That makes sense.

I took that candidate questionaire and I notice that the questions where kind of vage Atleast some of them.

I think that if yuou are going to hold a candidates feet to the fire that the question have to be to the point with a direct yes or no to the subject.  Also they should be more Constitutionally grounded.A candidate should be able to show some knowlege of the Constitution. The 2nd Amend. issue is a prime example. Any one who has read the writings of the founders know that the 2nd Amend. was put there as the people last dich protection against corrupt tyranical gov.

  Another example is the 16th Amend which allows the income tax. If any one has read the founders documents they would know that the founders did not allow for such a tax and would be appalled that we have it!  As a matter of fact only excises and import taxes where to be layed along with an apportionment tax knowen as a capitation tax. And how the capitation tax was to work was that a census was to be taken and the states with the higer population would pay more of the federal budget than the states with lesser population.  During the founders time the consideration of taxing a person property (ie "wages") would be considered criminal and immoral. If you want to know just how immoral, read the Comunist Manifesto.  When you get to the 10 planks that Karl Marx wrote into the manifesto, you will see thatit says "A heavy or progresive INCOME TAX shall be layed". Now if Karl Marx thought it was such a good idea why does our federal gov. think it is?.

 This is just two example I can think of .

We hope to do background checks on the final ten candidates in each district.

 IMHO, there needs to be a background check. A really good one.  To avoid the credibility issues that are a part of politics today. Any new platform, Party, or organization that threatens the status quo will be a target of opportunity for the entrenched power of Washington. An organization cannot afford to be discredited right out of the gates and marginalized by the very candidates it puts forth for office. I would expect this procress to be very detailed and serious enough to prevent participation by candidates that can jeapordize the effort.  A candidate may feel that his/her past is not of importance in the way they might represent us in The House, but this is not the only issue at hand. If a candidates history offers an opportunity for opposition to exploit, exagerate and manipulate the facts, then the whole movement can be made to look fringe at best.

I think that having candidates that are not perfect is what this country needs. Now not HUGE checkerboard squares here but normal things. The things EVERYONE has done at some point in their life. As long as the canadidates are open and honest and up front about things that happened in their past then there is nothing for the other side to dig up. Take away their fire power by shooting first.

We're concerned about child molestors, non-citizens, etc. The background check is only intended to ensure we don't have candidates with issues that would discredit the entire organization.

Personally, I am confident that the Candidate Selection Session will identify the best of the best, but you make some good points. We are collecting issues that we will ask all GOOOH members to vote on once we have critical mass in membership. We'll be sure to add this to the list: For what items should we check when performing background checks on our candidates?

Thanks for the input - keep it coming.

The background check as outlined by Eric I think is unreasonable. The average guy is the person who needs to retake the government. If whatever you did does not preclude you from running for office according to the law, then it should not preclude you from running. Why should I explain my personal shortcomings to you or anyone else?

Are we trying to elect Marry Poppins or some one of like mind who understands the human condition as it exists in America today. I have only had one wife for 15+ years, but am I going to discount someone who perhaps has had two or three? He could be like my brother or sister who have horrible choices in spouses and figure it out too late. What about the guy who starts his own business, his wife gets laid off from a major computer manufacturer because the CEO needs to buy two brand new jets and give herself a big fat multi-million dollar bonus and now they can't pay their bills because his business hasn't had time to grow and they have to file bankruptcy? I think I want that guy because he understands just how greedy big business can be. Better yet, he will remember that company when they come hat in hand to Washington looking for a government bailout. Maybe that individual has had some credit issues in the past trying to recover from the bankruptcy or because someone stole their identity and decided to take out a loan in their name, assuredly taken by a criminal and possibly an illegal. I want that person's stance on crime and illegals.

Isn't that the problem with Washington today? Politicians don't understand the travails of the common man, isn't that root of this party? I thought we were trying redress our grievances and close the disconnect between us and Washington. Some of the greatest minds in our politcal history were mavericks, grossly imperfect or even criminals at some level. Were not the founding fathers traitors to England? Now before this gets twisted out of context, like some are wont to do, I do not condone criminal behavior. I abhor politicians who engage in known illegal activities, like both Clinton's mysterious Chinese dishwasher donations and I will not tolerate it. However, we are missing some of that maverick mentality in Washington, we are missing the guy or gal who knows exactly what it is like to be at the mercy of the government. We need the person who has to worry every day whether or not he will have a job and be able to feed his family. We need someone who feels the weight of taxes and government regulations run amok. 

One of my close friends who has encouraged me for the last couple of years to run, has told me repeatedly that the country is ready for the candidate who will stand up and say, "yea I inhaled when I was young .. so what does that have to do with out of control government spending and taxation again?"

I have a felony record, its 18 years old and I took full responsibility for my actions. For the curious, I stole beer before I was of legal drinking age. Menace to society? Hide the women and children? Not likely. Soft on crime? Hell no. But it still has an unrealistic stigmatism. But we need every American to help restore the Republic, so is there a way to let everyone know their contribution is needed and appreciated even though they dont pass muster as a potential candidate? Im not a rocket scientist, but I figure that our candidates have to be extra squeaky clean simply because they will be held under a media microscope more than the "Distinguished Gentlemen" currently in office. Every citizen can have a background check done on themselves, at little cost, or a private detective service can be retained to assist in these matters. Besides if a person isnt honest with their past, chances are their morals are a little on the flexable side. Anyways the point Im trying to make is try not to make a person feel excluded just because they cant be chosen as a candidate because of mistakes they made in the past.

And now for the rest of my message to Eric, assuming I don't hit the wrong button and send the message prematurely for a second time...

I wanted to say that Eric's suggestions for background checks seem reasonable.  I don't know that I would be a candidate, but if I wanted to, I could pass those requirements with flying colors.  However, I'm by no means perfect.

I think the entire baby boomer era has a lot of stuff in the closet, somehow related to the atmosphere we were reared in (such as drugs and counter-culture).  I agree that a major difference between the average citizen and the current day politician lies in the availability of sufficient money to hide any mistakes or indiscretions.  I would hope that GOOOH would not resort to paying in order to erase anyone's history if they can pass Eric's muster.

Will the cost of the background checks be affordable to GOOOH based on their expected donations?  That's a lot of people to check on, and consideration also has to be given to how long it takes to have a check completed.  I don't know enough about the GOOOH selection process timelime yet to comment intelligently, but as a word of caution,  it took the United States government about eight months to complete my background check for a security clearance to access classified information when I was enlisted in the Navy.