no hesitation and no absence of clarity. The response should be immediate, clear, unequivocal, and rapid. If the candidate has to think about it too much, for any given definition of "too", he is one to be viewed askance at the very least.

This isn't rocket science, folks. These guys are either on board with us or they are not. It is not that difficult to figure out where they stand. Ask questions and drill down on their responses. When they make an impressive sounding answer, look for UNDEFINED TERMS and ask them what do they mean. I promise you that if you keep at it, you will either be rapidly satisfied with their responses, or you will find one of a few other possibilities such as long litanies of questions that often go in circles or the candidate promptly moving on, perhaps after telling you that he's answered your question(s). That last one is a sure sign of a plonker.

These crooks are accustomed to sound-bite responses with rapid move-along. When they spew some meaningless nonsense and you stop them at that point, they begin to sweat. They may not appear so, but they are shitting and their brains are in evasion-overdrive. The only thing they want is to get you off their backs, and that is how politely pointed questions can draw them out into the open. The good guys will NEVER do this. Ron Paul, for the 20+ years I observed him, never once pulled this tactic. His answers are direct, succinct, clear, and rapidly given. He knows where he stands, is unashamed of his positions, and is not concerned with pandering. These are the people we need to root out and get into office so long as we continue with this ridiculous political charade. If we must retain this stupidity, then make it work to our advantage. Thus far, "we" have failed to do this in spectacular fashion.

And to repeat myself from a post I made a year of two ago, vetted candidates should be each asked to take a spoken and written oath to the cause of liberty. I don't recall which post it was, but I think I'd cobbled up a pretty good idea there. Anyone recall? Call it an oath to freedom. In fact, we should author it. It would be the same for all candidates, local or national.


These should be video recorded and posted far and wide with analytic commentary.