http://communities.washingtontimes....tains-interrogates-ron-pauls-family-and-aids/ This is outrageous. Not only is Ron Paul marginalized at the convention, he is harrassed by these rent-a-cop goons. If Obama wasn't full of shit, he would have done something about the TSA and the Patriot Act by now... Unfortunately, the GOP is no better. They'd love to keep this police state going.
The GOP put these policies in place; of course they're "no better." But the current administration loves power over the people as much as the previous one, and certainly isn't going to reduce the extent to which government intrudes into people's lives. The point is that we have "exchanged essentiel liberty for a little (a very little, in this case) short-term security." The American people want "the government" to protect them from everything, and continue to vote for the politicians who put such policies in place. The Republicans and the Democrats vie with each other for finding new ways of controlling people "for their own protection" and we not only accept it, we reward them for it with our votes. This is very much a case for the quote that was my sig for so long:
Oh that had to get under someone's skn. I can litterally hear the mockery in the tone of the statement.
I'd respect Paul a great deal more if he would call on Romney to come out against the TSA in whole, and failing that openly endorse Johnson. (actually he should endorse Johnson anyway, but he could offer Mittens the fig leaf)
If he did any of that stuff, his son would pay the price. Paul is allowed to be a crank as long as he hangs out in the corner. Any effort by him to humiliate Romney means no good committee assignments for Rand.
So, ultimately political machinations trump principle? His supporters will be disappointed to find that out.
Seems more like an example of political machinations trump lesser political machinations. The GOP would never, ever, ever consider supporting Rand Paul but for the perceived political advantage in doing so. He's too crazy for even Republicans to sincerely endorse him.
The soul crushing reality is that third parties have no way to tear the two-party structure that has been built up. They aren't even allowed to play the game. What are the chances Johnson will be invited to participate in the presidential debates? Or any other third party candidate...
Thomas Jefferson gave us "instructions" for what to do when these times arise. Hint: "it isn't bitching about how much things suck, or whose fault it is."
"Politics is the art of what is possible." As an idealist, I don't like that. But I also know that good principles which fail to produce any good results are not as useful, in the real world, as compromises that get results that are not as good as they could be, but significantly better than what one could get if one was not willing to compromise. It's why I would not make a good politician. But I have to admit that Ron Paul has had more influence, because of staying in the GOP and not betraying the party by running independently, than if he had chosen the full idealist route. The GOP is realizing that they have to listen to their libertarian wing, at least a little bit. Will any of that save the GOP? Personally, I doubt it. But it has a higher chance of producing some kind of positive change than the Libertarian Party, which is merely a statement of principle at this point. Does that mean I will vote for Romney? No, it does not. At this point, I'm still hesitating between voting for Gary Johnson and writing in Ron Paul again, because I prefer the statement of principle. But I am not about to criticize those who choose to work within the party just because I, personally, made a different choice.
I am all for removing obstacles that the big two parties have placed in front of third parties but your statement, one among many on the same theme, is just stupid. Even if all obstacles were torn down no third party would win POTUS. Almost all the third parties are nutty fringe elements that everyone knows would wreck America if they somehow got into office. The one sane one, Libertarians, has no where near the numbers to win and would only cause the Democrats to have a solid lock on POTUS since the Libertarians would peel off Republican votes. A true third party is going to have to stop running for POTUS. It's going to have to run for local office and establish a base of support even if it is only in one state to start with. It's going to have to show people that it can be trusted. Then it's going to have to work it's way up the political ladder. That's what Libertarians should do. Reform the Libertarian party along that lines and go into say Texas for example and take over the local governments across the state. Show the people that there is a good working alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Stop wasting time and money running for an office that you've got no chance of winning until you've got a big enough base to support a national run for POTUS.
Those are good ideas... I don't think a 3rd party candidate has a chance in hell of winning POTUS either. But at the very least, the Presidential debates should be open to any one running for the position. They should still be able to get their views out there and encourage some real debate. That should be how the process works. What's the harm in letting Johnson go on stage with Obama and Romney? Are they so afraid to even exchange ideas with him?
I see no harm in it but it would lead to mass confusion because if you let Johnson in you've got to let everyone in. And not just in but on the ballot in all 50 states. Now with that said it would be a waste of time and money for Johnson to be in the debates. If you're going to challenge the big two parties and how things are done in elections you've got to do it from a position of strength. Concentrate on the local offices, work your party up to state level offices maybe a few Representatives at the Fed level and a homerun if you can snag a Senate seat or two. If I was a Libertarian I'd start in Texas and work my way through the Southern states and the lower midwest states. Go as far west as Nevada. Once you start building a base that is strong the big two can't ignore you. Imangine if the Libertarians had enough votes in the House to prevent either party from passing a bill they want.
In principle, I almost entirely agree -- however, there is the problem of visibility. No one's going to vote Libertarian unless the Libertarian platform is at least nationally visible in some way. And that's what the big two and the media are doing their damnedest to prevent.
^ Works for me. Anyone who isn't on the ballot in all 50 states isn't really running for president anyway; they're just trying to make a name for themselves in some little corner.
This approach would work best if the local election systems were run as some form of proportional representation. Otherwise it would be just as much of a difficult and time-consuming process compared to running third-party nationally. I'm assuming Texas elections are first-past-the-post like most of the rest of the country. For a variety of reasons, this electoral system tends to favor the two-party system and marginalizes most third parties (through gerrymandering and tactical voting, especially).
If you need a nationally visible platform in order to run for, say mayor of a small town then your message needs to be worked on. You don't need to be nationally visible. But you do need to get out and work it and explain the party and why people should vote for you for mayor over the Democrat or Republican guy.
Aren't school boards usually non-partisan? But something like county commissioners or city council, certainly. Obviously wouldn't work for single-seat positions like mayor. But the style of plurality voting that most state legislators get elected by will not be conducive to getting a third party in office.
Not in my experience, no. Some of the nastiest "political" stories I've ever covered involved school boards.
Most school boards don't run with the political affiliation of those who are running indicated. In that regard, they are considered non-partisan in contrast to other elections which your affiliation is mandated to be on the ballot. That being said, that has little to do with the politics of those elected, or how they conduct their affairs afterwards. It does indicate that you won't be able to find political affiliations on most school boards to do what is attempted in a recent thread, pin them down to one ideology or the other.
Wasn't there a third party candidate in the 1980 election? [Googles] There was. John Anderson. And Perot was a 3rd party candidate in 1992 who was given pretty much equal footing.
They can certainly be described as rancorous, but usually the factional outbursts are not donkey/elephant in nature.
I suppose there is a great deal of variation. Local offices in Boston, while officially non-partisan, are entirely controlled by the Democratic machine (big surprise). School board disputes usually boil down to issues of race, poverty, or neighborhood, whether a policy causes harm to one group while benefiting another. One thing that never comes up, is party.
