Posted on 10/04/2009 4:01:24 PM PDT by Doug Loss
We've all seen calls for a third party (which would be disastrous I think, given the lack of success third parties have had since 1860) and countering calls for taking control of the Republican Party. But what has been distinctly missing is any idea of how to do either of these things.
I'm not going to bother about how to form a third party, as I think it would be at best a waste of time. Instead, I'm going to present an idea and a website that gives concrete instructions on how to start to take control of the Republican Party. Oh, they don't say "Republican Party," but you know that they don't mean the National Socialists (excuse me, the Democrats).
Wag The Dog 2010 begins to lay out the precinct concept of seizing the party from the bottom up. It differs from state to state, but usually all you need is 5-10 signatures from party members within your voting precinct to get on the primary ballot as a candidate for precinct official for your party. Once you become that official, you get to vote (generally, I'm sure it varies a bit from place to place) for the county party officials about a month later. Those county party officials in turn determine the state officials, etc.
The secret is, many precinct positions are vacant because no one is interested in getting on the ballot, and many others go to the same old folks every time for the same reason. If you're associated with a local tea party organization or anything like that, you can look into getting your people into precinct official positions and take over your county party organization.
Folks, this is what it will take to make the changes we all want to make. Go look at this website, join up if you're of a mind to, but take the ideas seriously and let's start working on actually making a change, not just talking about it!
I wasn’t coming at you (not intentionally, anyway), I was just trying to keep the discussion on topic, about how to take control of the GOP. I’ll be more than happy to talk at length about political philosophy, Constitutional meaning and understanding, and other topics of that sort. Just not here. :)
We have an open system. Dozens of freshmen GOP House members will be elected in NOV ‘10 (open seats and victorious challengers). If most of them turn out to be RINO’s, it is because the RINO’s did the work of getting them elected. If they are true conservatives, it will be because conservatives became active.
Most of the people who want to “take over the party” or “start a new party” have never helped anyone get elected to anything. They are all talk & no action. All talk & no action is an ineffective political strategy.
Bottom line: there are dozens of conservative candidates out there right now who are capable of winning next fall ... and most of them will fail because of a lack of support by their “activist supporters.”
You refuse to understand, don’t you? No point in trying to convince you I suppose. You claim this is a loser strategy, but you don’t have any other ideas. Nay-saying is easy. But the folks who can only say “it’ll never work!” never accomplish anything.
Exactly my point. If you want to have your ideas mean anything, you have to act on them. If you haven’t ever done anything but complain about the state of the world around you, you’re the problem, not the solution to it. And yes, I have campaigned, manned phone banks, marched in parades with candidates, and managed GOTV drives, in case you care. But more conservatives need to take part. It’s called work for a reason, folks. It doesn’t happen by itself.
You don’t have any new ideas, and you complain about anyone who is actually trying to do something. Man50D, you’re the problem yourself. If you don’t want to try to succeed, at least step out of the way of those of us who do.
“They didn’t even support Palin and threw votes away, giving Obama a slightly larger lead.”
As VP she would have been charged with helping to carry out the socialist agenda of the primary. Had she been the primary, God please let it be so in 2012, that election would have been a nail-biter.
Dude, good news!
PENNSYLVANIA is the middle of it all! The Conservative effort to retake the Congress.
Pa. 6 open
Pa. 7 open
Pa. 3 – Dahlkemper, D
Pa. 4 – Altmire, D
Pa. 10 – Carney, D
Pa. 11 – Kanjorski, D
Pa. 12 – Murtha, D
I have not seen you offer a workable solution.
Rotheberg
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2009/09/2010-house-ratings.html
CQ Politics
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-house
links to candidate web sites, PA
http://politics1.com/pa.htm
Oh by the way, what are you doing to correct those issues?
That is complete and utter bullsh*t.
Al Qaeda operative had $50k in unsecured loans from bailout banks
Jordanian illegal attempts to blow up Dallas skyscraper
According to a press release, Smadi is in the United States illegally and had been living and working in Italy, Texas.
If they are all fully funded, as you claim, then why the need to take out credit card loans or simply work and collect a paycheck?
And as for that part about "com[ing] in" to the U.S., exactly who do you think lets them in? Controlling the flow of people across U.S. borders is the job of the federal agencies that control...immigration!
We are far from a Police State, but will we be if we follow Paul and wait until they are freely roaming our streets, setting up ied’s and suicide bombings?
"Wait until"...so in other words, as you admit, such dire events are NOT happening NOW, in the present, but at some future point in time, if we follow a certain course of action. However, I assure you that there are illegal aliens (irrespective of nationality) that have committed serious crimes (rape, manslaughter, fraud, murder, homicide, drug trafficking, hit-and-run) in the past and are doing so in the present and will do so in the future.
So let me ask you this, which is the bigger threat: the folks who might, at some future time, enter the United States with the intent of committing criminal acts...or folks who are already here, abusing U.S. laws and already committing criminal acts?
I’d much rather fight them over there and not here on our streets.
For how long? Forever?
And who's "them"? And where is "there"?
And that doesn't really solve the problem of how foreign terrorists enter the U.S. to begin with, unless you assume that all the terrorists are stupid (which they clearly are not, as several of the 9/11 terrorists obtained U.S. drivers' licenses and bank accounts by abusing the same system that illegal aliens are presently abusing) and will follow like dumb sheep to one or two locations where U.S. armed forces can conveniently dispatch them.
Instead of repeating Bush-Hannity talking points, why don't you start using your brain for once and get your priorities straight. Foreign nationals that cross U.S. borders into U.S. territory, terrorists or otherwise...that's a problem of immigration. Going abroad to kill them on their own turf is pointless unless you first make sure that they can't get in in the first place.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is stupid.
Who's "we"?
The Republican Party had six years of effective control of the Federal government...six years that were pissed away on LBJ/FDR Big Government and Wilsonian foreign intervention.
So, pray tell, why exactly should voters return to their own political vomit, by following a Party whose leadership has no principles or convictions other than winning the next election? Do you really think people are that stupid?
Ron Paul advocates stopping incentives to keep illegal immigrants out.
Maybe for Mexicans sneaking across thatwould work, but as even you linked, and called my point complete and utter bulls*t, the terrorists come in with money.
Hate to be the one to say it, but the perpetrators of 911 were here before the bailouts.
Show me where Smadi was receiving public benefits.
Yes, they will use our money when they need to, but they do not come in for benefits, as Paul contends.
Collecting a paycheck and credit cards is not what draws them, although they may use some.
Paul is “Offended” at a fence, ut how else do we make it difficult to block them? Place Troops in desolate areas where they will die of bordem waiting for someone to come in?
Oh yes, last I heard, those borders are also within states. Relying solely on the feds, while complaining about the feds is a just a tad hypocritcal, don’t you think?
We are stopping those who try currently, but if Paul and Obama have their way, those means set in place to capture those that are here will disappear.
Remember, Paul doesn’t like such Police work. He opposed the very means used to ferret out and capture those you list in your comment.
How long do we fight them? As long as it takes if it minimizes a repeat of 911.
But don’t worry, Brave Americans continue to volunteer, you won’t have to sully your hands.
I laugh at your attempt at ad hominem in regards to listening to “Bush-Hannity talking points,” after you spew the hyperbole of Ron Paul.
Projecting, aren't we?
Where did I say that I wanted to place troops "in desolate areas"? Where did I "complain" in a "hypocritcal" [sic] manner, as you allege?
Here's what I actually said, right at post 80:
The best that can be done to reasonably ensure the security of U.S. territory and lawfully-present persons within said territory, while simultaneously preserving their individual freedom and liberty, is three-fold: one, enforce valid immigration law; two, remove the incentives for foreign nationals to enter and reside in the United States illegally, or, i.e., no more public benefits, no more anchor baby citizenship, no more free education, etc; and three, abide by the Second Amendment, which defines the unconditional right of the individual to bear arms, whether in defense of self, household, and property or in defense of community (via a militia).
All I called for was the enforcement of valid immigration law, the removal of incentives for foreign nationals to enter and reside in the United States illegally, and a boost to the Second Amendment.
Is that "hyperbole," or are you just sniffing glue?
How long do we fight them? As long as it takes if it minimizes a repeat of 911. [sic]
Perhaps you meant to say "minimizes [the potential for] a repeat of 911" [sic]. But, unlike you, I'm not going to put words in the mouth of a fellow Freeper, so I'll just assume that you meant that you are okay with "a repeat of 911" [sic], so long as it is "minimize[d]," whatever that may mean.
Let me remind you that the 9/11 hijackers were admitted to the U.S. by federal immigration services as lawful visitors and abused the same systems to obtain drivers' licenses and bank accounts that illegal aliens have abused. Want to prevent another 9/11? Stop terrorists as they try to cross into U.S. territory. Allow U.S. citizens trained and certified by the government to carry weapons aboard planes as deputy air marshals. Empower U.S. citizens and lawful residents of U.S. territory to defend themselves against would-be terrorists so that, next time a bunch of terrorists try to hijack an airliner, or a rail car, or a bus, instead of planes flying into the ground or building, they will land safely at U.S. airports with dead terrorists and live passengers and crew aboard.
THAT is how you prevent another 9/11.
But don’t worry, Brave Americans continue to volunteer, you won’t have to sully your hands.
Brave Americans...like Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, who, after returning home from Iraq for the 2006 holidays, was murdered by an drunk illegal alien driver while on a date, right?
"A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it's supposed to be our safe place."—Marine Cpl. Garrett Farris, on the death of Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews
Oh, I forgot, Bush kept us--including that poor Marine, God rest his soul--"safe," and Cpl. Farris is just an idiot. /sarc
after you spew the hyperbole of Ron Paul.
That's funny, considering the link on his views on immigration that you yourself provided at post 70 makes quite a bit of sense, unless you're a globalist RINO or a Democrat with a "New World Order" agenda. No amnesty, no benefits, no free hospital care, no birthright citizenship, allow police to ask about immigration status, etc. Do you have a problem with any of those? Or perhaps you think that the illegal alien is not of any significant concern to Americans, probably because, as you implied earlier, there are no illegal aliens (or organized criminal gangs smuggling drugs and only God knows what else) crossing the border ["place Troops in desolate areas where they will die of bordem waiting for someone to come in?" (sic)]?
You know, it's also funny that you whine about sending U.S. troops to "desolate areas where they will die of bordem" [sic] while openly backing sending U.S. troops to desolate places like Afghanistan where many of them will probably die, period. But hey, some poor Afghani opium farmer will have "freedom," right? [Not to mention the opportunity to export more poppy to the West!] Nevermind the fact that some U.S. troops who return home might just be killed in car accidents caused by illegal aliens that Federal authorities just don't want to deal with. Nevermind the fact that young U.S. taxpayers like myself will have to contend with the debts incurred in our name by globalist warhawks, in addition to the many "compassionate[ly] conservative" domestic hydras that they spawned.
But hey, go right on ahead and ignoring the white elephant in the room (the illegal alien invasion, Aztlan separatists, criminal gangs, illegal alien terrorists, etc.) while chasing after Wilsonian windmills (foreign nation-building).
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.