0 votes

Why not take over the Democrat Party? Why the GOP?

Here's a little food for thought:

"The Republican Party was always, from its inception, the party of big government in America. It was the Democratic Party that was the party of Jefferson and of limited government..." - Tom DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked



Thread update:
Democrats of today tend to be way (as compared to Republicans) better on:
a) civil liberties
b) war

Some might say that Republicans tend to be better on the economy. I say balderdash. That is a myth that has been carried along since the days of the phony Ronald Reagan. Republicans on average are huge economic statists...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Democrats were the Republicans!

DiLorenzo is right.

200 years ago the Democratic party was against a Central Bank, against a National Debt and against a Powerful Central Government.

In fact, the party of Jefferson and Madison was first called the Republican party. It was later changed to Democratic-Republican and then just the Democratic party.

In addition, the Jeffersonian Republicans (aka classical liberals) were much aligned with the French Jacobins, so much so that newspapers openly called the Republican (ahem the Democratic party) Jacobins.

The Jacobin Club was first known as the Society of the Friends of the Constitution and were instrumental in fighting for a Constitutional Republic and the overthrow of the feudalistic system during the French Revolution.

The bottom line is, if there are districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic, we need to find, support and run our own Jeffersonian Democrats in order to have a real effect on politics. We can't just win primaries as Republicans in uncontested dominated districts and think we are achieving great success.

I say we take back the GOP and the Democratic party -- both are historically in line with Ron Paul's philosophy. Liberalism doesn't have to mean big government, considering we are all limited government classical liberals you begin to realize all the labels etc are nonsense.

All that matters is effective policies and strong candidates to explain them.

Here is the problem

At least from my eyes.

I find as you say Democrats are very receptive to liberty. Much to gain there.

The problem lies in the hierarchy. George Soros monetary control in everything including politicians. Rumor has it that was 70 million last election.

He also supports moderate republican group.

He wants to get rid of the constitution as we know it. Pretty common knowledge that he likes European government style.

Last year Democrats ran one libertarian for office. Republicans ran over two dozen with several in office already.

Jack of all trades--libertarian motivated

Why not render them irrelevant?

I believe if Ron Paul's presidential run had been that of an independent candidate he would have won (corruption asside) based on his platform which is neither GOP or Democratic nowdays.

I really think BOTH corrupt corporate parties need to be rendered irrelevant for any real representation for we the people VS they the corporations.

With a Third Party?

You'll have a hard time selling that idea around here. I've tried. Too many would rather just become Republicans instead.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

BTW

to add a little comment to my post below (way below) to which you suggested bringing up "today's Democrats" and later refined what you meant to Democrat voters....I recently had a discussion with a mainstream Democrat voter, who is not terribly interested in politics. As far as civil liberties, he felt that we shouldn't be too hard on Stalin because of all the social good he brought to Russia.

The fact of the matter is that the average Democrat will be more than happy to see civil liberties violated if it is perceived as taking a step in the direction of social justice. And we homeschoolers will be among the first in the crosshairs. So please stop with the suggestion that Democrats are "better" on civil liberties. (The nonsense on being better about war was somewhat addressed below, except to adapt it to the fact that the rank and file were mostly in favor of Afghanastan and certainly in favor of Kosovo when it was the preoccupation of their beloved Klinton.)

There's a good video/audio from the southern avenger taking hannity to task about how he was against the military action in Kosovo only because there was a Dem in the Pennsylvania Ave. Projects. The same can be turned around and applied to "most Democrats." They are against war when it's a Republican war, especially against socialists.

Why not take over both?

Why not take over both?

JonQ.Publik

JonQ.Publik

Resistance is not futile, what's futile is non-resistance.

Live Free or Die! Because if you are not free you’re dead already!

Let me tell you my

Let me tell you my experience. In my county we have
approximately 500 combined members in our CFL / Ron Paul Meetup Groups. These are people who understand what is a stake here, and are aware of what's really going on. Out of all those people only 20, including myself, took the time and trouble to sign up and become Republican Executive Committee Members. At the last meeting where we elected new officers it would have only taken an additional 100 people for us to take total control of the Party. I guess saving the country isn't worth donating one evening of their time every month. I don't think you would have any better luck with the Democratic counterparts. We are just too comfortable. Looks like things will have to get much worse to motivate people before things get better.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Get a cool Campaign For Liberty bumper sticker, or decal for your windshield.
Promote Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty project. Go to --- www.CampaignForLibertyStuff.com

------------------
Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
www.Tru-News.com
"Your portal to reality!"

you should have been on

you should have been on those 500 people. hound em

That's interesting

Very interesting anecdote. That sounds very doable. However, knowing the GOP people... if this strategy worked a few times for us, I wonder if they would pass some rule or something to put an end to it.

Balderdash right back at ya!

1) The real reason to attack the Republican Party is simple: It is the smaller, and weaker party today, and It has a leadership vacuum thanks to McCain's botched campaign, and Bush's extreme unpopularity.

2) I can't believe you actually think that:

Democrats of today tend to be way (as compared to Republicans) better on:
a) civil liberties
b) war

Iraq War Resolution
58% of the Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Including Hillary Clinton, Dianne Fienstein and Joe Biden.
39% of the House Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

The Democrats currently have a majority in both houses... I've yet to see them try and pass any legislation to remove the troops from Iraq. Heck, they didn't even attach any real strings to War funding in order to reign in Bush. They've been using the Iraq War as a political football for the past 5 years. It's disgusting, and downright dishonest.

The Patriot Act

The first bill proposed was the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, which was introduced by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on September 13.[4]

It was introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) by Tom Daschle (D-SD)[18]

The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act).[8] It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, who was the only Senator to vote against the bill. 98% of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill.

In the house the bill passed 357 to 66. At that time the Democrat's had around 200 seats, meaning that around 2/3 of the House Democrats voted FOR the Patriot Act.

I could go on and cite some historical examples of how badly the Democrats suck *Cough* Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident *Cough Cough* but I won't.


Both of the parties are useless to us in their current form; Taking over the smaller and weaker of them IS our best option, and failing that I would recommend trying to create a viable Third Party.

Sources:
VoteSmart.org
Wikipedia.org

Democrat pols

I probably didn't make myself clear enough. Regarding the average Democrat, I mean the voter. Not the politician.
So, ya I fully agree with you that Democrat pols are corrupt to the hilt.

Agreed: The Politicians all suck.

But keep in mind our political leadership is a reflection of the average individual.

I'll concede that in certain geographic regions one party might seem to be more 'pro-liberty' or 'anti-war' but when you consider the two parties on a national level, the numbers I referenced clearly illustrate a very disturbing fact: significant portions of both parties (I'm talking politicians and the people who vote for them) think that the government can and should engage in these sorts of activities.

Which once again leads me make the assertion that we would do better to infiltrate, and co-opt the weaker of the two major parties: The Republicans.

Spot on...

When running to become a precinct delegate here in Michigan last August, after the election the same thing occurred to me. I thought that my wife could register in the Democrat party, me in the GOP, and we could work both ends towards the middle (Constitutional correctness).

Bottom line...if you put the principles of our founders and the rule of law above party politics, I don't give a rat's butt what party you're from. Just follow the Constitution, and you'll be a service to ALL AMERICANS, from any party, race, sex, creed, etc.

The Political Patriot of Michigan

Restore the Foundations - "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Good Answer

I agree. In this two party political arena. And in the absence of a real Right Wing Party. What's the real difference, to join the left wing Democratic Party or the slightly right of left Republican Party. The added bonus would be, as we infiltrate both parties we would have more voice.
We need stop being good Democrats and Republicans and start being good Americans

The two party system is now one party unified in corruption.

I am afraid that with the violations of their oaths, many of those in political positions of power are simply protecting one another for fear that if one is found guilty they all will certainly be. The reason the left did nothing to stop the wars in which they campaigned against is because they found in them a new major source of income for themselves. The Washington legalized insider trading, in where they purchased stock in companies holding no bid contracts. With a guarantee of tax payer dollars flowing in, and no risk so long as the wars continue. I implore everyone reading this post to stop right now and re-read the link provided, as I think this documents speaks more about issues and government today then it did when it was written. I read it daily and feel more and more as if the founders wrote this document yesterday as it outlines the issues, and highlights our political leadership of today.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
~Mark Twain

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

i got a guy who'd like to talk to you.

True conservative values are what made this country great in the first place. Republicans are suppossed to work to conserve the size of federal government. This country will be on track when republicans start acting like real republicans again. That's why we must take back the GOP.

Go hang with this guy if you wanna try and take over the dems.
http://kucinich.house.gov/
Good Luck, he's a good guy, but not my type!

End the Fed!

Republican Party + republicanism?

"Republicans are suppossed to work to conserve the size of federal government."

Don't you mean reduce?

'This country will be on track when republicans start acting like real republicans again. That's why we must take back the GOP.'

When has the Republican Part being affiliated with republicanism? I can think of just a handful of individuals. And they were anomalies--they went against the grain of the ideological trends of the Party.

Can i borrow your magnifying glass?

I completely appologise for trying to make a quick comment that didn't meet with your linguistic approval. Yeah I meant conserve, maybe the sentence isn't as articulate as you'd like it to be, but if you're that concerned, please leave me your email and I'd be happy to send you all my posts and comments for editting before I go and do something idiotic like post my opinion without proper approval from genius' like yourself.

*From Wester's dictionary

Main Entry: con·serve
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·served; con·serv·ing; con·serv·a·tive
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conserver, from Latin conservare, from com- + servare to keep, guard, observe; akin to Avestan haurvaiti he guards
Date: 14th century

1: to keep in a safe or sound state ; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.

here's an edit you might be able to grasp...

"Republicans are suppossed to work to keep government in a safe or sound state to avoid wasteful or destructive use of big government."

I admit I could have formed a better sentence but my use of the term is grammatically correct. I hope the edit and explaination will be sufficient for your reading pleasure. Sorry for being so snippy it just seems that you went through a lot of trouble to knit pick me for stating my opinion, when it wasn't really called for. Anybody who loves liberty, this country, and is a RP supporter is not an enemy, but please gimme a break on being so picky and making me waste my time to explain myself.

F**K THE FED!

No worries

No worries about the word selection. It didn't bother me. I suspected you had just made an error.

Anywhoo, the reason I replied to your post was really for the other point I made. I not aware of the Republican Party really ever being affiliated with republicanism.

Look up Robert Taft aka Mr. Republican

As far as republicanism is concerned, when I think of a true republican that lived by the ideals of republicanism I think of Robert Taft, I bet Dr. Paul would agree. Read about that man's life and career and you'll see what I mean when I talk about getting back to acting like real republicans.
Taft fought the new deal and against our involvement in WW2. Sounds a lot like the guy who fought the bailout and didn't want to go to war with Iraq. Dr. Paul is the ultimate republican and since it seems all the other republicans forgot what what our republic is all about, it should motivate us that much more to take the GOP back and make sure the ideals of true republicanism are identified with at least one of the major parties.

Ultimately political parties and their politicains are bullshit. They create rediculous ambiguous problems and arguments, then argue the symantics. While talking about fixing symptoms they ignore the illnesss, in the mean time everything is falling apart around them. A republic should be run like a republic and have no political affiliations. George Washington tried to warn us, but our political process has bastardized into what it is today, so it leaves us with no choice but to identify with a party if you want your guy to win an election.

RP knows and has said you have to be in one of the big two to have a shot at winning. Since his views are so hardcore conservative there's only one party that will take him and even they hold their nose. With his views on abortion, social security, medicare, education, homeland security, welfare, immigration, pretty much everything except for ending the war, there's nothing to make him even remotely attractive to true dems. Dr. Paul's version of civil liberties, is restoring self reliance and individual responsibility so we can move away from the welfare state, not something most dems want to hear.

I have to say bravo on the forum topic, it's nice to actually talk politics instead of apocalypse.

Taft was one of the "handful" atrickpay referenced above.

Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan (and he's one most people in this movement have already disowned). Pat Buchanan says he's a conservative, but he's really more of a populist.

Very few other prominent conservatives held onto their principles or espoused real values. They became sellouts, like Newt Gingrich and William F. Buckley.

Prior to FDR, the Democrats were the conservative party, not the GOP. They were racist, mostly rural, state's rights conservatives. It's a well-kept secret--and since most Americans are not educated in history or Civics, the media and Academia have covered it up pretty well.

The "principled GOP Right" is mostly bollocks. It's all an illusion.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Not wanting to start a dividing argument but...

Not all of the conservative Democrats of the 19th century were racist! And those that were had their match in their Republican counterparts. Much of what history has passed down as truth during that time period is BS. Same war time propaganda as we get today, which is always followed by the cover up propaganda as soon as its over.

I mean look at the Southern Reconstruction period and the awful Jim Crow laws that were put into place. Your average person thinks that even after slavery the whole of the South was terrible for passing these...well they were actually enacted by the north, not the south. The south had no elected officials during that time. Their representation constituted northern appointed officials. Also worth noting is that the 14th and 15th amendments were ratified without the people of the southern states being represented, since it was these same appointed officials, not elected ones. That makes their presence completely unconstitutional- if you want to follow our Founders to the letter. Yes, the north had just fought a battle against the south, but if your going to force them back into the union and still call them states not captives...at least pick up with the Constitution where you left off. Lol.

Parties stagnate with time because they run afoul with lust for money, power, or prestige.

Taft

From what I've read about him, it sounds like he was very pro-liberty.

But, from the evidence that I've seen, republicans like him have been "glitches" in the Republican Party, I can only think of a handle of Republicans who were anti-warfare + welfare state. That'd be Ron himself, Taft, and Howard Buffett.

So, my point is that republicans have always been a rare occurrence in the GOP.

And you're right.

What we call conservatism does not have a long history, and for most of its life, the Republican Party has truly been the "party of Lincoln".

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

I've made this argument in the past as well

If there are "Ron Paul Democrats", the message will spread just as fast and far as with the GOP.
.................
Talk to someone new every day. You'll be surprised what you learn.

..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore

Probably faster.

Because Republicans lose elections.

If we followed the "Infiltrate the Big Party vs. Third Parties that don't have a chance" strategy to its logical conclusion, we would be infiltrating the Democratic Party as a primary goal.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Corruption

The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of a corrupt coin. Get real. Anybody can research the voting records of this two party duopoly scam. On mainline issues both parties are virtually the same.

www.house.gov
senate.gov

Web Developer
www.AnetComputers.com
www.RightToRedress.com
Take Back Your Country!

corrupt coin

Spending my evenings as a 'part' of either of these corrupt parties is something I will never do. I am neither a D or R, I've been a libertarian for nearly 30 years and in spite of the Barr error by the party, I remain committed there. If any of you can stomach it, go for it. It seems like a remotely plausible plan.

Because they are weak

The GOP is an empty shell. Taking over the Democratic Party would be vastly more difficult.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Exactly!

For the time-being, the Democrats are happy with the way things are.

The Republicans are looking for something new though--especially here in Oregon.