Posted on 02/12/2009 12:35:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson
This may be a topic for our regional FReeper conventions coming up, but how many of you would be interested in forming an official conservative FReeper PAC for raising funds to help replace Dems and RINOs and to get conservatives elected?
The devil is in the details of course. But I think I would be willing to give it a shot. I would like to work on the defeat of a leftist Republican or three.
A few models to look at for doing this sort of thing on a shoestring: Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, Gun Owners Action League (Taxachusetts) and Ohioans for Concealed Carry.
“In our culture, money talks.”
Yes, it does. But votes talk as well, as does fear.
You can have an incredible amount of fun and be reasonably effective in politics with a relatively small amount of money.
You’re right. The gunnies are a great example.
“and no turncoats!”
Does that leave me out? (chuckle)
Can’t possibly hurt.
IMO, it’s also time we reinstate our local groups and assign one person the task of handling private email addresses, to be used to contact others PRIVATELY.
Surest thing!
I’m all for it!
Tell me what I can do to turn Maine around and I’ll volunteer.
I’m in, especially if we can assimulate some of the scattered conservative groups.
I absolutely would.
Let’s roll. RINO purge.
Done, welcome aboard.
I'd of course still wish to pursue exploding produce as well.
Come on people , yes or no ?
Depends, really, JimRob. How would it be decided to whom funds are contributed? I’ll get right to my main concern, no sense dancing around the issue. When it came down to supporting McCain this last year, FR was declared McCain country and those who may have wanted to speak out about his true leanings were threatened with banishment as election day neared. If FR is to form a conservative PAC, are the powers-that-be going to decide to bail on principles and support whatever piece of crap that the republican party decides to support, or are we going to hold our ground for true conservatives?
I would hope that any PAC developed is focused on finite objectives. Whether it be getting a few REAL conservatives in seats we can get (but have failed in the past...PRIMARIES), making sure our leaders are the best we can get or confronting the worst media offenders with boycotts of their advertisers, etc.
Something we can measure and review. There’s nothing worse than tossing money and just losing it. I’d much rather lose a few bad republicans than support a self-destructive party.
We have to have military-like procession. We have to have the input of our contributors and practical participation. The best best is use the most popular and practical ways forward, and to constantly be honest on whether we’re accomplishing our goals through our means.
I am afraid that I am not interested in what is popular, or in what is practical. Therein lies the ground of the pragmatists.
Conservatism is well defined, and if one is to support Conservatism, that is done by supporting Conservatives. That is really the only practicality to worry about.
I think that the PAC must define itself with certain and immutable criteria. in order for a candidate to qualify for support by the PAC, the candidate must meet that standard, period. IMHO, that standard must fall largely along the lines of Reagan Conservatism, in order to satisfy all of the Conservative factions and garner support from all groups.
Now, as far as how to divide monies and support between various candidates that have met the standard, that is another thing. That process is open for debate and decision making to be sure, But the principles we support should be set in stone.
bump.
Well, in terms of what I meant by ‘most popular’ ie for the organization to relay possible ways forward and to see which ones are most liked by those whom donate.
That in no way dicates that there is some rhino(s) developing the plans or what is to be done, but involves the people in what direction the organization goes. The PAC could be established as Reagan conservative and those plans could be mandates under specific principles; but I think going the extra mile and reaffirming what’s desired from those donating is plus.
If I know I contribute to getting conservative leadership in the House or the Senate...I’m much more likely to be involved than getting some no-name-no-potential conservative in the presidental office. One has more potential and I think if you just leave all choses up to the people at top, you’re bound to be a bit dissapointed at times.
Results are important to me, and I think that must be an important aspect to any credible PAC.
Thanks for your feedback
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.