|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 24, 2012 10:05:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 24, 2012 15:18:52 GMT -5
Okay, we have a few members signed up already so let's talk.
When I wrote the two blog posts my intention was to simply start a discussion about leaving the GOP to find a better home for Conservative ideology. The two options are to join an existing thrid party, or start one of our own. Just for the sake of defining what I thought would be the ideal political home for Conservatives, I listed the principles that party would need to espouse, and the agenda I thought we should work toward.
These ideas seem to strike a chord with a number of people, and I believe it is worthwhile for us to have a place to discuss this further, hence the new forum.
So please, I've told you what I think, now let me hear what you think. What are the pros and cons of our two options? If we move to an existing 3rd party, which one should it be? If not, let me hear your thoughts on starting a completely new organization.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasilofhome on Nov 24, 2012 22:20:05 GMT -5
It seems that there is a natural need to retart everything thing --that there is a cycle that is life. We have instutionalized our parties to the point where we as privated people have a divided between our views and that melding of what will keep people in their postions. It is a sell out of values infects freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 24, 2012 23:42:46 GMT -5
The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party are the two I know of that are options for conservatives. I know many conservatives will not fit into the LP because of social issues and national security concerns. I don't know a lot about the Constitution Party, but I think they are more in line with social conservatism. They are also pretty much against getting our military involved in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, so that's probably a deal killer.
It looks to me like the Libertarian Party is too far off, but the Constitution Party could possibly be shifted by new people joining. Is that really worth it, though? Maybe. They don't have much of an organization or following, so there's not a whole lot to gain except maybe ballot access. It probably makes more sense to start a new organization. I have no idea what that entails.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocktowngal on Nov 25, 2012 6:02:05 GMT -5
Ryan makes some great points and I have to agree with him.
The Constitution Party does not have a following...but the Libertarian Party does. But many of you do not agree with the Libertarian Party.
I'm not sure how to start the ball rolling on this.
Maybe we could start with who would you chose to be the President and go from there. See how he would fit into either of the above mentioned parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 6:56:37 GMT -5
I have given some thought to the idea of moving to an existing party and co-opting their organization, but there would obviously be resistance to that effort and then we would be back in the same spot we're in now. There is some truth that they do have some existing structure and ballot access, but would it be worth the ill will garnered from a 'hostile takeover'? My guess is that it would not.
I am of the belief that a better approach would be to start fresh, learn from their successes and failures, and create an organization that is unique to our way of thinking. This would allow us to make our message clear and hopefully attract people from all of the parties who are like-minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasilofhome on Nov 25, 2012 12:34:32 GMT -5
Iview my self as a libertarian. It is the State not the Fed that sets many of the laws. Now word have meanings and there is a difference between kill and murder. --The results are the same but the intent and reason for the act is different.
This is important to me when it comes to abortion and death row still has me messed up and then there is war and defense of life/property.
I am personally anti drugs--most impart judgment and a person from improving their lot in life.
Many of our views seem to be close to the Libertanitan party yet starti g our own allow us to tap them if they have a better canidate.
Another issue I have run for office --who eles--having a party is nothing with out people willing and able to run.
I have learned thru an Alaska polititcal group --ACT aka Aliance of concerned Taxpayers that attending local meeting (having read the adgena and speaking out impacts the community. seeking out replacements of leadership people who are heading to the path of hell. I was tapped to run knowing that odds were not good and that the person norm ran unopposed. local offices were people get office running un oppossed is a major issue.
One in our group started writting and developing a "class on how to run" --Check out Fred Struman & Kenai. here was a simple man in a 5 way run who almost became our mayor. This was not to happen but planning and having a local team made a difference.
we need like minded people in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 13:04:58 GMT -5
Local elections are definitely the place to start for a new organization. So many want to start by running a candidate for President. The problem with that is that you have to build an organization nationwide before you can have any success, and people don't know what to expect from your party. If we start at the local level, we can achieve success without having a national organization. As we become better known to the voters, we can then expand our horizons.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasilofhome on Nov 25, 2012 18:05:56 GMT -5
Local meetings MUST be posted and the AGENDA posted. Find out where the posting is, learn what you can online about you local meetings. Attend meetings. Leave a note where the posting in to form car pools. Car pools are great --meet people interested and if you stop for coffee then a disussion starts up. See if there is a natural speaker or seek out a toast master club and learn new skills. Each meeting follows certain orders I was used to Roberts rule but local they follow another. I forget what it is called. Try to study about those rules.
|
|
