Yes, the system would have a national campaign, but that would only happen when GOOOH is large enough to support such a vast expense.  Until that time, we must bank on getting a handful into the 2010 election process.  Once that happens, those of us who support GOOOH will divert donation dollars to those candidates, regardless of location.  Despite the slant of TV, print and even radio media, they will not be able to resist such a monumental story.

As for "values" vs. "stance", they are one in the same on certain issues.  However, I stand corrected in labeling all positions on issues as "values".  Instead, they are better described as opinions and values.

Special interest is a very big factor.  Keep in mind, you chose two very large and divided groups.  These groups have a bigger impact on exciting their base, not swaying a member of the house and senate.  However, that does not mean they do not sway oposing members on occassion.

The silent, but deadly special interest groups are the ones that add-up to major problems in our country.  For example, until the presidential election, ACORN was not in the national spotlight.  However, they were making progress to be a multi-billion dollar, tax funded group. 

Also, what about the major financial institutions?  Even though the ship was sinking, they were spending vast amounts of money in DC to hide the truth on what they eventually figured-out was coming.  Granted, the government produced the financial collapse (via buying excess MBS and CMBS bonds through Fannie Mae to keep the prices high and the market moving), but the institutions grew greedy and did not care.

Almost every major money crisis has been caused by greedy politicians trying to insert the government into free markets.  Once some in the free market realize what happened, they grow greedy as well, allowing the government wreak havoc.  Every time this happens, the politicians turn around and say free markets failed. NO, NO, NO.... Government failed by manipulating what is deemed a free market.

So, we know that the problem was identified during Bush's first term.  However, the money grew too sweet and the recipients of this wealth lobbied politicians to say nothing was wrong.

I guess I'm just unclear on the effectiveness of a national campaign; "there will be ONE national campaign, not 435 * 2 individual campaigns." It makes it sound as if this:
"We will be campaigning for the GOOOH system (not individual candidates) via national  TV, radio, print and media spots."
will take up the vast majority of financing, which would not involve itself in specific local issues, like the local candidate's stances, despite the fact that the local candidate's stances (not values) are the most important thing.
I think that the voting public will actually frequently believe a campaign promise from a Republican or Democrat; see the Presidential election; although Obama has shied away from a few of his promises, you saw many, many people supporting him because of his positions. Special interest groups are not all that worrysome because they likely already hold the same position as the candidate. For instance, NOW, supporting Clinton, would have much more effect on her than the NRA, generally supporting McCain. But neither of these groups would have that much chance of persuading the candidate they don't agree with to change his/her position after the election. There is always the chance of a reversal, but most voters aren't that cynical to be very worried about it.

bd5472,

You ask in this post and another, "How will GOOOH work on a national level?"  By focusing on the big issues posed by Tim, you forget that the big issues are to provide a candidates values to voters.  The district specific issues will be expressed at a local level, which does not require a national campaign.

Think about this.  If a democrat and republican state a stance on an issue, most of us do not believe that they will hold true under pressure from special interest.  This pertains more to a "sellable" issue, but they play a big part in every election.  In turn, a GOOOH candidate states a stance on an issue, but follows with, "I am willing to put this in writing, and if I do not do as I say, you will have a legally binding document to force my resignation from this district seat."  Who do you think the voting public will believe?

The district issues will be determined during the election process.  Furthermore, as issues arise, they will be addressed as currently addressed.  For example, my district overwhelming did not support the first bailout.  They voiced this in letters and calls to our representative.  However, despite what my district wanted, my senator turned his back and voted for the bailout.

GOOOH is far from perfect, but with some tuning, it will be efficient and effective in changing the political landscape.  When politicians finally realize that they work for us instead of the other way around, we will see a drastic change.  All it takes is one GOOOH politician to get elected.  When that happens, there will be a firestorm of talk around the world. A politician held accountable?  This has not happened since our country was a very young nation.

You are entirely correct that the Republicans have failed on a number of issues. However, they are much more likely to solve the problems from a right-wing point of view than are the Democrats or whoever is elected via GOOOH. It would be very surprising to me to see even 15 GOOOH members get elected, even though I would much prefer to see all of them get elected. But even if they were elected, I'm not sure they would be able to solve the issues either. After all, they're very complicated problems, and even the experts have a lot of trouble deciding what would be best and what is most practical. A GOOOH representative will surely be more representive of their district than anyone else, and will also be (thankfully) supportive of term limits, and would be less likely to be corrupt. So from a nonpartisan perspective, they would definitely be the best; still, that doesn't mean they'd be able to solve the hugest problems there are with government now. Since there will probably be more Republicans than GOOOH members for a long time, and since policies are made more effectively with a unified group, and since a GOOOH member, even if they support reforming immigration, wouldn't have all that much support from other members of his own party, (they'd be divided) I think that Republicans will be more likely to solve the problem.

Although what we have now in the House is regrettable and not always effective, they appear to be better poised to tackle the problems than a few GOOOH members that do manage to get elected. Of course, if we are able to elect more than 300 GOOOH members, then I've severely underestimated, and if that happens, who knows where the political winds will then blow.

But something you should be more worried about is how a national campaign would possibly work, as I said in my last post. Elections are almost always won on local support of issues. But GOOOH will not address issues, except for term limits and perhaps the ACLU. I am not saying "GOOOH is not a good idea;" I am saying "A GOOOH campaign, like all others, needs to work on the issues as they are perceived locally."

Truth will be proven by the consensus of millions. If we do not get national support, we agree we cannot win. But if we do, your arguments will prove to be hollow.

It sounds like you should continue to vote for the Republicans you favor. Ignore the fact that they ran up the biggest deficit ever, pre-Obama, that they failed to improve the Education System, seal our borders, or address the looming Social Security Crisis. Did they unite or divide the country? Did they leave our country in better or worse shape than what it was when they took control?

Yes, they did debate the miniminum wage and haggled over whether or not Clemens used steroids, but why should I believe they will address the important issues if we vote them back into office next time?

GOOOH may not be for you, and you can predict all you like that we can't succeed, but please, don't try to argue that we should continue to support either of the two parties. Look at the results. Einstein said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We're trying something different.

-- 6/6/2009 10:54:11 AM.

Although Americans do have a distaste for politicians, do you really think that there's a chance of 500,000 people joining? Oh, wait, you say "We need 1/5 of 1% of the population to join us, and they will." so I guess that's a yes. But think of how much people will value those things in relative terms. If direct marketing attempts are not made to communicate the GOOOH nominee's positions to the people, the people will very likely be unwilling to vote for the GOOOH nominee. Think: Bush's successful campaigns were, essentially, based on what he said, that "Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand." That was very popular. Above all, people do not want to vote for someone whose positions they don't know about; people like it even less when flip-flops occur. Of course they'll be able to see where the GOOOH nominee stands if they do some research, but come on, this is America. Very, very few people will go out and conduct independent research in an effort to find the truth. Since GOOOH is non-partisan, a national campaign will also have to be completely non-partisan, and will not communicate the candidate's views. This is a recipe for disaster if individual nominees don't have the freedom to do anything other than watch the national campaign. Have you heard that "All politics is local?"

Also, you say "They will not have accepted a penny of special interest money and will not be beholden to any party." Actually, just a couple words before, you said "Our candidates will have documented their positions and signed a legally binding agreemet" for the "GOOOH | Get Out of Our House: A non-partisan political party!" So, actually, they are being incredibly beholden to a political party, called GOOOH, even more so than any politician is now; they have to sign a legally binding agreement.

Think of it this way. When you elect someone to Congress, what do you expect them to do? To pass laws you support, of course. With politicians, there is always the possibility of scandal, etc., but it's probably worth it if the elected person passes good laws. The inner moral character of the nominee doesn't really matter all that much; what matters is what they actually do in congress in relation to creating laws. So:

I have a choice between person D, a democrat, person R, a republican, and person G, a GOOOH nominee. Let's assume that I'm a pretty right wing conservative. I would think that person D, if elected, will make policies that are too socialistic, too liberty-infringing, and too destructive to the nation. I would think that person R, if elected, will rightfully make policies that will restrict federal power and reduce taxes and government spending. And if I'm an average person, I'll think that person G is some guy who stands for term limits and hasn't received special interest money, but I have no idea what he actually stands on other issues, and I have no idea what policies he would support. But I know that no matter what policies he supports, it would be better for me to support the Republican candidate, because the Republican is right in 95% of his beliefs, but person G is probably right in only 30-70% of his beliefs; he'll make much worse policies for the nation, and the nation and me will suffer as a result.

It's what the politician will likely do that really matters, not who the politician is or what he symbolically stands for or how he was elected that matters. Voters generally are selfish and utilitarian, and more cynical than idealistic when it comes to politics. A successful organization will need to understand that, or will remain as it is now, with little activity, very few participants, and with too little money and expertise to even afford proper forum software.

We understand the skepticsim, if innovations were obvious to all they wouldn't be very innovative. New ideas take time for most to accept. We will be proven right if 500,000 patriots join us. If not, what have we lost.

This is by no means pie in the sky. You can continue to support the same old system and get the same old results, or you can try something new. We need 1/5 of 1% of the population to join us, and they will.

We can and will win with one national campaign because America is sick of politicians. Our candidates will have documented their positions and signed a legally binding agreemet that will be posted for all the world to see. They will not have accepted a penny of special interest money and will not be beholden to any party. America will value all of these things.

Finally, recognize that you can support GOOOH and other solutions in parallel. We suggest you do.

How do you plan to run one national campaign around multiple platforms? Congressional elections are won at the local level. A national campaign WILL NOT work unless EVERYONE is running on the same platform like the "Contract with America". That worked but the majority of those we elected lost sight of what we sent them there for. What we need to do is work to get better candidates through the primaries. It is an uphill battle because we are in a fight for the identity of the Party but right now it is our best option. GOOOH has some good objectives but it is mostly "Pie in the Sky", that is to say not realistic.

We've done what you suggest for my entire lifetime, and I'm sure even longer. It doesn't work.

What are the holes you see? I've been looking, and other than not getting people willing to sign up, I haven't found them.

 The only way for a national campaign to work is if all the candidates have the same beliefs ie platform. The whole idea of what GOOOH is trying to do is intriging and I agree with many of the points. There are several holes in the theory though and I don't see how it can be successfull on a large scale outside of the 2 parties. It might be a better idea to fight within the Republican party to restore it's integrity by incorporating some of the idea's of GOOOH.