Skip to comments.Taking the Republican Party
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!
And how exactly do Middle Eastern terrorists bent on killing American schoolchildren with IEDs get to accomplish such a nefarious objective?
Because the United States government willfully fails to enforce valid immigration law.
Then tells us, just WHO do you plan on “taking the party back” for?
Now you’re getting to the real question. Do we agree on enough common principles to have a coherent platform, or are we all pulling in separate directions? Personally, I want to take the party (I’m not saying take it back, because I don’t think we ever really had it) for the principles of gradually paring the federal government back to abiding by the Constitutional strictures that were supposed to limit it, of reducing government’s intrusion into the personal lives of the citizens, and of being responsive to the views of the people (within the limits of constitutionality). I call this “traditional American values” rather than conservative, libertarian, or any other ideologically-loaded terms.
“They did not support McCain”
To be accurate, no one “supported” McCain.
Agreed. Both are silly Demorats in Rino clothing. If only McNuts would just leave the party, he'd definitely be defeated in Arizona. Send Joe Wilson after Grahamnesty.
If the shoe fits, you best wear it. Your comment leaves you very much open to scrutiny.
This is very useful, Doug. Thanks.
I dont mean to argue with you being like minded and all but the powers that be are ready for what ever we got up our sleeve and will counter it with a ton of money.When RR won in 1980 the country club elites forced GHWB on him as his VP and we know what a rino he was and promptly lost reelection coming off of leading Gulf war 1.Yes,I remember the vote was split 3 ways with Perot.I wonder what GHWB did to piss off Perot so much to make him run?Taxes and spending I would think.
The Constitution Party isn't happening for a variety of reasons, the two main ones are, third partys don't have equal ballot access in over 40 states. The second is a lack of money. Until those things are changed, third partys won't be happening.
The OP hasn't been happening for Conservatives for a long time.
The OP hasn't been happening for conservatives, because of our lack of participation.
Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.
Please explain how ending subsidies for illegal immigrants will prevent terrorists from sneaking across an open border.
They didn’t even support Palin and threw votes away, giving Obama a slightly larger lead.
Do away with them all?
Nowadays a viable network can be established in days maybe weeks.
I think it was Jesus that spoke a against putting new wine in old wineskins. He also said something about just a little leaven leavening the whole lump.
IMO the GOP is dead and has been dead for some time. I won't help rebuild it. I'll help bury it and jump on the grave however.
Nominating the man who undermined the party's Congressional majority is stupid beyond comprehension and I cannot align with people who support that.
Bushbacker1, your opinion of me means pretty much nothing to me. Frankly, all this litmus-test stuff some folks are trying to impose on others is annoying and counter-productive.
Considering that turnout for GOP Township meetings are pathetic, conservatives, with passion, should be able to over run the local GOP organizations.
Sorry. The numbers are not there. Your method only makes matters worse.
What in the world are you talking about, keeping or doing away with amendments? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.
No, a viable network can’t be established in days or weeks. You seem to think that setting up an in-depth political organization is pretty much the same as starting a blog. It isn’t. Don’t bother to help, but don’t think that anything other than seizing control of an existing organization will work in anything but the very long run.
Exactly my point. If we can get committed people who share our principles to stand for precinct offices, we should be able to take over county party organizations. If we get enough of those we can work at taking over the state organizations.
Directly, it won't.
But it will reduce the numbers of foreign nationals entering U.S. territory illegally and make it significantly more difficult for actual foreign terrorists to blend in among the millions of illegal aliens present within U.S. borders.
There is no way, outside of going completely isolationist, to "prevent" *foreign* terrorists from crossing into U.S. territory, or in other words, guarantee with exactly 100 percent certainty that no *foreign* terrorists can cross U.S. borders. And speaking of domestic terrorists, would you prefer that the U.S. become a police state in order to "prevent" *domestic* terrorists from committing crimes within U.S. borders?
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).
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.