Comment: Must be a Liberty / Freedom purist.

(See in situ)


Must be a Liberty / Freedom purist.

I can see where many here would resist this notion and will distrust anyone who tries to gather up the proverbial robes around him/herself in a leadership role. But as a mental exercise at least:

[BEGIN BABBLE:]

Does this individual transition to some sorta candidate at some point? Define *General*.

Must be a Liberty / Freedom purist. (Or two people, who can play off one another? Dunno. A biz ops person and a highly visible firebrand?)

Obviously must be an example of Liberty-ism. Plus our best salesman / woman.

If in an outward-facing role:

Must be someone who can be inspiring to even the liberal types, and who can remind them that they should love Freedom in and of itself and who can perhaps convince them of the evils of pushy, fascist government (By empowering / appealing to their sense of individuality / self-determination / accomplishment). These used to be "my people", and I still understand them to large degree. There are many good elements on the liberal side. Creative thinkers, lovers of freedom. But they are stuck in the 2 party paradigm. They must be told--over and over for a while--that Status Quobama = Bush. This isn't hard; the proof is there! Direct their attention to their leaders who we can respect (ie: Cornell West, Chomsky (maybe?), etc.... and yes, none of these guys are *perfect*, as we know.). Appeal to the anti-war vibe which we share. A lot of "liberals" are disgusted with Obama now, too. More than we realize. Certainly not reported, of course! Some are quietly creeping over to our side and are not telling their friends! These people need a gentle welcome to our ideas; not a head dunk in the deep end of the pool. We are ALL beings of ego and pride, so let's take care not to put people off through aggression (even intellectual aggression). Grassroots = local sales, of course.

Cannot be a religious conservative, overly conservative agenda-driven sort. Sorry, but we will hafta hang up some of our specific demands--and certainly *any* demands that in essence take away freedom of choice for other people.

The gun issue is, as we know, one of fear. This is a hard nut to crack. A lot of my liberal friends are just afraid. I try to talk history with them, tyranny and the like, but it can hard not to seem condescending (I've been called arrogant here though, so perhaps that's my problem! LOL!) Dunno. Help!

This is politics, no matter the paradigm, and that art (Dark Art, LOL!) hinges on some degree of compromise / cooperation /etc. with those outside our sphere of concerns. It is the ultimate in salesmanship / saleswomanship, as we know. We know where our limits are here (the things / areas in which most of us can agree), so it's not as dangerous as it may seem.

Not anyone tainted by official Tea Party involvement (Yeah, we all know it was hijacked by mainstream Republicans and saboteurs.).

Someone affable and humble, like RP, of course! But who perhaps can get ignited the way the Doc used to in his younger years... and who some soul / preachy character sometimes. Someone not afraid to say "I don't know."

***I sorta got off topic and strayed into a front-runner-ish sorta territory. Is this part of it, too? I'd think this person would have to be effective at preaching to the choir to keep We the Choir focused? Given our variety of viewpoints?***

[Disclaimer: I'm still "new" here relative to most, so I suggest these things with my hat in my hand, fully realizing that I am likely among these least qualified to chirp on about this stuff!]

What would the Founders do?