The most important aspect of politics, whether it relates to person or party, is brand awareness. Without it, it does not matter if you are the best party or the best person for the job. The CP has little to no brand awareness. This needs to change. There is a thread here about how to make the party tenable. I hope to expound here on the issues that were missed or not discussed in detail in that thread. All of these issues tie into the one main reason the CP will never become a force to recon with if it remains unchanged, brand awareness.

Get Out of National Elections
There isn’t a single person in the CP that is qualified to be President. Chuck Baldwin may be a fine man but he is not qualified to run a country. To run the country, a candidate needs to understand how Washington works. Contrary to what some would believe, you cannot just walk in a start making changes. You have to be able to deal with Congress to pass your bills. You cannot expect to make massive sweeping changes without their help. Aside from running a small church, Mr. Baldwin has no executive experience.

National Leadership
I do not mean to offend anyone but the CP, as far as I can tell, has no real leadership. It has a lot of managers but no directing force. Currently is consists of a lot of people who want to do something but spend their time telling each other how bad things in Washington are. We spend our time preaching to the converted. There needs to be leadership from the top. There needs to be a sense of direction. Most importantly there needs to be a one and five year strategic plan. Maybe there is one, but those of us on the ground have no idea what it is. We need to be informed and, more importantly, directed. This direction needs to come from the top and be focused locally because…..


All Politics is Local
This is a very important ideal that seems to escape the CP. All politics is local. Politics starts and ends at the street level. From potholes, to annoying neighbors to good schools, the people in the neighborhoods want to know how a particular candidate will help them locally. Presidents get elected by connecting to the people on an individual basis. “I am going to create more jobs…for you.” I am going to fix the economy…for you”, I am going to…….for you.” Joe Bag-O-Donuts sits on his easy chair and hears “… for you” and that’s how he makes his decisions. Lofty ideals are fine but irrelevant to the voter. There is a reason politicians love people like Joe the Plumber. The voter recognizes something of themselves in Joe the Plumber and says, “If Joe likes him, Maybe I should vote for him to. After all, Joe’s a working stiff just like me.” All politics is local. What will the candidate do for ME!

A War Chest
The other poster said it and I concur, politics is war. To fight a war you need a war chest. Brand awareness comes at a cost. Campaigns come at a cost. These things need to be funded. There should be a war chest at the national level for the CP just like there is for the Democrats and Republicans. This war chest can be filled through fund raising.

Fund Raising
Before any attempts at fund raising, the leadership must read the book “America's Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power” by Richard A. Viguerie, David Franke. Bulk mailing is still an excellent way to raise funds. The Internet is a good was to raise funds if people already know who you are. In the case of the CP, the Internet reaches those of us already drinking the Kool-aid. Massive spam emails only annoy people and people will only go to your web site if they know about you already. Bulk mail allows you to reach a large number of people inexpensively. You go to a place like http://www.responseunlimited.com/index.html and order a list. Create a letter like the one below and send it out to a test group of maybe 1000-2000. Create a few more with different wording, maybe add a better issue like abortion or remove references to God and Christian (not all conservatives are Christian) and send it out to the same amount of people, see which letters get the better response. Send out the best response letter to the rest of the list. Make sure you are targeting only the particular states residents so they feel they are making a difference. I wrote this letter as an example a few years ago to address an issue here in PA. You’ll get the idea.


Dear Fellow Christian Conservative,

The 2005 Pennsylvania elections were historic in the first ousting of a State Supreme Court justice in over 280 years. The voters of Pennsylvania are throwing off the confines of apathy and donning the mantel of political authority promised to them by the phrase “we the people”. The call to “throw the bums out” reverberates through the streets of Philadelphia, the farms in Lancaster and the steps of the Harrisburg capital.

With 203 House seats and 25 Senate seats up for election, 2006 gives conservatives the opportunity to remold the General Assembly into a government we can be proud of with candidates we can trust. With the unconstitutional passing of Act 71 and the secret 2 am pay-raises approved by both sides of the General Assembly, we can clearly see these candidates will not come from the Republican or Democratic parties. Conservatives must look elsewhere.

Since 1994, the Constitution Party of Pennsylvania has striven to reinstate the type of government desired by the citizens of Pennsylvania and required by its constitution. Founded on an allegiance to God and the principles of government embodied in our constitutions and the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution Party works for the people of Pennsylvania and not the special interest groups. The Republican and Democratic Party juggernauts have run roughshod over the voters of Pennsylvania but that has come to an end. Now is the time to act, but we need your help.

[Insert request for donations]

With your help, the Constitution Party of Pennsylvania can once again give Pennsylvania a government of the people and by the people.


Find an issue that affects the people locally (there’s that word again) and use that as your hot point for fund raising.


Viable Candidate
Now that the war chest is full, it needs to be spent on local elections for viable candidates. Notice the very important word here: viable. What is a viable candidate? One that can get elected. Here is how you spot a non-viable candidate:
I believe in Black helicopters flying over the countries sky!
I believe the government caused 9/11
I believe the government is secretly plotting to replace our currency with Amero
I believe the government is secretly…….

Make any one of these statements to your constituency and you are no longer a viable candidate. I am not saying you are wrong in these beliefs. When the revolution comes, you can dance on the graves and say “SEE I TOLD YOU!!” but wrong or right the average person doesn’t believe in these things and will think you’re nuts. No one votes for a candidate they think is nuts. More importantly, the average person doesn’t care about these things. They feel the government is taking care of things because the potholes are fixed, the streets are plowed and the schools are open. You want to claim that not saying these things violates your principles, that’s fine. Just don’t bother running for office, because you will not get elected.


Viable Candidate
How does one become a viable candidate? If you are running for School Board, Township Supervisor or other position like this, step one is to attend meetings. Spend at least a year if not two going to all the meetings. Make yourself known in a polite and articulate manner. Volunteer for the Zoning Board or PTA. Make sure people know who you are and that you can be counted on. Express concerns in a non-confrontational manner. Others may have the same concerns that you do but will not voice it. Be their voice then and you can be their voice in office. Try to understand both sides of an argument and be a “uniter” in these meetings if you can. Get people to look to you for help.

When you’re ready, get the local chapter of the CP to request funds from the national party for you. Flood the area with your name; signs, radio ads, TV commercials, bumper stickers, meet-and-greets etc. People in these areas shouldn’t be able to use the bathroom without seeing your face. Brand Awareness is key. Remember, all politics is local. If you’re running for Township Supervisor, don’t make claims like “We need to dissolve the IRS” because you would have no control over that if elected to the Supervisor board, so it is irrelevant. Focus on issues that are important at the level of office you are running for.

The State Level
In order for the Republican Party to show it is a political force in a state, it needs to win the majority of the available seats. In order for the Democratic Party to show it is a political force in a state, it needs to win the majority of the available seats. In order for the Constitution Party to show it is a political force in a state, it needs to win just one seat. One. It just needs to replace one incumbent to make a statement and to show the rest of the state that it exists as a force. The National party needs to identify and fund a few state legislative runs. Instead of focusing on a national presidential race and all the funding that entails, focus on a state race or two where the Republican candidate isn’t doing well or is in legal trouble. People may be looking for a change. A concerted effort in those locations may see at least a raise in brand awareness if not an election. Especially if that state is going through a scandal or hot button issue. In PA a few years ago it was the pay raise. The current issue is School Tax. These should be hot button issues that CP candidates beat the voters over the head with. National Party leaders should be informed by State Party leaders what the hot button topics are for each state. These should be reviewed to determine if there is enough voter backlash to fund a viable candidate in that state.


If you’re still reading this, thanks. To sum up:
Leadership ==>Funding==>Viable Campaigns==>Brand Awareness==>Funding==>Viable Campaigns==>Brand Awareness etc.

I do not claim to be an expert and this is just my opinion.

Thanks Jeff C, that was a good post.

(12-12-2008 10:08 AM)Jeff C Wrote:  Get Out of National Elections

I don't know about this. I think there are good arguments for getting out of national elections, but there are also good arguments to stay in them. Many people here have said they learn about the CP after seeing Baldwin on the ballot.

Also, I think it is important we run a national party (single, cohesive coalition of state parties that share national leadership and a consistent platform). Many people see running a national candidate as a requisite for that, others don't. I think this needs more analysis.

IMHO, the only reason to be leery or running a national candidate is funds. Other than that, I think the advantages of running a national candidate overweigh the disadvantages. With that being said, funds is a HUGE factor.

In summary, what I'm trying to say is, I don't think there is a simple and clear answer as to whether the CP should run a national candidate.

Further, about the experience, I have to agree. We need someone who has experience (beyond "community organizer", of course).

Quote:National Leadership

I agree. We need strategy! Strategy put an unqualified community organizer and ambulance chaser in charge of the country. Sad to say, but the strategy usually matters MORE than the platform, regardless of how high the principles reflected on it may be.

Quote:All Politics is Local

I agree 100% with you, but I am worried. Why? Because the fixes the CP proposes are 100% necessary, fair, responsible and righteous, but they do not necessarily produce immediate, quick results, which is what the populace wants. For example, I see it as a huge priority to pay off the national debt in order to maintain our sovereignty, and also so my kids and grandkids don't have to pay 30% of their GDP in interests. The problem is, Joe Six-pack, Jane Soap-opera, Pancho Tamales and Omarosa simply won't see any immediate, tangible benefits (no tax rebate checks on the mail, etc.)

IMHO, it takes a decent amount of patriotism, personal responsibility and a wiser, more long term perspective to support most of the ideals of the CP, and those qualities are in serious scarcity these times. This means that we need to look for other ways to expand.

Maybe we need to study and focus on issues that are more urgent and that can be solved by the policy changes the Constitution party proposes. For example, maybe we can emphasize how going back to the gold standard would have the effect of changing inflation from exponential growth to a mild cycle (like it was before Nixon got rid of the gold standard on 1971), and how the first, immediate beneficiaries of such policy change would be people of low income.

In other words, it's very sad to say it, but we need to see what parts of the CP's platform are more appealing to people in the short term. Doing anything other than this means the CP will not grow enough to take over one of the major parties, and the patriotism of the CP members would go to waste, as nothing will be accomplish in a significant scale.

Just remeber: Obama is a principled socialist out for ""justice"" for the low-income class, but he won the election by brownnosing the middle class.

Quote:Fund Raising

100% agree.

Quote:Viable Candidate

OK, this is an important point. Just a personal experience: after being disappointed by the primaries, I started looking into other parties. I ran into the Wikipedia page on Chuck Baldwin, and started reading... until I hit the place that says:

Quote:Baldwin has suggested reopening the investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, believing that the 9/11 truth movement has a right to have alternative 9/11 theories investigated, including those that raise the possibility of U.S. government involvement in the attacks.

At that point, I simply left the page and discarded him. Why? Because I do not believe the government could pull off something like that, and even if it did, still Baldwin would be an unviable candidate.

I do not want to start a discussion on the 9/11 truth stuff, and I would hope nobody hijacks this thread for that purpose (in the very least, please start a new one). The point I am trying to get across is this: regardless of whether the 9/11 truth ideas are true or not, they do render a candidate unviable because most people will think he's a Reptilian wacko. And this hurts the CP campaign to a very large degree. That's all that matters at this point.

I know some CPers believe in those things, and I defend their right to do so and express it. I personally do not think there is such thing as a "taboo" idea. But we need to understand that we are not free from consequence. In this case, it simply we lose the vote, thus further undermining any attempts of restoring constitutionality to the country.

What do I propose?
1)That every CP member pledges to not talk about this in public CP forums, or on any position or circumstance that could be seen as supported and/or endorsed by the CP, either officially or unofficially, and
2)That any CP candidate pledges to not talk about it, at all, at least until the CP is not in its infancy anymore and has gained some national momentum.
I'm not talking about forcing this on anyone, but rather strongly suggesting it for the party's success sake.

I'm sure that, when the day comes that a CPer is president, then a lot more would have happened by then. People would be more in tune with the Constitution, and have the right concept of what government should do (and not do) for its people. In that climate, reopening an investigation would work out better than now, while the CP is still in its infancy.

In other words, pick your battles! Picking battles isn't a betrayal of your principles (and, as a matter of fact, not picking your battles could quite hamper your ability to carry on with your principles).

(I hope I am not offending anyone, as I am aware how sensitive this subject is. And if I did, I apologize, as that was not the intention. This was not meant as a criticism of anybody in particular, and especially of people in this message board. Furthermost, I am not trying to diminish the value of the lives that were lost in 9/11. Rather, I would like government to return to its constitutional limits to make sure something like this does not happen again. And, IMHO, that unavoidably mean picking our battles in a variety of subjects, not only this one.)

Quote:The State Level

Good point. We need to start small but strong. One state seat in the short term would be very important indeed.
It could be a good idea to focus national energy and resources on a few states where the CP is making inroads (not forever though, we can't starve the rest! State rights! ).

(Does anyone have a link to that map of the US with the percentages of the total vote Baldwin got in each state? I've seen it but can't find it now)

The advice of Jeff C seems logical. It is a template that is as good as I've seen. [I'm fairly new, so I have not seen a lot of templates.] ChrisAR: kudos to taking the slow but LEGAL way off becoming a citizen. Giving illegals a pathway to citizenship is probably a stench in your nostrils. I concur with both of you that candidates just need to stick with the basics, since it appeals to the most number of people. For instance, if someone in a group announces that they like football, I'm with them; then they say they like basketball I am still with them. Then they say they like the NBA; now I am being turned off. then they say they like the Lakers, now I am very turned off. Then they say the playoffs are too short and the season should go through July 20th. Goodbye. Same thing with our candidates. Stick with 1) reducing the size and scope of federal government; 2) protect the borders; 3) upholding the 10th amendment; 4) preserving the rights of the individuals, etc.......... Basically as Jeff stated, just get CST candidates elected and the other stuff can be take care of. There are more John and Sarah Commonfolk's out there who want their taxes cut than the citizen who won't vote for you if you don't believe such and such. If I am advising someone runnng for office, even if they want to reduce the size of gov't by 90%, I would advise them to just talk about the 5% that they do want to eliminate........as far as my comments about the Lakers, laker fans do not worry. I have not watched an NBA game in years, since I have too many other priorities......

Baldwin, as well as any citizen of this country that can employ critical thinking skills and read a copy of the Constitution is fully qualified to be President. Where does it say in our founding documents that you have to be one of the "elite" to be qualified to run for office?

Was George Bush qualified to be President? Considering where our Country is today I would say no.
Is Obama? Hardly.

The long laundry list of Republicans and Democrats elected in the past who were "qualified" to run our country have driven it into the ground. Its the philosophy of the elite that is killing this country.

Baldwin is, was and will be qualified to run our country simply because he shares the philosophy of our founders who established this great country.

A far as getting out of national elections, just remember that thousands were introduced to the Constitution Party because Baldwin ran for President. Add to that the hundreds of thousand people who were exposed to the Constitution Party because Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin. Baldwin was on CNN, CSPAN, local TV stations, many local radio stations and of course newspaper articles. All of which would not have happened if we did not run a national candidate. All that was free advertising.

At this point a national candidate could be viewed as a advertisement for the CP, and Chuck Baldwin was and is a good one.

The 9/11 thing
Baldwin never said he believed the government pulled off 9/11. He did say he would call for/not object to a new investigation, not because he believed government did it, but because of all the incompetence that led up to the attacks and nobody's head rolled over it. 3000 people are dead because of an incompetent government bureaucracy and the elites solution is more bureaucracy. Baldwin also pointed out that its the actual family members of the 9/11 dead that are most vocal about calling for an independent investigation. Should they of all people not be allowed to have an independent investigation?

actually... the CP... makes no mention to ending the emergencies...and so.. restoring the actual constitution.

And.. it makes no mention of the 'common law".. which is real freedom.

no mention at all...

and neither did Churck...

Which is why the party... floundered...

sorry...
but... we can fix this.

-MEMAT

I wouldn't worry too much about experience. Many of the experienced politicians are the same ones that many people have been complaining about for years.

Fielding a national ticket is imperitive. Spending tons of money on it (other than ballot access) makes little sense but without it the party is not seen as "real". Spend the money on targeted local races (city council, county commissioner, state legislature) but no party can abandon a presidential ticket and be viewed as a national party.

Well, possibly the national campaign should be mostly online through e-activism. Ron Paul gained a lot of followers just through this method. To some extent, it's cheaper as the main component is enthusiastic people.

The campaign money should probably be spent in local races. There is where newspaper ads, tracking materials, text messages (this is what won the Generation Y vote for Obama), etc. make a difference.

(12-13-2008 04:31 PM)Raymond Wrote:  Where does it say in our founding documents that you have to be one of the "elite" to be qualified to run for office?

I am not really sure where you got the word “elite” from. I simply am looking for qualified. The ability to think and read the constitution does not mean you’re qualified to run a country. Executive experience in the political realm, negotiating skills, personal skills, decision making skills, all these things are part of what makes a candidate qualified. I cam employ critical thinking skills and read the Constitution but there is no way I think I can run a country.

(12-13-2008 04:31 PM)Raymond Wrote:  Was George Bush qualified to be President? Considering where our Country is today I would say no.

Well, according to your definition, yes he is. According to my definition, yes he is. Did he do a good job? That is a different question. After 15 years in IT, I can tell you that there are people qualified to do the IT jobs but they might not be good at it. It takes more then the ability to rebuild a computer to deal with the irate executive that accidentally turned off his power strip and is yelling at you because his monitor doesn’t work. Or the accountant who is screaming at you because it is month end closing and his keyboard doesn’t work. When you turn the keyboard over water pours out but it’s still your fault. You need both the tech skills and the people skills to be good in IT. You need both the ability to reason and the ability to do everything else mentioned previously to be a good presidential candidate.

(12-13-2008 04:31 PM)Raymond Wrote:  A far as getting out of national elections, just remember that thousands were introduced to the Constitution Party because Baldwin ran for President. Add to that the hundreds of thousand people who were exposed to the Constitution Party because Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin. Baldwin was on CNN, CSPAN, local TV stations, many local radio stations and of course newspaper articles. All of which would not have happened if we did not run a national candidate. All that was free advertising.

I agree there are two sides to the argument for a national candidacy.

We do need to concentrate on local campaigns, but the quickest way we can disappear is to stop running national campaigns.

JeffC, even using your criteria, Baldwin was more qualified for the presidency than anyone else on the ballot. You are probably more qualified than the last three occupants of the White House and Obama too. 'Gravitas', and 'experience' are buzz-words used by the media to belittle those they do not like. Qualities like honesty, integrity and Constitutional principles are much, much more important and sorely lacking in main-stream politicians today.

O.W.