On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:44:31 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > >Why does the media do alot of things it does? Who knows. But I do > >know they are wrong alot of times. > > But what makes you think they're wrong (all of them) about the influence of > the Conservative Party, and that you're right?
Because they do not really differ from the other two parties. I could start spouting off the same things that the Ds and Rs say but that does not mean I am influencing them. That is what the Conservatives do. They say the same things and even cross endorse the same candidates (not just in the few statewide offices, but others as well, and then act as if they matter. > And of John Wilson: > > >And then you even admit that he is running as a > >democrat not a conservative. > > Where did I write that he was not running as a Conservative? He is running > as a Conservative, which nomination was a cinch for him to get (he's run > for judge before as Conservative nominee), but the significant thing is > that he also won the Democratic primary against their organization > candidate! And the name of the Democrat? And what crime is he accused of. That is generally why they lose and some lucky soul gets in. > >The average republican MAY be for many things I am for, but the > >average republican candidate is most CERTAINLY not. > > Again you seem to imagine a disconnect between candidates and voters. > Where do you think candidates come from, Mars? They come from the rank & > file. You see this in the Libertarian Party. I see it in the Conservative > Party. What makes you think it's any different in the Republican Party? The republican party is the entrenched party that has lifelong politicians running for and winning office. The LP does not have lifelong politicians. > >> >Yet you seem to be saying to me that we should try to work within the > >> >parties. Yet even in my 'naive' mind, I know that this has been > >> >tried. It is not successful. > > >> Uh, hello? The overwhelming majority of people with axes to grind > >> politically do it within larger parties, because they know it IS > >> successful. Look around you. > > >Which ones are successful? > > The ones with the most talented, best motivated, and greatest numbers of, > volunteers and contributors, provided their tactical thinking is not too > screwy and their resources are not spread too thinly. Nope. The ones that are successful are the ones that want more government. So they go to the two big government parties in power. > Want to read how? Just some small books that come to mind: Robert > Heinlein's "How To Take Back Your Government", Saul Alinsky's "Rules for > Radicals", H.L. Richardson's "Slightly To The Right" and a recent sequel > whose name I forgot. Across the political landscape, none of them suggest > you form your own political party, and most recommend against it. Good for them. As you know. I disagree. > After writing that first book, Richardson took his own advice, got involved > in the GOP, got elected to the Calif. assembly, then Congress, and recently > retired before writing that sequel. And reduced government? Oops he forget to do that part! Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
