Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> 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. There was no scandal about the enrolled Democrat who was the Democratic organization's preference for the nomination. Their organization put most of their campaign effort into primaries for other offices, so John Wilson out-campaigned them. It is believed that voters also might have thought he was black. Remember, as Jeff Friedman pointed out, more people vote for ethnic reasons than ideologic ones, so why think you can win more voters by the right ideology? You win by campaigning more vigorously (effort & money), and having candidates who are more attractive FOR WHATEVER REASON. Wilson's win shows you can win a party's nomination despite the overall ideology of that party being against you. If an ideologic "conservative" can do it, so can ideologic libertarians. And being on the Democrat's line, he'll be the winner for sure in Nov. (I think the Republican line is blank, or they may have cross-endorsed him, I forgot.) >> 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. How about the first time they run? >> >> 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. You're wrong. They're only successful to the degree they have money, volunteers, motivation, talent, and strategy & tactics. > So they go to the two big government parties in power. So how & why did the 2 big gov't parties get to be that way? They got that way because people who "wanted big gov't" had money, volunteers, motivation, talent, and strategy & tactics. It's not like there's some magic that big gov't has, or that mark the Dems & Reps as charmed. And it's not even that most of those people wanted big gov't per se; they just wanted this or that, and it adds up to big gov't. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
