Why the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) is not Republican (trashing of RLC)

[Matt Collins]

From John Stevens:

______________________________-
I stumbled across this article yesterday.

It was written by Brian A. Iannucci who is the newly elected Second Vice Chair of the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee.

Brian refers to the RLC in this article as "the trash of the Republican Party".

Brian recently sent me an e-mail.

Those wanting to reply or discuss this message please do so in the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida Discussion Forum:
http://www.meetup.com/RLCNF-org/messages/boards/forum/738993





Why the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) is not Republican
Posted by Brian A. Iannucci on Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:57:17 PM

Over the past few months there has been an increased amount of "noise" made by a group calling itself "The Republican Liberty Caucus." It seems that this group has grown tired of being members of the Libertarian Party so they are trying to take over the Republican Party. Using the Ron Paul candidacy this group is trying to leverage Paul’s measly three percent of the vote into a national voice. This well organized and well funded group of reactionary individuals has made it their goal to bring their fringe belief to the forefront and try to become the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Their strategy is simple; to take over from within. By starting at the precinct level, the RLC is trying to elect their people to precinct chairmanships. This leads to a takeover of the county chairmanships. Next, the RLC wants to change the state representatives and chairmanships and then take over the national party leadership. This ruthless tactic is occurring throughout the nation. Everyone should be aware that it is happening and should take note.

Since the debate should be about ideas here are the facts behind the differences between the RLC and real Republicans.

The first argument that the RLC will use is that the only difference between their beliefs and the GOP is that they feel that the war should end and we should withdraw our troops. Their foreign policy platform is more like the liberals in this nation and is nothing like the GOP stance on the issue. However, the idea that the foreign policy debate is the only part of this groups' beliefs that is not in line with the GOP is false. The Republican Liberty Caucus, per their website, has several issues that are not in line with the GOP platform.

First and foremost is the RLC’s isolationist position with regards to our national security. It is naive to believe that a pull back in the War on Terror will appease the Islamic Fascists. Our enemy in this war has been fighting the United States and western beliefs longer than the RLC is willing to acknowledge. From the bombings of US Embassies, the Khobar Towers, the Beirut barracks, the USS Cole, and many other offensive movements against our nation, not to mention 9/11, Islamic Fascists have made it clear they detest western ideals and they will continue to pursue offensive activities that will be a detriment to our nation. By burying our heads in the sand our nation will invite further attacks domestically. Such attacks will lead to a further constricting of liberty in this nation due to the fear of suicide bombings in this county. The more there is a terrorist threat in this nation the tighter the security will become at our airports, buildings, and schools. To pull out right now would embolden our enemies and show weakness.

Second, the RLC takes the Libertarian position on the legalization of drugs. This will bring about further social problems in this country by expanding addiction, easing access to illicit drugs, and allowing for the further deteriorization of the social fabric of this nation by endorsing use and abuse of drugs.

Finally, the lack of a litmus test for judicial nominees is a thinly veiled illusion to the current conflict over abortion and Roe v. Wade. Without vetting nominees to the bench we allow for the continued promotion of judicial activism which has brought about poor judicial decisions such as Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion, gay marriage in California and Massachusetts, and is a direct threat to second amendment rights.

These fundamental differences are in direct conflict with the current Republican platform. As I have discussed before, there are three legs to "The Republican Stool." Security, Social, and Economic Republican stances are necessary to be considered a member of our party. The RLC, and by extension, its members, are only Economic conservatives and are missing many of the core principles that our party requires. To have representatives of our party that are not in line with our platform would be detrimental to our future as a party. The beliefs that the RLC espouses are more in line with the Libertarian Party and those that are in line with these beliefs should consider membership in that organization as opposed to trying to bastardize the Republican Party.

The only course of action is to bring out these issues to the entire GOP at large and then to the media and those who will bring attention to it. These facts are crucial to the decision making process for the voters and should be the cornerstone of any campaign against the RLC movement. Letters to Editors, public meetings and debates, and an e-mail campaign are essential to the defeat of the RLC.

Don’t let this be the last time that the issue of the RLC is brought up. The critical time for action is now. The GOP must work to remove imposters from their ranks and remember that the GOP stands for true conservative values and not this half-hearted attempt at change. The RLC should not be allowed to run roughshod over the GOP. The time for being nice is over.

Let’s take out the trash.

http://brianiannucci.blogtownhall.com/

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Earlier today I sent Mr. Iannucci a response to his blog post:


I am a Republican

Mr. Iannucci,

I am deeply offended by some of your positions regarding the Republican Liberty Caucus. Let me state up front that yes, I am a member of the RLC, and I have been since last July.

First, you say that "this group has grown tired of being members of the Libertarian Party so they are trying to take over the Republican Party." I would like to note, for the record, that I have always been a Republican, and I'm sure you can find that in my voter registration records. I have never belonged to any other party. I have never considered it. Also, I do not wish to "take over" anything, but merely guide my party back to Constitutional values. I really don't care who is in charge, so long as they follow the Constitution.

I also did not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. However, I will point out that you cannot knock his minority as not being a national voice, because I'd remind you that Republican candidates who made it through the primary didn't do terribly well. I suppose the national voice is to have communism, because that is what Obama will bring us and Obama received the majority of votes. The national voice is to reject the Republican Party, because we lost big in the last two elections. The national voice is to reject the policies of the last eight years, even if they did vote to continue many of them.

You talk about this group being "well funded" but do not realize why. It is because the people believe in it. There are a lot of people out there willing to help. We are far from being rich (in fact, I had to skip a few meals over the last week because I was low on money), and we are not funded by special interests. This is no "fringe belief." If you poll the American people, regardless of party, and ask them how they feel, you will find they agree on the platform that the RLC believes in almost entirely. That is hardly "fringe." The mainstream rejected your socialist policies, so I would suggest instead that many of the people leading the Republican Party right now are instead clinging to "fringe beliefs."

The strategy for any political group which wishes to effect change within a system is to effect that change from the bottom up. So if the intent were to "take over," then that would simply be the correct strategy. It was likely how the current socialist structure took over the Republican Party. However, our goal as precinct committeemen and committeewomen has been to help the party grow and to help Republican voters who may have issues that they feel should be addressed. You forgot what it meant to be precinct committeemen and committeewomen. You have an obligation to your precinct, but you do not fulfil it. Instead, you believe it is simply a position of power, a seat to give you a vote with no other responsibilities attached. This is a seriously misguided idea. However, if someone comes in to actually perform these duties, it is such a shock to your system that you immediately question their motives. God forbid Republican precinct committeemen and committeewomen actually talk to the people of their precinct, learn their concerns, and try to convince more people to join the Republican Party. I suppose the Republican Executive Committee is nothing more than a fundraising tool, an overglorified exclusive club with no real purpose for serving the people? I would like to believe it's more than that.

You claim that the RLC's position on war is more like the liberals' than the GOP, but how is that possible? Obama is now in office. He kept the same Secretary of Defense, which means he agrees with the current strategy in Iraq. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan and even invade Pakistan. President Clinton involved us in a series of wars to "aid other countries." So it seems the liberals and GOP (thank you for not differentiating those views as conservative, simply party views) have the same ideas when it comes to war.

Nobody said that we should appease any group of terrorists (and you should appreciate the naivety of using terms like "Islamic Fascists"). The point has always been to defend ourselves if attacked, but not to invite attack by inserting ourselves into foreign affairs and foreign wars. Who armed the Taliban? We did. Who aided Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran, which he did with chemical weapons that he also used on his own people? We did. Then we wonder why Iran hates us and why Hussein was emboldened to attack other bordering nations? We gave him the go-ahead. Then we told him no, it was only okay to attack nations we allowed him to. We claimed this strategy was fine when we first got heavily involved in it during the Cold War, because the Soviets were using it. The Soviets were communists and imperialistic. Did we really want to follow in their footsteps?

You talk about such attacks leading to constricting of liberty in this nation. But where did the attacks come from? A group we aided and armed. Where did the constriction of liberties come from? A Republican president and Congress. If we seek to stop the attacks on our lives, then we should not get involved in matters that do not affect our nation's security, and should not aid foreign groups against each other. If we seek to stop the attacks on our liberties, then we should tell our politicians, even if it means standing against people within our own party, that using such excuses to tighten the noose on the American people and keep them in line is not right and it should be stopped.

Our "ideals" are detested because we try to spread them to other nations by use of force. And look how well they've done here. Our country is falling apart, and no outside force did this to us. We destroyed our own economy. We're destroying our own freedom. And we want to "export" this to other nations by invading them, destroying their government, and replacing it with our "idealistic" structure which is currently collapsing? If some other nation tried to enforce that on us, we'd reject them. We said it was wrong for the USSR to do it, why is it right for the USA to do it?

You talk about the drug issue and yet you miss so many points. First, alcohol was banned at one point for the same reasons. How did that work out? People had access to lower quality alcohol which was dangerous; there was a surge in crime (including violent crimes); and alcohol was still pretty much easily attainable. So really all they did was hurt society by attempting that. Right now we allow alcohol and tobacco. Both are drugs. Both alter your mind and affect your body and over time will poison and kill you. My lungs are damaged from second-hand smoke. I don't even smoke, but my lungs are forever damaged because of other people puffing on a legalized drug. My knees and left shoulder and badly damaged, and I have a ruptured disc in my back, because of two accidents involving drunk drivers, and I've been involved in five accidents where someone driving drunk rear-ended the automobile I was in. So don't preach about the "dangers" of pot or anything like that. The current legalized drugs have caused me a good deal of pain. They kill people every year. There were 12,998 alcohol-related fatalities in car accidents in 2007. Each year, approximately 440,000 people die from smoking in the United States alone. That's about 50 people per hour. Half a million! This is estimated to rise to ten millions deaths per year worldwide by 2020, according to the WHO. But those are legal. Well, if you're so very much against harmful drugs, let's ban alcohol and tobacco. If you'll agree to that, I suppose we can agree that other, less harmful, drugs should also continue to be banned. Let me make it clear to you that nobody is suggesting we legalize meth, or ecstasy, or even endorsing the use of any drugs, though I can't go a day without seeing a current legal endorsement for a drug (alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs which don't have any real positive effect and simply damage your body... which I've had the "pleasure" of experiencing a few of).

Your comments on a litmus test for judicial nominees are quite misguided. You don't want judicial activism, you say? But then, you actually do want it, so long as they do what you want them to. As for issues like gay marriage, that is an issue for the states to decide, and if they choose to do so, then they should be allowed to, as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it, but there is a clause stating that rights not determined by the Constitution may be determined by the individual states. And in case you missed the news, California put this issue to a vote of its people, and they rejected it, which means there is no gay marriage in California any more. More to the point, however, you are actually arguing against personal freedoms and liberty there, and your "moral" argument is basically something akin to, "My version of my religion tells me that it's immoral and wrong, therefore you must accept my religious views and not do that which your heart believes you should." Please remember that this is not a theocracy, and I would not have you press your morals on me or anyone else. I have quite a nice moral code as it is. I'd also remind you that the same argument was once used to against interracial marriages.

On the last point regarding the litmus test, "a direct threat to second amendment rights," I would recommend that you not try to state such an issue as a difference with the RLC. See, RLC members are quite adamant about their Second Amendment rights, and I'd wager that we are more so than anyone else. Now, granted, I am also unhappy with the blows that legislation within the last ten years have caused to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If you're not sure what I'm referring to, please go back and look over the legislation that has been passed, find a copy of the Bill of Rights, and think about it.

The beliefs that we in the RLC hold are in line with traditional Republican values and, more to the point, they are Constitutional. Do you really believe we should ignore that document whenever it isn't convenient?

The Republican Party is at its lowest point in decades. It is facing further setbacks. You are suggesting to people that they actively fight to remove from the party a very active part of it? You are going against party leadership and actually proposing that the party take the members of it who are most fired up and ready to do anything to help, and cast them out simply because their views are not socialist enough? You would add another crushing blow to the party, simply to "cleanse" it of anyone who inconveniently believes in personal freedoms and responsibilities, smaller government, security at home, defending America, helping Americans, and following the Constitution?

The GOP should remove imposters from its ranks, and should be for true conservative values. To that end, I request that you step down from any position you hold within the party, and no longer claim to be a Republican.

If you wish to start a public information campaign against the RLC, I will do you a favor and recommend right now that you not do it. I think we are well prepared to deal with any campaign. All we need to do is provide facts. You will seek to distort the truth and provide the media with disinformation. We will simply inform people regarding history, introduce them to decisions made within the party, state our positions, and remind people of the Constitution of this great nation. The majority of people are with us. We *are* the mainstream. We *are* the Republican Party, the true party. You bandy about the "Libertarian" label so much. Well, being a "diehard Republican" I suppose you are a fan of President Ronald Reagan. Let me provide you with some comments from Reagan on that subject:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

"REASON: Now that you’re in the minority party, how do you feel about other prospects for minor parties or third party activities?

REAGAN: Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind–the side we’re out to defeat wins. I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn’t vote, more than half of them now say they didn’t vote because they don’t see any difference between the parties. I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.

REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?

REAGAN: I’d like to see the Libertarian Party–I don’t say they should quit being a party–I’d like to see them, I’d like to see the conservatives, I’d like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I’m talking–I’d like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK we’re not saying to you give up what you’re doing, but, can’t we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what they’re doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)?"

So your policy is exactly the opposite of what Reagan would support, and you're trying to drive out the people that believe in what he refers to as "the very heart and soul of conservatism."

The leadership of the party has claimed they want to work with the "Ron Paul Republicans" and groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus. Were those just empty words to get support for election or reelection? I can certainly tell you how the public will feel if the party then tries to oust those people that it tried to court in order to get votes. And if you try to do this disinformation campaign to harm the RLC, then those facts will come out. The leadership's comments will be displayed for all the public to see, followed by actions within the party that go directly against those promises. You will destroy our party just so you can have the party remain closer to liberalism than true conservatism.

I hope you reconsider. But for the sake of my party, the Republican Party, and my country, and not for the sake of the RLC or anyone else, I will lead the way in defeating your disinformation campaign. And when that is over, I will help, along with all of the other people you seek to ostracize, in rebuilding the Grand Old Party.
--
Erik Setzer
Chairman of Marketing and Public Relations

Republican Liberty Caucus
http://www.rlcnf.org

[idiom]

The RLC should not be allowed to run roughshod over the GOP. The time for being nice is over.

Wow. RLC is that level of threat?

Run over em boys!

[bobbyw24]

We are lucky to have Erik as a leader in our local RLC

http://www.rlcnf.org

[Austin]

I support the legalization of meth and ecstasy.

That said, I endorse the use of neither.

[Elwar]

"First and foremost is the RLC’s isolationist position" = "I am ignorant"

[powerofreason]

I support the legalization of meth and ecstasy.

That said, I endorse the use of neither.

Ecstasy is a very useful drug, it has the power to save marriages. The next step after ending the War on Drugs is ending the stigma surrounding drug use.

[wizardwatson]

What the hell is the Republican Liberty Caucus?

Anyway, as far as trying to 'take over' the RNC or build a new party, many have said this tactic is doomed from the get-go. And I agree. Party politics should be something we do in the time spans when we can't think of any better ideas.

[speciallyblend]

Earlier today I sent Mr. Iannucci a response to his blog post:


I am a Republican

Mr. Iannucci,

I am deeply offended by some of your positions regarding the Republican Liberty Caucus. Let me state up front that yes, I am a member of the RLC, and I have been since last July.

First, you say that "this group has grown tired of being members of the Libertarian Party so they are trying to take over the Republican Party." I would like to note, for the record, that I have always been a Republican, and I'm sure you can find that in my voter registration records. I have never belonged to any other party. I have never considered it. Also, I do not wish to "take over" anything, but merely guide my party back to Constitutional values. I really don't care who is in charge, so long as they follow the Constitution.

I also did not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. However, I will point out that you cannot knock his minority as not being a national voice, because I'd remind you that Republican candidates who made it through the primary didn't do terribly well. I suppose the national voice is to have communism, because that is what Obama will bring us and Obama received the majority of votes. The national voice is to reject the Republican Party, because we lost big in the last two elections. The national voice is to reject the policies of the last eight years, even if they did vote to continue many of them.

You talk about this group being "well funded" but do not realize why. It is because the people believe in it. There are a lot of people out there willing to help. We are far from being rich (in fact, I had to skip a few meals over the last week because I was low on money), and we are not funded by special interests. This is no "fringe belief." If you poll the American people, regardless of party, and ask them how they feel, you will find they agree on the platform that the RLC believes in almost entirely. That is hardly "fringe." The mainstream rejected your socialist policies, so I would suggest instead that many of the people leading the Republican Party right now are instead clinging to "fringe beliefs."

The strategy for any political group which wishes to effect change within a system is to effect that change from the bottom up. So if the intent were to "take over," then that would simply be the correct strategy. It was likely how the current socialist structure took over the Republican Party. However, our goal as precinct committeemen and committeewomen has been to help the party grow and to help Republican voters who may have issues that they feel should be addressed. You forgot what it meant to be precinct committeemen and committeewomen. You have an obligation to your precinct, but you do not fulfil it. Instead, you believe it is simply a position of power, a seat to give you a vote with no other responsibilities attached. This is a seriously misguided idea. However, if someone comes in to actually perform these duties, it is such a shock to your system that you immediately question their motives. God forbid Republican precinct committeemen and committeewomen actually talk to the people of their precinct, learn their concerns, and try to convince more people to join the Republican Party. I suppose the Republican Executive Committee is nothing more than a fundraising tool, an overglorified exclusive club with no real purpose for serving the people? I would like to believe it's more than that.

You claim that the RLC's position on war is more like the liberals' than the GOP, but how is that possible? Obama is now in office. He kept the same Secretary of Defense, which means he agrees with the current strategy in Iraq. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan and even invade Pakistan. President Clinton involved us in a series of wars to "aid other countries." So it seems the liberals and GOP (thank you for not differentiating those views as conservative, simply party views) have the same ideas when it comes to war.

Nobody said that we should appease any group of terrorists (and you should appreciate the naivety of using terms like "Islamic Fascists"). The point has always been to defend ourselves if attacked, but not to invite attack by inserting ourselves into foreign affairs and foreign wars. Who armed the Taliban? We did. Who aided Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran, which he did with chemical weapons that he also used on his own people? We did. Then we wonder why Iran hates us and why Hussein was emboldened to attack other bordering nations? We gave him the go-ahead. Then we told him no, it was only okay to attack nations we allowed him to. We claimed this strategy was fine when we first got heavily involved in it during the Cold War, because the Soviets were using it. The Soviets were communists and imperialistic. Did we really want to follow in their footsteps?

You talk about such attacks leading to constricting of liberty in this nation. But where did the attacks come from? A group we aided and armed. Where did the constriction of liberties come from? A Republican president and Congress. If we seek to stop the attacks on our lives, then we should not get involved in matters that do not affect our nation's security, and should not aid foreign groups against each other. If we seek to stop the attacks on our liberties, then we should tell our politicians, even if it means standing against people within our own party, that using such excuses to tighten the noose on the American people and keep them in line is not right and it should be stopped.

Our "ideals" are detested because we try to spread them to other nations by use of force. And look how well they've done here. Our country is falling apart, and no outside force did this to us. We destroyed our own economy. We're destroying our own freedom. And we want to "export" this to other nations by invading them, destroying their government, and replacing it with our "idealistic" structure which is currently collapsing? If some other nation tried to enforce that on us, we'd reject them. We said it was wrong for the USSR to do it, why is it right for the USA to do it?

You talk about the drug issue and yet you miss so many points. First, alcohol was banned at one point for the same reasons. How did that work out? People had access to lower quality alcohol which was dangerous; there was a surge in crime (including violent crimes); and alcohol was still pretty much easily attainable. So really all they did was hurt society by attempting that. Right now we allow alcohol and tobacco. Both are drugs. Both alter your mind and affect your body and over time will poison and kill you. My lungs are damaged from second-hand smoke. I don't even smoke, but my lungs are forever damaged because of other people puffing on a legalized drug. My knees and left shoulder and badly damaged, and I have a ruptured disc in my back, because of two accidents involving drunk drivers, and I've been involved in five accidents where someone driving drunk rear-ended the automobile I was in. So don't preach about the "dangers" of pot or anything like that. The current legalized drugs have caused me a good deal of pain. They kill people every year. There were 12,998 alcohol-related fatalities in car accidents in 2007. Each year, approximately 440,000 people die from smoking in the United States alone. That's about 50 people per hour. Half a million! This is estimated to rise to ten millions deaths per year worldwide by 2020, according to the WHO. But those are legal. Well, if you're so very much against harmful drugs, let's ban alcohol and tobacco. If you'll agree to that, I suppose we can agree that other, less harmful, drugs should also continue to be banned. Let me make it clear to you that nobody is suggesting we legalize meth, or ecstasy, or even endorsing the use of any drugs, though I can't go a day without seeing a current legal endorsement for a drug (alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs which don't have any real positive effect and simply damage your body... which I've had the "pleasure" of experiencing a few of).

Your comments on a litmus test for judicial nominees are quite misguided. You don't want judicial activism, you say? But then, you actually do want it, so long as they do what you want them to. As for issues like gay marriage, that is an issue for the states to decide, and if they choose to do so, then they should be allowed to, as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it, but there is a clause stating that rights not determined by the Constitution may be determined by the individual states. And in case you missed the news, California put this issue to a vote of its people, and they rejected it, which means there is no gay marriage in California any more. More to the point, however, you are actually arguing against personal freedoms and liberty there, and your "moral" argument is basically something akin to, "My version of my religion tells me that it's immoral and wrong, therefore you must accept my religious views and not do that which your heart believes you should." Please remember that this is not a theocracy, and I would not have you press your morals on me or anyone else. I have quite a nice moral code as it is. I'd also remind you that the same argument was once used to against interracial marriages.

On the last point regarding the litmus test, "a direct threat to second amendment rights," I would recommend that you not try to state such an issue as a difference with the RLC. See, RLC members are quite adamant about their Second Amendment rights, and I'd wager that we are more so than anyone else. Now, granted, I am also unhappy with the blows that legislation within the last ten years have caused to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If you're not sure what I'm referring to, please go back and look over the legislation that has been passed, find a copy of the Bill of Rights, and think about it.

The beliefs that we in the RLC hold are in line with traditional Republican values and, more to the point, they are Constitutional. Do you really believe we should ignore that document whenever it isn't convenient?

The Republican Party is at its lowest point in decades. It is facing further setbacks. You are suggesting to people that they actively fight to remove from the party a very active part of it? You are going against party leadership and actually proposing that the party take the members of it who are most fired up and ready to do anything to help, and cast them out simply because their views are not socialist enough? You would add another crushing blow to the party, simply to "cleanse" it of anyone who inconveniently believes in personal freedoms and responsibilities, smaller government, security at home, defending America, helping Americans, and following the Constitution?

The GOP should remove imposters from its ranks, and should be for true conservative values. To that end, I request that you step down from any position you hold within the party, and no longer claim to be a Republican.

If you wish to start a public information campaign against the RLC, I will do you a favor and recommend right now that you not do it. I think we are well prepared to deal with any campaign. All we need to do is provide facts. You will seek to distort the truth and provide the media with disinformation. We will simply inform people regarding history, introduce them to decisions made within the party, state our positions, and remind people of the Constitution of this great nation. The majority of people are with us. We *are* the mainstream. We *are* the Republican Party, the true party. You bandy about the "Libertarian" label so much. Well, being a "diehard Republican" I suppose you are a fan of President Ronald Reagan. Let me provide you with some comments from Reagan on that subject:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

"REASON: Now that you’re in the minority party, how do you feel about other prospects for minor parties or third party activities?

REAGAN: Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind–the side we’re out to defeat wins. I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn’t vote, more than half of them now say they didn’t vote because they don’t see any difference between the parties. I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.

REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?

REAGAN: I’d like to see the Libertarian Party–I don’t say they should quit being a party–I’d like to see them, I’d like to see the conservatives, I’d like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I’m talking–I’d like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK we’re not saying to you give up what you’re doing, but, can’t we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what they’re doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)?"

So your policy is exactly the opposite of what Reagan would support, and you're trying to drive out the people that believe in what he refers to as "the very heart and soul of conservatism."

The leadership of the party has claimed they want to work with the "Ron Paul Republicans" and groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus. Were those just empty words to get support for election or reelection? I can certainly tell you how the public will feel if the party then tries to oust those people that it tried to court in order to get votes. And if you try to do this disinformation campaign to harm the RLC, then those facts will come out. The leadership's comments will be displayed for all the public to see, followed by actions within the party that go directly against those promises. You will destroy our party just so you can have the party remain closer to liberalism than true conservatism.

I hope you reconsider. But for the sake of my party, the Republican Party, and my country, and not for the sake of the RLC or anyone else, I will lead the way in defeating your disinformation campaign. And when that is over, I will help, along with all of the other people you seek to ostracize, in rebuilding the Grand Old Party.
--
Erik Setzer
Chairman of Marketing and Public Relations

Republican Liberty Caucus
http://www.rlcnf.org

Nice Response, now if we could get a form letter of this to send to all the corrupt gop leaders in the state and local levels!!!

[constituent]

Ecstasy is a very useful drug, it has the power to save marriages. The next step after ending the War on Drugs is ending the stigma surrounding drug use.

(good to see you)

imo, the stigma will have to be ended first.

[speciallyblend]

ecstasy is a very useful drug for doctors and individuals if not abused. The problem with ecstasy is the unregulated black market ,not the drug!!


most harm from illegal drugs is not the drug itself but the quality of the drug that the black market sells ,just like in alcohol prohibition when folks went blind from bathtub gin!!


you want to stop bad drugs and it's effects. Then you do the samething to end the crime and bad product ,by regulating the drugs just like alcohol was when the prohibition was ended!!

do you see dealers on the corners selling a 40oz/beer to kids/adults? nope because the market is regulated and there is no profit margin for the criminial element to sell alcohol!!

COMMON SENSE, you want to end bad drugs and bad laws and bad criminial gangs then END THE DRUG WAR aka PROHIBITION!!!

[powerofreason]

(good to see you)

imo, the stigma will have to be ended first.

Maybe. It seems like whenever somebody publicly talks about drug legalization, that person has to preface his/her statement with "well I don't use such and such drug" or "I don't endorse drug use, but legalization will reduce crime, save public money, etc, etc."

No one seems to publicly endorse drug legalization because drugs can really, really help people, which is the truth. Not only will hard drugs need to be legalized, but prescriptions will need to be done away with. That's whats most important to me personally. I shouldn't have to pay to see a doctor to get the medications I need to live a comfortable life. And then pay outrageous premiums because foreign medications are banned and the government grants patents (monopolies) for years and years raising prices significantly.

Back to the OP, its good to see that the RLC is causing some real fear among the red state fascists. I tend to shy away from politics, just because I find the whole business so utterly abhorrent but its still good to see inroads being made. Maybe there is hope that the Republican Party can be returned to its roots. I'm still pretty skeptical.

[mczerone]

Well, now that the "time for being nice" is over, we shouldn't expect the welcoming arms of the GOP that we received at the debates, or at the state conventions, or at the nominating convention.

This tool is foolishly myopic. The RLC is well funded and organized?

I think that the neo-cons don't like seeing their own tactics (taking over a party) being used against them.

[Peace&Freedom]

Some of us in NY are very disappointed in the RLC because even though Ron Paul help found the group, RLC did not endorse Paul early on in the primaries (which would have given him momentum much earlier in the race). Apparently the RLC requires all its state committees agree on a Presidential endorsement before the national organization does so. RLC NY held out, because it disliked Paul's views on the war and foreign aid (some of their members actually wanted Giuliani to win the nomination). Are there mainstream moles within the group that only want a 'libertarian' GOP group around to steer libertarians to whichever anointed candidate the party leadership wants?

[JS4Pat]

Some of us in NY are very disappointed in the RLC because even though Ron Paul help found the group, RLC did not endorse Paul early on in the primaries (which would have given him momentum much earlier in the race). Apparently the RLC requires all its state committees agree on a Presidential endorsement before the national organization does so. RLC NY held out, because it disliked Paul's views on the war and foreign aid (some of their members actually wanted Giuliani to win the nomination). Are there mainstream moles within the group that only want a 'libertarian' GOP group around to steer libertarians to whichever anointed candidate the party leadership wants?

Bothered me as well.
We are working on that issue... ;)

[nobody's_hero]

Some of us in NY are very disappointed in the RLC because even though Ron Paul help found the group, RLC did not endorse Paul early on in the primaries (which would have given him momentum much earlier in the race). Apparently the RLC requires all its state committees agree on a Presidential endorsement before the national organization does so. RLC NY held out, because it disliked Paul's views on the war and foreign aid (some of their members actually wanted Giuliani to win the nomination). Are there mainstream moles within the group that only want a 'libertarian' GOP group around to steer libertarians to whichever anointed candidate the party leadership wants?

The RLC also eventually endorsed Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia run-off. I suppose that out of the two, Chambliss was marginally better than Jim Martin, but nonetheless, he was another bad case of the 'lesser of two evils.'

Any encouragement for Georgia republicans to do the truly principled thing and just leave Chambliss's vote-count hanging in the wind on Dec. 2nd would have been the most-admirable approach.

I hope the RLC can encourage a challenger for Johnny Isakson's seat in 2010. That would make me very happy. ;)

[JS4Pat]

The RLC also eventually endorsed Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia run-off. I suppose that out of the two, Chambliss was marginally better than Jim Martin, but nonetheless, he was another bad case of the 'lesser of two evils.'

Any encouragement for Georgia republicans to do the truly principled thing and just leave Chambliss's vote-count hanging in the wind on Dec. 2nd would have been the most-admirable approach.

I agree - another move that bothered me.

We have to start somewhere though. I'm learning to take some of that type of stuff in stride. I can disagree with moves like this as an individual RLC member in hopes that the RLC will eventually move my way.

And then in time - maybe the GOP moves my way.

[Matt Collins]

Ecstasy is a very useful drug, it has the power to save marriages. How so?!?! :confused:

[Matt Collins]

What the hell is the Republican Liberty Caucus?RP is a member of it - http://www.rlc.org/

Essentially it's a group of libertarians (or people at least claiming to be) that are dedicated to working within the GOP.

[powerofreason]

How so?!?! :confused:

Its an aphrodisiac. It strengthens feelings of love and caring towards others. It used to be prescribed a lot to couples with failing marriages, but was stopped because its such a popular recreational drug and so prone to so-called "abuse." Apparently feeling good about yourself and others is a bad thing.

[Matt Collins]

Its an aphrodisiac. It strengthens feelings of love and caring towards others. It used to be prescribed a lot to couples with failing marriages, but was stopped because its such a popular recreational drug and so prone to so-called "abuse." Apparently feeling good about yourself and others is a bad thing.
Interesting concept; I had not considered that before. But don't you think that those emotions would be fake?

[powerofreason]

Interesting concept; I had not considered that before. But don't you think that those emotions would be fake?

Well, they would certainly feel real. Its the cure for a loveless marriage, just like antibiotics are the cure for certain illnesses.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma.shtml