You can't really have it both ways. If you claim to have a party with no leaders and no organization, it stands to reason that it is up to each individual - inside and outside the organization - to interpret the nature of the party for themselves. You have your view, I have my view, neither of them are right or wrong, because there is no authority on the subject. Having no leaders and no organization means that anyone who wants to "join" can join. You may not consider them legitimate members, but by your own non-definition of the party, they are just as legitimate as you, no matter what their views. barfo
Blue Grass Death Metal w/o violins - [video=youtube;jndpIJmhvYM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jndpIJmhvYM[/video]
Except the members use a number of collaborative sites like this to self-organize, and they're drawn to these sites by a common interest that has little to do with your fevered imagination.
And all of those things I agree would be great, but we can't do it. By design, we're a leaderless movement. We have people who will organize meetings, but other than that we're expected to lead ourselves and act as individuals.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/O...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul These prospective election ballots -- measured Aug. 17-18, well over a year before the Nov. 6, 2012, election -- indicate that the race for president at this point is generally competitive, with voters fairly evenly divided in their preference for giving Obama a second term or electing a Republican candidate. Even though the four Republican candidates tested have varying degrees of name recognition, they all fare roughly the same. Gallup's generic presidential ballot -- measured six times this year -- shows a close race between Obama and a generic "Republican presidential candidate," although there have been survey-to-survey variations on this measure, with the Republican candidate leading in June and July. President Obama's job approval rating is hovering around the 40% mark. This is below the rating that any of the six incumbent presidents re-elected since Eisenhower has had at the time of the presidential election. However, in August of the year before they were re-elected, Ronald Reagan (43%) and Bill Clinton (46%) were both below 50%. Obama's position of rough parity against leading GOP candidates shows that more Americans at the moment say they would vote for Obama than approve of the job he is doing -- perhaps a reflection of the continuing lack of a strong front-runner on the Republican side. With the first official votes for the Republican nomination more than five months away, and with the very real possibility that GOP candidates such as Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and George Pataki may jump into the race, much could still change as the election process unfolds. A look at presidential election trial heats conducted in the late summer of the year before previous elections reveals that such change is quite common: In August 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush led Vice President Al Gore by 55% to 41% in a Gallup trial heat poll. That race ended up in a virtual dead heat, with Gore ultimately winning slightly more of the national popular vote than Bush. In August 1995, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole was slightly ahead of President Bill Clinton in a Gallup poll, 48% to 46%. On Election Day 1996, Clinton beat Dole by eight points. In August 1983, President Ronald Reagan was ahead of Democrat Walter Mondale by only one point, 44% to 43%. Reagan went on to beat Mondale in a 59% to 41% landslide in the November 1984 election. In August 1979, incumbent President Jimmy Carter was tied with former California Gov. Reagan -- each getting 45% of the vote. Reagan ultimately defeated Carter by 10 points.
