2006

Somebody--- Couldn't we organize a movement?

I'll work tirelessly. I know it's silly and small, but I headed PR for a school district and got us airtime on local TV twice, will write letters, ...organize locally...

I just want to know the same thing is going on in other areas.

Who is serious about this?

I have lots of PR experience. Whaddaya want me to do?

<hooray>

Let's start a thread.

Someone with a little cache, please get it going.

I thought it was already going. Right here.

If people like Obama and the fella from Oklahoma (that got sick of the politics and went home) would become involved I think we'd be onto something.

There's a LOT of politics in the school board here, so I'm not sure I'd select from that pool. But there are plenty of other local leaders.

I agree with the term limits, and would add that if a representative and their staff is having to work late to finish a bill, they can all chip in and buy their own pizza rather than having it delivered by the group that will benefit from the new law or regulation.

You know, we possibly could add on to an existing party. That would probably send the loudest message to the "duopoly".

I know Perot is a crank, but what do you think of this?

(We could look at Libertarians, too. Any party with a skeleton, but not much flesh.)

I think it would kick ass if we all threw in behind a third party--but organized it to make a statement.

Reform--

We frequently receive inquiries concerning such issues as gay marriage, the War in Iraq (and other places, sad to note), women's "right to choose" (abortion), gun control, the War on Terrorism (Homeland Security and the Patriot Act), legalization of some drugs, (particularly marijuana), etc.

Also, we occasionally receive an inquiry from the many, often opposing, "Special Interest Groups" that appear on the political palette we fondly think of as "American Democracy".

You will not find any Party Platform/Position statements regarding such issues on these pages.

Some time ago, when the Reform Party was in its infancy, Ross Perot pointed out to us that such "social issues" are divisive; that is to say, on any one such issue, in any randomly selected group of American voters, it is very likely that a poll taken on that issue will show equally divided results. The overall effect is, while none of these "social issues" is ever resolved to the mutual satisfaction of a majority, all the other issues that corrupt the political processes of this country go unresolved, too! Fiscal responsibility, taxation, deficit spending, campaign financing, ballot access, health care, illegal immigration, international trade, jobs and the economy, conservation and the environment, and a sensible foreign policy that does not foment hatred of America by the rest of the world, are all issues that eventually affect every one of us, at one point in our individual lives.

The longer these issues remain unresolved, as long as "social issues" keep the nation divided--- much to the delight of the corporation-controlled Republican/Democratic duopoly --- the longer this nation will remain on that rough road to Empire --- and eventual Fall.

As a consequence of this official Party philosophy, we are most often labeled by our peers/antagonists as a 'centrist' Party, since we seem to eschew the more radical elements of other third/alternative Parties, as far as Platform issues are concerned.

Personally --- and I mean that I am not now representing the Party philosophy, but rather presenting my own for your consideration --- I feel that, by avoiding these "social issues", we are also providing a potential political home for all those "radical elements" who are willing to sit at the table with their 'social' opponents and hammer out a consensus on the Paltform Issues of the American Reform Party without attempting to force their own personal, private convictions on the rest of the Party.

If we are ever successful in this effort, our philosophy will then be "populist" thereby, and more representative of the Democratic Republic we profess ourselves to be:

A government " ...of the People, by the People, and FOR the People... "

PS-- This is the first time I've seen this--and I'm not advocating this group, just throwing out possibilities.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Well, squinney. Just from my standpoint, voting for those guys is supporting the current situation. It doesn't set apart from the status quo.

By all means, if thats what you want to do, I wouldn't try to dissuade you.

I am just very serious about what would amount to a mini revolution. An in your face message to the lords and ladies of priviledge that they have forgotten who they are servong, and their meal ticket has been revoked.

There are crucial things that must change--PACs, term limits, campaign finance. Our system has been corrupted by money--and I hink the best way to make this point, and recify it is to send them ALL home--and force change in some of these laws.

But, that may just be me.

Term limits is about as close that we could come to cleaning out the old wood. However as long as the two party system continues to rule politics in this nation. We will just be replacing one party hack with another.

What estimates exist for determining the percentage of voting-aged American citizens who are frustrated with the two party system, the extremist candidates that they generate, and would be willing to vote independent if a viable choice were presented.

Maybe it's the percentage of American voters who are not registered members of either party yet vote in all or most elections.

Does anyone have an idea on what those numbers are?

That would be interesting to attempt to find out.

I have unlimited long distance.

Should I perform a poll? It's not like I have vitally important things to do with my leisure.

How to extract a representational group?

Whay questions should be asked--as not to lead or skew?

Following along here... I think we need two candidates (besides the usual two) to overcome the "lesser of two evils" voting syndrome. When there's a third candidate that is promising, but one of the two majors are considered especially odious, folks are afraid that their vote for the one they truly want will end up going to the one they want the least. With a second dark horse, it could potentially go any way and so maybe folks will feel free to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else. We need two firebrands -- one that leans a little left and one that leans a little right. Just enough to edge out both the whores we usually get to choose from.

Thinking of what would happen if massive mailing and publicity stunts were organized to draft McCain to lead the Reform--or Grassroots or whatever party--with the knowledge house would be cleaned.

I think he's already in housecleaning mode.

<Just throwing stuff out there.>

<Hope someone else will do the same.>

I know. Was just pointing out those were two relative unknowns that were elected, garnered national attention. So, it CAN be done.

my neice (in her 20s) and i agree big time on this; it's really time for the moderates and moderate progressives to abandon the money pits known as the democrat and republican parties and start a viable third party.

think about it... both major parties are teeming with good ol' boy wheeler dealers and tunnel vision ideologues.

despite all of the yelling and screamin' that's been so prevalent over the last 10 years, most of us have very simple needs and desires in the social arena.

let's look at some of the stuff that just keeps suckin' up time;

** gay marriage - if gays get married, does that really have a tangible effect on straight folks and their marriages ?

** reproductive rights - okay. let's go the other direction. as of today, each and every woman residing in the united states is hereby required by law to bear a child each and every year from the age of first menstruation until the onset of menapause. no exceptions will be made in regards to religious beliefs or any ensuing danger to the health of the mother.

still think that it's government's place to be stickin' it's nose in yer most personal decision ?

** taxes - the us government will no longer, as of this day, collect taxes of any kind.

addendum: the governments, local, state and federal, will no longer provide the following services;

** national defense

** the building and maintainence of national highways and byways - including route 66. so from now on, get yer kicks someplace else.

** the energy & power infrastructure - sorry folks, when the hoover dam takes a dive, that's it. but it'll probably outlast the towers and cables.

best advice - perfect the art of rubbing two sticks together.

** the judicial court system - nobody accepts what they determine anyway. 'sides, a little anarchy is good for the soul.

** rules outlining fair practice in employment of others. parents, you should be happy about this. little kids can work longer and eat a whole lot less. a real benefit since the abolishing of the minimum wage means you make a whole lot less of the foldin' stuff too.

which reminds me;

** federally backed currency - states used to print their own. we'll go back to that. wait! we can't. they aren't doing anything either. hmmm. well, i got a pet goat i'll trade ya for some corn meal.

** medical research - hey, when your time's up...

** fema - got along without it before. survival of the fittest is natural.

** national endowment for the arts - i would almost be for this one. come on artists! suffer a little! keep it real ! and maplethorp...what the hell was that all about ??

so see ? if we eliminate taxes, as seems to be such a hotly pursued goal, we can go back to livin' the real american dream. there's a certain charm to trundling out to that little brown building out back in the snow.


if we can get a viable third party together that would create a sensible, real world platform and leave all of the drama behind, the whole country would be better off if, and when, it came into power.

* how about government out of the religion and marriage business altogether ?

* how about a flat tax ? one percentage rate applied equally, across the board. individuals, marrieds and business. no exceptions, no deductions. and no shipping cash off to a po box corporation in the caymans.

* how about 2 years of national service ? like in israel. then everyone will have a clue about the military and an equal chance of seeing action. that might cut down on the zeal for foreign entanglements without tangible provocation.

* how about parents resume the job of raising their children and the task of teaching them the morals that the want them to have. that also includes teaching them about sex; it's joys, responsibilities and ramifications. seems like drilling "just say no" into those hormone befuddled teens isn't working out too well. and really, when it comes to entertainment, parents also need to recover the concept that there are childs things and grownup things. it's your house. if you don't want the kiddies to see or hear something, turn the channel. or set up the cable box to do it for you. the computer ? well, gosh... some parents just insisted that the .xxx append be held up. the whole point was so you, the parent could lock access to those sites out of your home.

anyway, i guess you get my drift. and mrs. dtom is tapping her foot for me to get ready for a bbq.

y'all have a great time today ... :wink:

I think McCain would have better luck outside of the Republican party so he would be a great choice, as well as having the necessary experience and belly fire.

McCain is still too old school, engrained. I think he's electable as far as President, while we do house cleaning below.

Colin Powell is doing a major interview this week (with Diane Sawyer, I think). Saw a commercial but didn't catch when it is to air. He's another one that could take the lead while we clean out the chambers.

I'm in, DTOM - ceptin maybe the national security part, but then I've always leaned libertarian.

We would need to "set up house" in each state to get the local movement going for Congress and Senate selections.

I would also say no support from Moveon.org, Swiftboaters or other "outsiders" with their own agendas. For it to be a grassroots, people taking back their government and we are serious about it kinda rebellion, I think it would need to be supported by individuals. As we know from Dean, that is possible.

NO ONE WHO SUPPORTS BUSH IS ACCEPTABLE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

I'm in complete agreement with this and will do everything I can in my area.

Very good about no agenda bound groups. They are what we're trying to wipe off our shoes.

Bear--let's don't wreck it with divisiveness. If everyone who signs on is serious about our major issues, to hell with the piddly ****.