On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:21:19 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
And the opponents name? > 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. So after argueing that your candidate is from the conservative party and is going to influence the election and all that, you now admt it is because people thought he was black? Wow. > 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.) I still fail to see how this shows Conservative party influence. He is going to be elected because he has the word DEMOCRAT written next to his name. He will be elected as a DEMOCRAT. And you are trying to convince me to vote for Bush so that a DEMOCRAT does not get elected. How does this story help? ANd you are trying to convnice me that the Conservative party is important when you even admit that he could not get one single vote from your party line and still get elected. How has being a member of the conservative party had one bit of difference in this election? > >> 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? They often sound much better than the long timers. But they 99% of the time seem to fall right into line after getting elected. The republican party does not work. > > >> >> 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. Name a political organization that has been successful in reducing the size and scope of government through the Rs and Ds. > > 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. How they got way is as you described it. Lots of groups wanting more government here or their lobby them. give them money and the two big government parties are happy to sell the government services to them at our expense. the two parties have also made it harder for other parties to get where they are. But the fact remains, those two parties at this point in history are really only interested in making government bigger. They are interested in different areas because they have different customers, but they are not interested in selling smaller government because that is bad for their business. > > > In Your Sly Tribe, > Robert > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
