You wrote:

====A very well thought out article and I do appreciate your insight. I would agree with your views on the two major parties almost entirely if we were looking only at the national level; however, I am a republican with very conservative values (I hold to the constitution), and I know MANY others in my state that are the same. It is our mission to bring back the party to its roots.====

It seems that you are admitting that there is a division between the state and federal levels of the Republican Party. I ask you, which is in charge? Surely it is the ones who are in charge who will prevail in any disagreement, is it not?

Secondly, if you, from the state level, cannot control the misdeeds of the Republican Party members in the Congress, then why do you tolerate such a party?

The problem is not that “we” simply need to try harder; it is that the system is flawed by design, and can never succeed to bring about what you wish.

You say:
=====”It’s our mission to bring the party back to its roots.”=====

OK, how’s that going? And how long has that been going on? And why is there any reason to hope that it’s suddenly going to start working after so much evidence that the party is indeed incorrigible?

You wrote:

====Instead of dividing into multiple 3rd parties, with limited ballot access, that stand no chance of competing in any reasonable amount of time (we don’t have much time), it is more feasible, with our numbers, to take back the republican party and restore it to its principles of constitutional government.====

I don’t think that either is feasible. The Republican Party leadership is simply not interested in significant reform, and no third party can raise enough steam by 2010 to get anything done. Not without the most massive public education campaign in the history of the nation. Something much more lightweight and agile is needed. I planned for this when designing the Rule of Law Revolution.

You wrote:
======Ron Paul swelled the party’s numbers in his bid for the White House, but then when he was rejected by the mainstream propagandites everyone split up only to vote against each other. That is exactly what the establishment wanted to see=====

Yes, but the “establishment” most certainly includes the leadership of the Republican Party, too…..the very party you are wanting to continue to support. Besides that, it shows a failure in Dr. Paul’s strategy (that his people split up). His fundamental goal seems to have been met—-that is, he raised awareness. But the result was quite like Lincoln’s stinging note to McClellan, who was ever drilling his troops and not taking them into battle:

“General, if you’re not going to use your Army, do you mind if I borrow it for a while?” A. Lincoln

In the gradient between a viable political movement and a cult of personality, Ron Paul’s movement proved to be too close to the latter. Once he was out of the race, they scattered to the four winds. The excitement of having an attractive candidate was infectious, but the real need was to found a lasting movement of principle that would not be easily shaken if early victory were elusive.

You wrote:
=====The Republican Party has a lot of work to be done within it, especially at the higher levels, but it has something that no 3rd party does: complete ballot access.=====

This is no reason to support the Republican Party. Rather, it is a reason to toss them out of power, along with the Democrats. There is no “two-party system” in the Constitution. That the American people have put up with one is a testament to their irresponsible passivity and ignorance. Again, this is a reason to starve the Republican Party, rather than one to feed it. But you’ll never transform it.

There are far too many people making way too much money off of the Party as it is to let you do anything to challenge their enterprise. The only way to challenge them is to take them out of the game.

You wrote:
=====If we could all stay together as one voting bloc in one party we could be a force to be reckoned with. =====

This is exactly the kind of thinking that has kept the Republican Party as strong as it is (the Democrats, too). I, for one, will never again vote for a candidate who has taken part in disobeying the Constitution—unless, perhaps, he has forthrightly admitted the error and vows never to do it again.

But when it comes to voting, I don’t care if a candidate is the “lesser of two evils” or not. Would you rather have one poke in the eye with a sharp stick, or two pokes in the eye with a sharp stick? I, for one, will vote only for NO pokes in the eye with a sharp stick. Show me that candidate, and I’ll vote for him. But don’t ask me to be part of a bloc voting for the LO2E party when I know full well that this means we still go down the slippery slope of constitutional disobedience.

You wrote:
=====My concern with your article is that it serves to further divide us into all of these ineffective subgroups.=====

My article shines a light on division that already exists. I have divided no one.

You wrote:
======Many of us are out there every day, working hard to restore the Republican Party. =====

And how’s that going?

It’s not just that you need more workers; it’s that the system is flawed by design and can never achieve what you wish. These men and women simply will not let you turn their Republican Party into a constitutionalist party. They are not afraid of you, and they actually benefit the longer you stay and “fight for change” in their party. The plan, of course, is that you would encourage others to stay, too.

You wrote:
=====I know you mean well but I see only the feelings of disenfranchisement. I don’t see an effective plan. I cannot reiterate enough that we must all stick together and vote together.======

Our current mess is the exact result of this kind of thinking. And I would remind you that we were already in an AWFUL mess after 8 years of W and six years of Republican-controlled Congress.

You wrote:
=====If there were one valid 3rd party that had equal competitive ballot access, I would applaud it and those in it. =====

That’s not needed. Under the Rule of Law Revolution strategy, candidates who pledge loyalty to the Constitution and who pledge not to exceed the powers of the office they are seeking can run under any party they choose. If all candidates took this pledge and abided by it, it would very much take the wind out of the sails of the “two-party system”.

You wrote:
======The Republican Party is what we have. Let’s become it!=====

I’m working on a piece on the recent history of voting in Congress, by party. Once I publish it, you’ll see how incorrigibly lawless your Republican Party is. (And the Democratic Party, too.)

I submit that “Republican” can only be rightly defined by the actions of Republican incumbents on the FEDERAL level. So it matters very little what are the convictions of the average members of the RP at the local level. What are you supporting is federal disobedience to the Constitution.

No matter what your wishes when you donate or vote for the guy with an “R” behind his name, you are contributing to the continued presence of this lawless party.

Unless you have some amazing and wholesale plan to eradicate all lawlessness from the RP, I don’t see where you’re going to be in any different position in 2010 or 2020, either. But if you’re really adamant, please go find some Republican candidates and get them to sign the Rule of Law Pledges.

Meanwhile, the Rule of Law Revolution provides a way for the average voter, regardless of party, to put out the call for candidates who will put government back under the governance of the Constitution. And it provides a way for candidates to become known to those voters.

What more do we need than that?

The ballot access is not an issue. No new party needs to be formed. Billions of dollars are not required.

Sounds like a viable plan to me!

Jack

Instead of dividing into multiple 3rd parties, with limited ballot access, that stand no chance of competing in any reasonable amount of time (we don’t have much time), it is more feasible, with our numbers, to take back the republican party and restore it to its principles of constitutional government. Ron Paul swelled the party’s numbers in his bid for the White House, but then when he was rejected by the mainstream propagandites everyone split up only to vote against each other. That is exactly what the establishment wanted to see – I’m sure they celebrated. Classic divide and conquer.

The Republican Party has a lot of work to be done within it, especially at the higher levels, but it has something that no 3rd party does: complete ballot access. If we could all stay together as one voting bloc in one party we could be a force to be reckoned with. We would continue to grow and we would BECOME the party. Those “propagandites” would become the minority in the party and they could be the ones to leave instead of us.

My concern with your article is that it serves to further divide us into all of these ineffective subgroups. Many of us are out there every day, working hard to restore the Republican Party. I know you mean well but I see only the feelings of disenfranchisement. I don’t see an effective plan. I cannot reiterate enough that we must all stick together and vote together. If there were one valid 3rd party that had equal competitive ballot access, I would applaud it and those in it. I’m afraid we’re a million miles away from that, though. The Republican Party is what we have. Let’s become it!