Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[libertskee]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-cruz-would-bring-conservative-muscle-to-senate/article/2503393

Despite some of his questionable votes, I'm starting to think that a Flake victory would be very helpful to our movement. Flake is far from perfect, but it seems like he will consistently vote with the Rand block if elected. Also, Flake's opponent Wil Cardon does not seem friendly to Liberty in any way, shape, or form.

I'm starting to understand why the Liberty For All PAC is helping him out with that massive ad buy. We could potentially have a friendly ally in the senate for the next 20-30 years.

Thoughts?

[specsaregood]

Thoughts?

The optimistic part of me hopes that a guaranteed 6yr term can serve as a freeing opportunity for a politician that wants to do the right thing but is afraid of a 2 year campaign cycle. Of course the pessimistic me says that usually ends up in the complete opposite effect.

[LibertyEagle]

I dunno. But, it's their money to spend as they choose. Personally, I would have helped someone like Kurt Bills.

[tbone717]

He is getting some strong support from the larger Liberty Movement for precisely the reasons stated in the OP. He should be a strong ally for many years to come.

As far as Bills, he is a good guy, but it will take boatloads of cash for him to even be remotely competitive. In terms of ROI, Flake is a much better investment.

[libertskee]

He is getting some strong support from the larger Liberty Movement for precisely the reasons stated in the OP. He should be a strong ally for many years to come.

As far as Bills, he is a good guy, but it will take boatloads of cash for him to even be remotely competitive. In terms of ROI, Flake is a much better investment.

Kurt Bills is an awesome candidate and I love the guy. But unfortunately, from what I hear, he would need millions upon millions in help to have a shot in that race.

[tbone717]

Kurt Bills is an awesome candidate and I love the guy. But unfortunately, from what I hear, he would need millions upon millions in help to have a shot in that race.

Right, for one you are talking general election versus a primary. Political ad buys are very calculated just as ad buys in business are. With the right data you can have a pretty good estimate at how many votes your money will buy. 325K (or whatever the amount was) may buy a huge amount of votes in an AZ Primary, where the same amount spent in the general in MN way not put a dent in the deficit that Bills faces.

[Acala]

Flake has made some dissapointing moves. But he is so much better than the senator he would be replacing that it would be a huge relief.

[libertskee]

Also, Im thinking that since Flake is receiving all this help from a "libertarian leaning" PAC, won't that make him more likely to support our issues? It will be cool when candidates realize that supporting the libertarian/constitutional conservative cause will actually HELP them get elected and reelected if they stay true.

[JorgeStevenson]

Flake is underrated - was disappointed when he endorsed Mitt and not Ron. He was on Washington Journal on CSPAN earlier this Spring and it sounded like he has major disagreements with Ron with regards to National Security. He would also disagree on earmarks (he's been a leader in trying to rid congress of earmarks). But he's been a good fiscal conservative as far as I can tell.

If you remember, in one of the debates, Santorum brought up how he was some kind of stalwart fiscal conservative, averaging an "A" rating from the National Taxpayers Union. The head of the NTU wrote an article later that week debunking Santorum's claim: http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/ntu-rates-congress-and.html



While I've spent most of this post talking about Rick Santorum, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Ron Paul, with whom Santorum had the debate exchange. On our Congressional Rating, Ron Paul is almost without peer. His lifetime average is over 90%, he has snagged the top spot four times, ranked 2nd overall seven times and has never ranked lower than 10th overall in the House. In other words, in his "worst" year on our Rating, he still had a more fiscally conservative voting record than 425 out of 435 Representatives. I haven't done any in-depth analysis on this question, but the only Members I can think of that could claim to equal his performance would be Jeff Flake (92.4% lifetime average, 1st overall eight years in a row, never lower than 2nd overall) and Jim Sensenbrenner (85.9% lifetime average, 1st overall twice, 2nd overall four times, never lower than 13th overall).

The only issues I can think of on which Ron Paul might have harmed (obviously only by a very small amount) his Rating would be free trade agreements (which he generally votes against and NTU supports) and the myriad earmark elimination amendments that Jeff Flake carried from 2006-2009 (which NTU supported and he generally voted against). But on the whole, his record is exemplary.

[Lucille]

Voting YAY! on the NDAA is unforgivable. I'll be voting for Victor (http://www.victorforsenate.com/).

[tbone717]

Flake is underrated - was disappointed when he endorsed Mitt and not Ron.

I don't fault guys for their 2012 endorsements. When you look at the endorsements from elected officials, really very few endorsed anyone but Romney.

Paul got 4 (including his son), Santorum 6 (but 3 were from PA) and Newt got 14 (6 of them from GA).

[tsai3904]

Some of Flake's good votes:

Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml) No Child Left Behind (34 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll110.xml) Sarbanes-Oxley (only R besides Ron to vote no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml) creating Dept of Homeland Security (10 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml) Medicare Part D (19 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml) making online poker illegal (17 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll018.xml) raising minimum wage
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll042.xml) Bush's stimulus (28 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll683.xml) extending unemployment insurance (28 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll474.xml) funding Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan (12 Rs voted no)
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml) repeal of DADT (15 Rs voted yes)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll224.xml) reauthorizing Export-Import Bank

Some of Flake's bad votes:

For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml) PATRIOT Act
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml) creating TSA
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) Iraq War
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml) Smith-Amash amendment

[sailingaway]

he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

[libertskee]

Voting YAY! on the NDAA is unforgivable. I'll be voting for Victor (http://www.victorforsenate.com/).

I know that its hard to get over, but I really think Rand will talk some sense into him. Flake was principled on economic issues like spending and taxes under the Bush administration. Very, very few conservatives can say that.

[qh4dotcom]

Flake is covering up for Obama's crimes including Fast & Furious and Obama's ineligibility. Like all of Congress, he's going to let Obama get away with his crimes....he's not getting a penny from me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZNHNXq1_u4

[LibertyEagle]

He is getting some strong support from the larger Liberty Movement for precisely the reasons stated in the OP. He should be a strong ally for many years to come.

As far as Bills, he is a good guy, but it will take boatloads of cash for him to even be remotely competitive. In terms of ROI, Flake is a much better investment.

If Flake supports NDAA and the Patriot Act, he is a traitorous POS. Therefore, a horrible investment.

Way back as I recall, he used to be half-way decent, but apparently, he wet his diapers after 9-11.

[qh4dotcom]

If Flake supports NDAA and the Patriot Act, he is a POS. Therefore, a horrible investment.

Correction

Since Flake supports NDAA and the Patriot Act, he is a POS. Therefore, a horrible investment.

[tbone717]

If Flake supports NDAA and the Patriot Act, he is a traitorous POS. Therefore, a horrible investment.

And you are of course entitled to your opinion. Like I said though, he is getting some decent support from folks who support many of the same candidates others here do like Bills, Cruz, Massie, Amash, et al.

The point being there is a lot of liberty-minded political activism going on that doesn't center here at RPF or DP. The folks here are just one small segment of a much larger movement, so people should not be surprised when there are candidates like Flake that get support from groups that will also support Cruz, Massie, etc.

[libertskee]

he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

He may not be a strict Liberty Candidate in the tradition of RP. But he will vote with the Rand, DeMint, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz faction as described in that article. I don't think of Jim DeMint as a Liberty candidate, but he is still so far and away better than the majority of Congress. We need to take advantage of the opportunities that arise.

[heavenlyboy34]

I know that its hard to get over, but I really think Rand will talk some sense into him. Flake was principled on economic issues like spending and taxes under the Bush administration. Very, very few conservatives can say that.
As I understand it, "senior" senators generally don't pay attention to "junior" senators like Rand.

[sailingaway]

I know that its hard to get over, but I really think Rand will talk some sense into him. Flake was principled on economic issues like spending and taxes under the Bush administration. Very, very few conservatives can say that.

fiscally conservative isn't a liberty candidate in itself, and I see nothing else to recommend him.

It is each person's own decision, but I think where we NEED funding is where the arbitrary left/right paradigm misses, where you have candidates that are BOTH fiscally conservative AND oppose the police state, for example, giving them no 'lobbiest base'. Those people are speaking for me, at least. Not those wholly on the partisan right or the partisan left.

If we spend our resources on run of the mill Club for Growth candidates, we will lose the ability to get actual liberty candidates elected. And candidates will have little incentive to BE actual liberty candidates.

[libertskee]

fiscally conservative isn't a liberty candidate in itself, and I see nothing else to recommend him.

It is each person's own decision, but I think where we NEED funding is where the arbitrary left/right paradigm misses, where you have candidates that are BOTH fiscally conservative AND oppose the police state, for example, giving them no 'lobbiest base'. Those people are speaking for me, at least. Not those wholly on the partisan right or the partisan left.

I agree with your sentiment. The only argument I am trying to make on this thread is that electing Flake will HELP our movement, even if it is only on the economic side. I really hope that Rand can talk some sense into him about Civil Liberties.

[sailingaway]

I agree with your sentiment. The only argument I am trying to make on this thread is that electing Flake will HELP our movement, even if it is only on the economic side. I really hope that Rand can talk some sense into him about Civil Liberties.
I wouldn't spend money on him, though. I'd save that for people who follow the constitution.

[talkingpointes]

Apparently we have a entire bloc of Paul people now ready to concede to anyone voting mildly for liberty. What a god damn joke. Call me a purist but liberty takes time, and will take a lot more when your willing to get three steps forward only to take four steps back when you give these people the power. FLAKE IS HAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A PAWN.

“This election will be an important moment in our nation’s history,” said Congressman Flake. “The next president will be charged with reversing the failed policies of the last three years and making sure the future is as bright for our children as it was for the generations before them. Mitt Romney has the experience and vision to get our country on the right path again. Whether it was his time as governor or as a successful businessman, Mitt Romney has shown that he has the economic knowledge to create the environment for businesses to start hiring again.”

Yeah.... Wooo. Wait, WUT.

[Keith and stuff]

Flake seems better than DeMitt from the years I've watched him. Neither is pro-liberty but both are/would be in the top 10 least bad US Senators category.

I have never given to either and I don't plan on starting now. I wish them both and Bills a lot of luck. I'd love to have Flake and Bills be US Senators as they would stand out as beacons of liberty (deserved or not) compared to the current US Senators.

As for the Liberty For All PAC, good decisions tend to be the norm for it. Liberty For All rocks!

[sailingaway]

Flake seems better than DeMitt from the years I've watched him. Neither is pro-liberty but both are/would be in the top 10 least bad US Senators category.

I have never given to either and I don't plan on starting now. I wish them both and Bills a lot of luck. I'd love to have Flake and Bills be US Senators as they would stand out as beacons of liberty (deserved or not) compared to the current US Senators.

As for the Liberty For All PAC, good decisions tend to be the norm for it. Liberty For All rocks!

De Mint voted AGAINST NDAA, as I recall.

And no, I am not saying that makes him a liberty candidate. However, I do respect him, given our differences.

[talkingpointes]

Jeff Flake "Senator Jon Kyl has given all of the eventual candidates in this race an excellent model of how to best serve Arizona and the country. He's set the bar extremely high, and I'll do my best to meet that standard."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jeff_flake.html#Bjd8WME8xlz09h3v.99

[specsaregood]

Apparently we have a entire bloc of Paul people now ready to concede to anyone voting mildly for liberty. What a god damn joke. Call me a purist but liberty takes time, and will take a lot more when your willing to get three steps forward only to take four steps back when you give these people the power. FLAKE IS HAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A PAWN.

“This election will be an important moment in our nation’s history,” said Congressman Flake. “The next president will be charged with reversing the failed policies of the last three years and making sure the future is as bright for our children as it was for the generations before them. Mitt Romney has the experience and vision to get our country on the right path again. Whether it was his time as governor or as a successful businessman, Mitt Romney has shown that he has the economic knowledge to create the environment for businesses to start hiring again.”

Yeah.... Wooo. Wait, WUT.

The day that the majority of Senators are no worse than Flake will be a great day.

[libertskee]

So its looking like Flake will vote with the the Rand/DeMint faction. I believe that they will be able to show Flake the light when it comes to these civil liberties issues. At least thats what I hope...lol

[tbone717]

Jeff Flake "Senator Jon Kyl has given all of the eventual candidates in this race an excellent model of how to best serve Arizona and the country. He's set the bar extremely high, and I'll do my best to meet that standard."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jeff_flake.html#Bjd8WME8xlz09h3v.99

Would you prefer that he called Kyl a piece of shit? If so then I am sure there is some obscure minor party candidate out there for you. Politics is a lot like the business world, you get a lot further and get a lot more accomplished being cordial to others than you do burning bridges.

[tbone717]

So its looking like Flake will vote with the the Rand/DeMint faction. I believe that they will be able to show Flake the light when it comes to these civil liberties issues. At least thats what I hope...lol

Of course, allies can have influence over one another. That's the nature of building coalitions in politics. When you have lunch together, run in the same circles, attend the same think tank meetings you build a relationship that can work towards influencing one another when it comes to those big votes.

[tbone717]

why do people keep trotting this a**hole out before us? he has been found lacking

Maybe because we think as individuals and not everyone feels that there is a 10 point checklist that every candidate has to pass with flying colors before being worthy of support. Of course, the more folks here denigrate those who differ in opinions, the less and less folks you will have here to exchange ideas. Eventually, if you choose to go in that direction, you may end up with a nice little group that agrees on everything all the time.

[sailingaway]

So its looking like Flake will vote with the the Rand/DeMint faction. I believe that they will be able to show Flake the light when it comes to these civil liberties issues. At least thats what I hope...lol

how is it 'looking like that'?

I bet none of them voted for NDAA. That makes him NOT voting 'with' them.

If you mean he will vote fiscally conservatively, that is nice, but it is only one area.

Some progressives voted 'with' them on NDAA, and it doesn't make them liberty candidates either, just good on that one issue.

[pcosmar]

Apparently we have a entire bloc of Paul people now ready to concede to anyone voting mildly for liberty giving lip service.

fify

It was principles that sold me on Ron Paul.
It is Principle that I will vote. not pandering,, nor some alleged strategic plan.
Principle

[talkingpointes]

fify

It was principles that sold me on Ron Paul.
It is Principle that I will vote. not pandering,, nor some alleged strategic plan.
Principle

You mean getting a chance to have suckle at the teet of power doesn't excite you enough to give up your beliefs? Surely you jest....

[tbone717]

fify

It was principles that sold me on Ron Paul.
It is Principle that I will vote. not pandering,, nor some alleged strategic plan.
Principle

And you have every right to choose how you act. But on the same token people should not bash those that see things otherwise. There are those that will sit around waiting for the next Ron Paul before they open their wallets up, and then there are those that are looking to build a coalition of like minded elected officials who agree on the vast majority of issues and positions.

[pcosmar]

You mean getting a chance to have suckle at the teet of power doesn't excite you enough to give up your beliefs? Surely you jest....

not the tits that interest me. sorry.
;)

[talkingpointes]

He'll have you indefinitely put in prison without a trial or lawyer - but not allow for earmarks. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. You guys should of stopped at Rand and made a stand. No principles, no vote, end of story. Hitler ended the central bank, but might of made some other mistakes - would you apologize for him. Same for Jackson.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Flake will be very helpful in many areas..definitely one of the better one's running. A mixed record on civil liberties to be sure.

[phx420]

Flake is exemplary of the ron paul effect on the republican party and we will see more candidates like him... you win the battle on fiscal responsibility.. but haven't accomplished a worth of shit on civil liberties

[sailingaway]

Flake will be very helpful in many areas..definitely one of the better one's running. A mixed record on civil liberties to be sure.

Mixed? Has he ever done anything good on civil liberties?

I disagree about him being one of the best.

Please spell out to me an acceptable rationale for voting FOR imposing indefinite detention on American citizens without trial?

[LibertyEagle]

And you are of course entitled to your opinion. Like I said though, he is getting some decent support from folks who support many of the same candidates others here do like Bills, Cruz, Massie, Amash, et al.



And that is fine, Tbone. I wish him well. But, the fact is that we have other candidates who do fit the bill and with our limited resources, it makes sense for us to support THEM. If you want to support Flake, power to you. I'd rather he win than his competition, but that's all I can say.


The point being there is a lot of liberty-minded political activism going on that doesn't center here at RPF or DP. The folks here are just one small segment of a much larger movement, so people should not be surprised when there are candidates like Flake that get support from groups that will also support Cruz, Massie, etc.
Sorry, but you cannot co-opt what we believe, tbone, just by using the term "liberty-minded".

We can work together with others and most of us will, but that does not change what we stand for. I can only speak for myself, but any money I donate will not go to anyone who supports NDAA, the Patriot Act, or a foreign policy of interventionism.

[juleswin]

The problem is that we have been spoiled by Ron Paul. The truth is that there would probably never be any representative like Ron in our life time. But that is no excuse to fall for unprincipled men like Flake. You say he is a fiscal conservative right? lets see how hard he fights to prevent 1c cut from the defense budget or cut in aid for Israel. These people are still playing games and if they continue with these games more Americans would be kept asleep from the realities of Washington.

I am willing to make compromises, to meet politicians half way but I also have a line I will not cross and fighting new wars be it Syria, Iran or Kony, balanced budget plan and NDAA is just the 3 that I will never cross. Maybe hes not to keen on ending the fed(am sure Flake has no idea what it is), that's ok as long as he wants to balance the budget soon

forgot to add the most beautiful and awe inspiring Ron Paul video ever


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXNfk4MMlI

[Brett85]

I would certainly vote for Flake over his opponent if I lived in Arizona, but like others have mentioned, there's enough problems with his voting record that I wouldn't actually donate money to him. I'm usually pretty picky in who I donate money to.

[AJ Antimony]

Voting YAY! on the NDAA is unforgivable. I'll be voting for Victor (http://www.victorforsenate.com/).

Oooook. Well, the rest of us are busy trying to reform the GOP. So assuming you're registered as a Republican or Independent, if you could vote for Flake on primary election day, that would be great.

Because once the general election is over, it would be better having Senator Jeff Flake than Senator Wil Cardon.

[pcosmar]

Because once the general election is over, it would be better having Senator Jeff Flake than Senator Wil Cardon.

And that is exactly how we keep getting stuck with one lying SOB or the other.

Put the money into and effort behind defeating BOTH parties.

[AJ Antimony]

If Flake supports NDAA and the Patriot Act, he is a traitorous POS. Therefore, a horrible investment.

Way back as I recall, he used to be half-way decent, but apparently, he wet his diapers after 9-11.

With all due respect, I think you're out of your mind. Yes Flake made a couple bad votes. But other than that, he is arguably the #2 libertarian in the entire fucking Congress over the 2000's decade. You seem so obsessed with his 2 bad votes, do you have any idea how often he cast good votes?

Try this: Name a Republican member of Congress who served during all 8 Bush years who voted against Bush spending MORE than Jeff Flake. Oh, and his last name can't be Paul. Can you think of anyone? I didn't think so.

In 2012, how many god damn 100% pure candidates are going to be elected to Congress? 1? 2? At that rate, all our great grandkids will be dead before we have enough liberty congressmen to establish a small caucus! If you really can't handle someone who is with us 90 or 95% of the time... in fact, if you call a 90% friend "horrible"... then you better get used to living with no freedoms and no chances of changing that.

[AJ Antimony]

fiscally conservative isn't a liberty candidate in itself, and I see nothing else to recommend him.

It is each person's own decision, but I think where we NEED funding is where the arbitrary left/right paradigm misses, where you have candidates that are BOTH fiscally conservative AND oppose the police state, for example, giving them no 'lobbiest base'. Those people are speaking for me, at least. Not those wholly on the partisan right or the partisan left.

If we spend our resources on run of the mill Club for Growth candidates, we will lose the ability to get actual liberty candidates elected. And candidates will have little incentive to BE actual liberty candidates.

The problem is that 100% pure candidates aren't running in GOP districts or states. And most of the ones that did had zero support and lost their primaries. At this point in the campaign season, there are fewer and fewer candidates to support. Why would anyone want to donate to people like Bills, Hamlin, or Robinson when they're just going to lose their races in super-blue districts? The way I see it is, I could either flush my money down the toilet with Kurt Bills, then potentially be stuck with Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Wil Cardon (no freedom) or I could support Jeff Flake and be stuck with Sens. Jeff Flake and Amy Klobuchar (partial freedom).

Also, don't kid yourself. Kurt Bills isn't a strong candidate. When do you ever see State Representatives run successfully for US Senate? If Bills were a current congressman or Minnesota secretary of state, I think he'd be in much better shape to take on Klobuchar.

But I don't mean to say Bills is a complete waste. There's still plenty of time for money to enter that race and make it competitive.

[AJ Antimony]

Apparently we have a entire bloc of Paul people now ready to concede to anyone voting mildly for liberty. What a god damn joke. Call me a purist but liberty takes time, and will take a lot more when your willing to get three steps forward only to take four steps back when you give these people the power. FLAKE IS HAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A PAWN.

“This election will be an important moment in our nation’s history,” said Congressman Flake. “The next president will be charged with reversing the failed policies of the last three years and making sure the future is as bright for our children as it was for the generations before them. Mitt Romney has the experience and vision to get our country on the right path again. Whether it was his time as governor or as a successful businessman, Mitt Romney has shown that he has the economic knowledge to create the environment for businesses to start hiring again.”

Yeah.... Wooo. Wait, WUT.

A Pawn? Really? For who exactly? Flake voted against Obama policies and Bush policies. He's more independent than Bernie Sanders.

[AJ Antimony]

Maybe because we think as individuals and not everyone feels that there is a 10 point checklist that every candidate has to pass with flying colors before being worthy of support. Of course, the more folks here denigrate those who differ in opinions, the less and less folks you will have here to exchange ideas. Eventually, if you choose to go in that direction, you may end up with a nice little group that agrees on everything all the time.

I can't give this guy enough +rep!

[Lucille]

Voting to make the Patriot Act permanent and for the NDAA nullifies the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th. Pretty low bar some liberty types have.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Mixed? Has he ever done anything good on civil liberties?


He isn't the best candidate on civil liberties, I admit. He has made some pretty bad votes in that regard. However, I will point out some good points.

Here are amendments he offered for the PATRIOT act:


The first amendment requires the Director of the FBI to personally approve any FBI request for library or bookstore records under the section of the bill that allows the FBI to obtain such records. Another amendment more explicitly defines domestic terrorism under the section regarding the seizing of assets, changing the “domestic terrorism” definition to "federal crimes of terrorism."

An additional amendment precludes judges from preventing someone from receiving notification about a home search by the government simply because it would delay a trial to notify the target.

The last amendment allows recipients of national security letters to be able to consult with an attorney, and also allows them to also challenge national security letters in court.

......

Congressman Flake worked with other members of the House Judiciary Committee in 2001 to add sunset provisions to the more controversial portions of the PATRIOT Act, encouraging law enforcement officials to use the new power prudently and giving Congress a chance to monitor the law’s use. A ten-year sunset provision has been added to this bill.


He did vote against creating the DHS and against warrant less searches. BTW, He actually did vote against the NDAA, but did vote against the Amash-Smith amendment. He voted for the repeal of DODT which would be considered a civil liberties victory; even though I would have kept the policy personally.

He is also a leader against the War on Drugs:


Flake adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
Per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.

On foreign policy, he is not perfect but is better than most people. Voted for Iraq but later opposed it. Opposes sanctions against Iran and Cuba. Also wants to defund U.N.

I appreciate that Flake votes against foreign aid, even to Israel (http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/06/wil-cardon-congressman-jeff-flake-is-no-friend-of-israel/).

The reason Jeff Flake is going to be helpful is because he is a workhorse. Most people in Congress fiddle around, but people like Flake and Paul Broun are constantly adding amendments to bills that eliminates federal activity in the specified area.

He will also immediately be maybe the strongest fiscal conservative in the Senate, along with the trio of Rand, DeMint, and Lee.

[LibertyEagle]

With all due respect, I think you're out of your mind. Yes Flake made a couple bad votes. But other than that, he is arguably the #2 libertarian in the entire fucking Congress over the 2000's decade. You seem so obsessed with his 2 bad votes, do you have any idea how often he cast good votes?

Try this: Name a Republican member of Congress who served during all 8 Bush years who voted against Bush spending MORE than Jeff Flake. Oh, and his last name can't be Paul. Can you think of anyone? I didn't think so.

In 2012, how many god damn 100% pure candidates are going to be elected to Congress? 1? 2? At that rate, all our great grandkids will be dead before we have enough liberty congressmen to establish a small caucus! If you really can't handle someone who is with us 90 or 95% of the time... in fact, if you call a 90% friend "horrible"... then you better get used to living with no freedoms and no chances of changing that.

Frankly, I don't give a damn. If he supports trampling the Constitution in such horrible ways through his votes for NDAA and the Patriot Act, he is not a liberty-candidate. He is pretty good on fiscal issues, but that is where it ends. I will not donate my money to someone like this. If you want to, fine. My limited funds will go to someone who doesn't support the government assassinating U.S. citizens, or picking them up and throwing them in a prison camp with no due process of law. If you call someone supporting that, supporting "freedom", then sir, I don't think you know what that term even means.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I want everyone to vote for Flake, but I see no reason why anyone needs to back him with monetary support.

He is going to win the primary and general, so don't worry about it. As for Bills, as some have mentioned I have trouble seeing him winning, as bad as it hurts me to say. Therefore I believe the focus should be on Brunner and Hovde.

[LibertyEagle]

Georgia, what do you mean "he is a leader on the War on Drugs"?

Also, I keep hearing contradicting things. Did he or didn't he vote for the NDAA?

[tsai3904]

Also, I keep hearing contradicting things. Did he or didn't he vote for the NDAA?

He voted against NDAA Fiscal Year 2012 and voted for NDAA Fiscal Year 2013.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Georgia, what do you mean "he is a leader on the War on Drugs"?

Also, I keep hearing contradicting things. Did he or didn't he vote for the NDAA?

I mean he is a leader against the War on Drugs.

He did NOT vote for the NDAA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

[LibertyEagle]

//nevermind

[Lucille]

Flake did vote for the NDAA:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/291

Flake voted against the Smith-Amash Amendment:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/290

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/politics/house-votes-to-preserve-a-power-of-indefinite-detention.html?_r=1

[LibertyEagle]

I mean he is a leader against the War on Drugs.

He did NOT vote for the NDAA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

You're showing the one that was voted on in 2011. Lucille is showing the one voted on in 2012 and he did votes yes on that one.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

So, based on mine and Lucille's links.

Flake voted against the 2012 NDAA(vote held in Dec 2011) but for the 2013 NDAA(vote held in May 2012).

[tbone717]

He voted against NDAA Fiscal Year 2012 and voted for NDAA Fiscal Year 2013.

IIRC 2013 has nothing about indefinite detention.

[tbone717]

Flake did vote for the NDAA:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/291

Flake voted against the Smith-Amash Amendment:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/290

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/politics/house-votes-to-preserve-a-power-of-indefinite-detention.html?_r=1

Lucille the vote you linked to is the NDAA for 2013. There is nothing about indefinite detention in that bill, IIRC. It was the previous year's bill where the issue is. Flake voted "nay" on that bill. The roll call from that is linked above me by GA Avenger.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So Ron Paul retires and those in the movement want to shift towards mediocrity. What a shame...

[tbone717]

Flake did vote for the NDAA:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/291

Flake voted against the Smith-Amash Amendment:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/290

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/politics/house-votes-to-preserve-a-power-of-indefinite-detention.html?_r=1

By the way, Amash voted against the Smith-Amash Amendment. Can anyone recall the reason for that?

[LibertyEagle]

By the way, Amash voted against the Smith-Amash Amendment. Can anyone recall the reason for that?

What on earth are you talking about? I see his name in the AYE column.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml

[Lucille]

For the last time, Flake voted YAY on the NDAA (which states that America is a battlefield...well, the whole planet really), and yes to indefinite detention of American citizens.

House Vote Upholds Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Published: May 18, 2012


WASHINGTON — The House on Friday turned back an unusual coalition of liberals and conservatives and voted down legislation to reject explicitly the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects apprehended on United States soil.

House lawmakers then approved a broad military policy bill that would break Pentagon spending caps agreed to just last summer.

The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year that begins in October, makes clear that House Republicans — and many Democrats — are opposed to including the Pentagon in the coming era of fiscal austerity. The $642 billion measure, approved 299 to 120 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/291) [Flake voted YAY!], exceeds spending limits enshrined in the Budget Control Act of 2011 by $8 billion.

The measure would thwart the Obama administration’s efforts to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and would impede its ability to carry out the nuclear arms reduction treaty ratified by the Senate in 2010.

The Defense Authorization Act is required each year to set Pentagon policy and spending levels, but House Republicans have turned it into a showcase for their opposition to Obama administration policies.

This year, Democratic leaders had some surprise support. Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Tea Party-backed freshman Republican, teamed up with Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, to declare that terrorism suspects apprehended on United States soil should not be detained indefinitely without charge or trial.

But the left-right coalition fizzled in the face of charges that the two lawmakers were coddling terrorists. On the 238-to-182 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/290) [Flake voted NAY] vote against the amendment, as many Democrats — 19 — voted against it as Republicans voted for it.

[tbone717]

not everyone just a loud minority

At what point did RPF become the be all to end all of the liberty movement? Like I said many times before, this movement is much larger than what happens here on RPF and DP. Some folks here just need to come to the realization that not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.

[MelissaWV]

At what point did RPF become the be all to end all of the liberty movement? Like I said many times before, this movement is much larger than what happens here on RPF and DP. Some folks here just need to come to the realization that not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.

You've spent more time posting about disagreeing than you have explaining why Jeff Flake is so awesome. Perhaps there's a lesson there.

[Brett85]

For the last time, Flake voted YAY on the NDAA (which states that America is a battlefield...well, the whole planet really), and yes to indefinite detention of American citizens.

House Vote Upholds Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Published: May 18, 2012

You're right that he voted against the Smith-Amash amendment, but he has spoken out in favor of withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Edit: I see that you edited your post. I was responding to your original post in which you said that Flake voted for never ending war.

[tbone717]

What on earth are you talking about? I see his name in the AYE column.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml

I was looking at House Vote 290 that Lucille linked.

[tbone717]

You've spent more time posting about disagreeing than you have explaining why Jeff Flake is so awesome. Perhaps there's a lesson there.

Flake has a decent record over his tenure in Congress. If you read some articles about his career you'll see that he was considered by many respectable publications (Reason, New American, et al) as one of the strongest libertarian voices in the House. Look at the hundreds of votes he has cast since he was a freshman. He is an asset and will be a strong ally of Rand, DeMint and Lee.

Is he perfect? No and neither is Ron Paul. I don't seek perfection. I seek someone who shares the same general principles that I do and I will support them with my time and/or money. It is the reason I supported Paul in 08 and 12, it's the reason I supported DeMint in his last Senate run, and it's the reason I'll support Flake, Cruz and others this year.

[LibertyEagle]

At what point did RPF become the be all to end all of the liberty movement? Like I said many times before, this movement is much larger than what happens here on RPF and DP. Some folks here just need to come to the realization that not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.

That's fine, tbone. But, don't be surprised if we won't quietly allow our message to be co-opted. RP's supporters coined the term, liberty movement, and sorry, but supporters of indefinite detention for American citizens are not a part of it.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Note: I actually discourage people donating to him. Money would be better spent on other races. Flake has it locked up.

Here's an idea: Look at Jon Kyle and Jeff Flake, and look at all the issues at where Flake is an improvement. I listed many issues above where Flake is on the right side with regards to civil liberties/foreign policy, including the war on drugs, sanctions, warrant less searches and foreign aid, and Flake is prolific for being a fiscal hawk. So the OP is right, Flake will be helpful for the liberty movement.

Going forward: All we have to do is try to get Flake to help out on important issues. Nobody has to love him.

Why aren't people criticizing Jon Kyle around here? That would make more sense.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

At what point did RPF become the be all to end all of the liberty movement? Like I said many times before, this movement is much larger than what happens here on RPF and DP. Some folks here just need to come to the realization that not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.

And some people need to come to the realization that just because someone is acceptable in a few economic areas, it does not translate to them sticking up for the liberty movement.

[Lucille]

I know I'll sleep better down at GITMO knowing Jeff Flake is fighting the good fight in the Senate against freakin' earmarks!

He voted YAY! on drones from sea to shining sea (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h220) too.

The PAC shouldn't waste its money (http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/25/20120725flake-leads-senate-foe-cardon-new-poll.html). Too bad they're not throwing a cool million at Kurt Bills or some other more deserving candidate.

[LibertyEagle]

Flake has a decent record over his tenure in Congress. If you read some articles about his career you'll see that he was considered by many respectable publications (Reason, New American, et al) as one of the strongest libertarian voices in the House.
He has gone downhill from what he used to be. His most recent score was 70%.

[LibertyEagle]

Note: I actually discourage people donating to him. Money would be better spent on other races. Flake has it locked up.

Here's an idea: Look at Jon Kyle and Jeff Flake, and look at all the issues at where Flake is an improvement. I listed many issues above where Flake is on the right side with regards to civil liberties/foreign policy, including the war on drugs, sanctions, warrant less searches and foreign aid, and Flake is prolific for being a fiscal hawk. So the OP is right, Flake will be helpful for the liberty movement.

Going forward: All we have to do is try to get Flake to help out on important issues. Nobody has to love him.

Why aren't people criticizing Jon Kyle around here? That would make more sense.

Because I don't see anyone around here pushing him.

I don't hate Flake. He is better than a lot of them. I just won't herald him as a liberty candidate, because he simply is not. I do want him to win his race, because his competition is worse.

Flake used to be better than he is. I don't know what happened to him.

[juleswin]

I think if the OP would have just put "good for fiscal conservatives movement" instead of "liberty movement", I dont think anyone would have objected. I was a fan of Flake before I knew who Ron Paul was. He is a principled fiscal conservative(except when it comes to military spending and Aid to Israel), not a liberty anything kind of politicians and that should be enough to sell him on this forum.

[LibertyEagle]

I think if the OP would have just put "good for fiscal conservatives movement" instead of "liberty movement", I dont think anyone would have objected. I was a fan of Flake before I knew who Ron Paul was. He is a principled fiscal conservative(except when it comes to military spending and Aid to Israel), not a liberty anything kind of politicians and that should be enough to sell him on this forum.

Yeah, I must admit that was what set me off. Although, the above is a huge exception. lol

[HOLLYWOOD]

Did Jeff Snowflake state, he was only going to serve 2 terms as a Congressman and go back to the private sector? Yes, now in his 5th term in the House.

The WAR on the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the reciprocal of trillions stolen from the taxpayers with induced Inflation taxes on society. Jeff Flake's votes 'AYE' for NDAA, which could of cleared himself but didn't, by voting 'AYE' on the Amash amendment. His Patriot Act rubber-stamping approvals seal the deal, this guy is hooked on himself/power, no matter how likeable he may sound. Any word on the backing by GOP party establishment insiders at the state and DC level on Flake?

FYI, The trickery of politicians always appears to give the spotlight to low or non monetary populist issues, instead of the ones that steal the wealth/freedoms. Earmarks at least show who stole the money and where it went(then you have a reason to vote them out), as oppose to the money going back into a meat grinder and disappearing to lobbyists/campaign donors. Secrecy only benefits you know who...

[Brett85]

I was doing some research on Flake, and came across this. This certainly doesn't sound good at all.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html

[Lucille]

+rep to all of it, Hollywood.

[juleswin]

I was doing some research on Flake, and came across this. This certainly doesn't sound good at all.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html

If I remember correctly, he wants any profit made from the carbon tax be used as rebate for payroll taxes for low income Americans. Not saying that I like it but its a unique position with regards to cap and trade.

Btw isn't he such a pragmatic fellow? always willing to reach across the isle to make deals. Ron Paul would have gone places if he was a little more like Jeff Flake :)

[Feeding the Abscess]

If I remember correctly, he wants any profit made from the carbon tax be used as rebate for payroll taxes for low income Americans. Not saying that I like it but its a unique position with regards to cap and trade.

Btw isn't he such a pragmatic fellow? always willing to reach across the isle to make deals. Ron Paul would have gone places if he was a little more like Jeff Flake :)

Oh, you mean like Ron co-authoring bills with Alan Grayson to end the wars and eliminate the income tax for the first 30k of income, or with Barney Frank to end federal prohibition of marijuana, or with Kucinich on amendments concerning war spending...

Being pragmatic means nothing when you're selling out your principles. Actually, it's worse, it's endorsing statism of the bipartisan flavor.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Oh, you mean like Ron co-authoring bills with Alan Grayson to end the wars and eliminate the income tax for the first 30k of income, or with Barney Frank to end federal prohibition of marijuana, or with Kucinich on amendments concerning war spending...

Being pragmatic means nothing when you're selling out your principles. Actually, it's worse, it's endorsing statism of the bipartisan flavor.

I think Jules was being sarcastic.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I think Jules was being sarcastic.

lol, my sarcasm meter broke today. The Portrait of a Drone Killer article has had me in rage mode all day.

[sailingaway]

Oooook. Well, the rest of us are busy trying to reform the GOP. So assuming you're registered as a Republican or Independent, if you could vote for Flake on primary election day, that would be great.

Because once the general election is over, it would be better having Senator Jeff Flake than Senator Wil Cardon.

the 'rest of you' who are fine with NDAA?

[sailingaway]

If I remember correctly, he wants any profit made from the carbon tax be used as rebate for payroll taxes for low income Americans. Not saying that I like it but its a unique position with regards to cap and trade.

Btw isn't he such a pragmatic fellow? always willing to reach across the isle to make deals. Ron Paul would have gone places if he was a little more like Jeff Flake :)

And we would not have been here.

[AJ Antimony]

That's fine, tbone. But, don't be surprised if we won't quietly allow our message to be co-opted. RP's supporters coined the term, liberty movement, and sorry, but supporters of indefinite detention for American citizens are not a part of it.

Co-opt? This is Ron Paul Forums, nobody is co-opting anybody here!

By the way, your post is approaching hypocrisy: "Group A can't advertise Jeff Flake to Group B, but Group B can advertise Kurt Bills all it wants to Group A..."

[AJ Antimony]

Why aren't people criticizing Jon Kyle around here? That would make more sense.

Great question. You'd think people here would be dancing in the streets hearing that Jon Kyl is getting replaced by Jeff Flake! I'd certainly be dancing if Jason Chaffetz was set to replace Orrin Hatch, or if Walter Jones was set to replace Richard Burr.

[AJ Antimony]

the 'rest of you' who are fine with NDAA?

Very fair logic. 'You like Flake, therefore you like every single vote he's ever taken such as NDAA'

[AJ Antimony]

I think what is getting lost in this thread is the difference between "supporting" a candidate and "donating to" a candidate. I suspect most people in this thread, if they lived in Arizona, would show up on election day and vote for Jeff Flake over Wil Cardon. Hell, maybe most people here would vote for him in the general election.

But some people are saying they would never donate to Flake, which is understandable. Financially supporting a candidate is one thing, and individuals should definitely donate to whoever they want. But what I was trying to argue in this thread was that it would help the liberty movement to at least non-financially support Flake. I can definitely understand not giving hard earned money to Jeff Flake, but to characterize him as an enemy of the freedom movement is just silly.

I admit I didn't communicate these thoughts clearly, if at all.

[LibertyEagle]

Co-opt? This is Ron Paul Forums, nobody is co-opting anybody here!

By the way, your post is approaching hypocrisy. Group A can't advertise Jeff Flake to Group B, but Group B can advertise Kurt Bills all it wants to Group A...

Please apply logic and reword your post accordingly, so that it makes some semblance of sense. Thanks.

[LibertyEagle]

I think what is getting lost in this thread is the difference between "supporting" a candidate and "donating to" a candidate. I suspect most people in this thread, if they lived in Arizona, would show up on election day and vote for Jeff Flake over Wil Cardon. Hell, maybe most people here would vote for him in the general election.

But some people are saying they would never donate to Flake, which is understandable. Financially supporting a candidate is one thing, and individuals should definitely donate to whoever they want. But what I was trying to argue in this thread was that it would help the liberty movement to at least non-financially support Flake. I can definitely understand not giving hard earned money to Jeff Flake, but to characterize him as an enemy of the freedom movement is just silly.

I admit I didn't communicate these thoughts clearly, if at all.

He voted for the Patriot Act and the NDAA, he certainly ain't a champion of liberty. :rolleyes:

I'm sure we can work with him on select issues that we agree on, but to characterize him as some champion.... uh, no.

[AJ Antimony]

Please apply logic and reword your post accordingly, so that it makes some semblance of sense. Thanks.

Check now. I can see how it was confusing.

[AJ Antimony]

He voted for the Patriot Act and the NDAA, he certainly ain't a champion of liberty. :rolleyes:

I'm sure we can work with him on select issues that we agree on, but to characterize him as some champion.... uh, no.

You'd be happy to know that nobody in this thread, or probably ever on these forums, has ever called Flake a "champion of liberty." This isn't Jeff Flake Forums, this is Ron Paul Forums, every registered user knows who the actual champion is.

[LibertyEagle]

You'd be happy to know that nobody in this thread, or probably ever on these forums, has ever called Flake a "champion of liberty." This isn't Jeff Flake Forums, this is Ron Paul Forums, every registered user knows who the actual champion is.

Who is "Group A", AJ?

[LibertyEagle]

You'd be happy to know that nobody in this thread, or probably ever on these forums, has ever called Flake a "champion of liberty." This isn't Jeff Flake Forums, this is Ron Paul Forums, every registered user knows who the actual champion is.

No, but tbone inferred that Flake was a part of the liberty movement.



The point being there is a lot of liberty-minded political activism going on that doesn't center here at RPF or DP. The folks here are just one small segment of a much larger movement, so people should not be surprised when there are candidates like Flake that get support from groups that will also support Cruz, Massie, etc.

[AuH20]

Jeff Flake got 10 pages in here?? His record is kind of weak. If he gets in he still won't be better than the four horsemen (Rand, Lee, DeMint and -presumptive- Cruz).

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You'd be happy to know that nobody in this thread, or probably ever on these forums, has ever called Flake a "champion of liberty." This isn't Jeff Flake Forums, this is Ron Paul Forums, every registered user knows who the actual champion is.

Then why is there a thread titled, "A Jeff Flake Victory will help the Liberty Movement"?

[LibertyEagle]

Oh, he thinks he will vote for some of our causes. And he may.

[tbone717]

Then why is there a thread titled, "A Jeff Flake Victory will help the Liberty Movement"?

Because if Rand was somehow able to propose 100 pieces of legislation in the Senate over a period of time, Flake would be supportive of the large majority of them. Look at Ron Paul's main issues: abortion, healthcare, the economy, national defense, the fed, taxes, 2nd amendment, worker's rights, immigration, homeschooling and energy. On the overwhelming majority of those issues Flake takes the same or a similar position to Paul based on his track record. Conversely, there are a lot of establishment Republican candidates that would oppose a lot of the positions that the libertarian-conservative wing would propose.

As a House member, Flake has a pretty damn good record. Was it perfect? No, and neither was Ron Paul's in my mind. No one is perfect. And as AJ stated, it is up to everyone individually to decide who they are going to send some cash to. My point was that the people here at RPF should not be surprised when other pro-liberty groups will send some cash to a guy like Flake. Some of you in here have acted like they sent 300 grand to Orrin Hatch.

[cajuncocoa]

Some of Flake's good votes:

Some of Flake's bad votes:

For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml) PATRIOT Act
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml) creating TSA
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) Iraq War
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml) Smith-Amash amendment


he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

^^^THIS^^^ is all I need to know about the guy. Whatever good votes he may have under his belt, the bad ones outweigh.

[tbone717]

I'm done in here for today. Far too much work to do to keep going over this subject, but I will say this. If you look around these forums, you can very easily find people questioning the "purity" of Rand, Amash, Cruz and damn near every other major candidate that is up for election this year. RPF is quickly becoming the virtual version of a LP meeting with 5 guys sitting around the table at Denny's talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If folks here want to see this site grow and continue to have some influence, people are going to need to come to grips with the fact that there are tons of people out there that share the same vision and goals as you do, but do have some differences of opinion. You can either welcome them, or you can continue to denigrate them.

[cajuncocoa]

Some of Flake's good votes:

Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml) No Child Left Behind (34 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll110.xml) Sarbanes-Oxley (only R besides Ron to vote no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml) creating Dept of Homeland Security (10 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml) Medicare Part D (19 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml) making online poker illegal (17 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll018.xml) raising minimum wage
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll042.xml) Bush's stimulus (28 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll683.xml) extending unemployment insurance (28 Rs voted no)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll474.xml) funding Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan (12 Rs voted no)
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml) repeal of DADT (15 Rs voted yes)
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll224.xml) reauthorizing Export-Import Bank

Some of Flake's bad votes:

For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml) PATRIOT Act
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml) creating TSA
For (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) Iraq War
Against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml) Smith-Amash amendment


he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.


I'm done in here for today. Far too much work to do to keep going over this subject, but I will say this. If you look around these forums, you can very easily find people questioning the "purity" of Rand, Amash, Cruz and damn near every other major candidate that is up for election this year. RPF is quickly becoming the virtual version of a LP meeting with 5 guys sitting around the table at Denny's talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If folks here want to see this site grow and continue to have some influence, people are going to need to come to grips with the fact that there are tons of people out there that share the same vision and goals as you do, but do have some differences of opinion. You can either welcome them, or you can continue to denigrate them.You can get your shorts in a knot over this if you want, but I won't support a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the NDAA, and created TSA. For me, those are deal-breakers for any candidate, and I won't back down.

[tbone717]

You can get your shorts in a knot over this if you want, but I won't support a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the NDAA, and created TSA. For me, those are deal-breakers for any candidate, and I won't back down.

Ugh, this thread is sucking the life out of me.

No one is asking you to open up your purse strings and send money to Flake. You are in LA, and you can't vote for him, so it is a moot point in that regard.

The overall discussion in here has been that Flake will be a net positive for the Liberty Movement based on his record, and that because of this we should not be in shock when a liberty PAC spends their own money to support him, or a candidate similar to him.

OK it's 8am, time to make some money.

[cajuncocoa]

Ugh, this thread is sucking the life out of me.

No one is asking you to open up your purse strings and send money to Flake. You are in LA, and you can't vote for him, so it is a moot point in that regard.

The overall discussion in here has been that Flake will be a net positive for the Liberty Movement based on his record, and that because of this we should not be in shock when a liberty PAC spends their own money to support him, or a candidate similar to him.

OK it's 8am, time to make some money.Bye!

I think this thread is sucking the life out of the liberty revolution.

The Patriot Act, NDAA, and the creation of the TSA are all major assaults on our civil liberties. Any candidate who voted for all 3 should be shunned by true Liberty activists.

[KingNothing]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-cruz-would-bring-conservative-muscle-to-senate/article/2503393

Despite some of his questionable votes, I'm starting to think that a Flake victory would be very helpful to our movement. Flake is far from perfect, but it seems like he will consistently vote with the Rand block if elected. Also, Flake's opponent Wil Cardon does not seem friendly to Liberty in any way, shape, or form.

I'm starting to understand why the Liberty For All PAC is helping him out with that massive ad buy. We could potentially have a friendly ally in the senate for the next 20-30 years.

Thoughts?

I think that Flake is on our side more than he isn't, and that once it is even more politically favorable to side with us he will do so with increased frequency.

At this point he might not be the cure, but he isn't as much of a problem as many others in Washington.

[KingNothing]

he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

I imagine that he's more Standard Republican than Liberty Movement. To that end, if we can drum up more support for our causes and force the Republican Establishment to adopt our philosophy to stay relevant, Flake will be on our side. As Ron always says, politicians don't typically have much in the way of principles. When the voters demand something, and the politician's job is on the line, the politician listens and acts accordingly.

[tbone717]

Ok I have a few minutes here, so I wanted to give a little timeline and clarification on Flake's NDAA votes.

Flake voted "nay" on the 2012 NDAA which was the one that established indefinite detention. Paul also voted against that bill.

The 2013 bill is where clarification is needed. Indefinite detention provisions were already law at this point. The Smith-Amash Amendment that was offered did two things: 1) It removed the indefinite provisions from the bill that were already signed into law thus overturning that law. 2) it granted foreign enemy combatants the right to a jury trial if captured on US soil. Flake voted against the amendment. @LibertyEagle - I saw the thread on here during the vote for that. You stated at that time, that the amendment could very well have passed if the language in the bill applied to US citizens only. That is where I see the reasoning for the failure of the bill, as it granted new rights to foreign combatants. Essentially, if foreign soldiers are captured on foreign land, it's business as usual (ie the way things have been for 100 years), but if they were captured on US soil they have full Constitutional protections. In that sense, many felt the amendment went too far.

Continuing with the 2013 bill, Flake voted "yay" on the Goebert amendment which reinstated the "habeus corpus" language into NDAA. Also that year Flake and Bartlett cosponsored an amendment that "prohibits federal agencies from mandating anti-competitive and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) and using PLA preferences on federal construction contracts authorized by the NDAA". That amendment passed (Paul voted for that amendment).

As we know Flake voted for the 2013 NDAA. But the indefinite detention aspect of the bill was already law, so in that sense he did not vote to institute it (as the 2012 bill did).

Sure he could have voted against 2013 NDAA, but with the Goebert Amendment and his own, I can understand why he supported it.

In all honesty, saying that Flake voted for indefinite detention because he voted for the 2013 bill is like saying he voted for the establishment of the federal withholding tax, because he voted for a budget plan.

Again, he is not perfect, but maybe this little bit of history will clarify his reasoning for the votes.

[AuH20]

I'm done in here for today. Far too much work to do to keep going over this subject, but I will say this. If you look around these forums, you can very easily find people questioning the "purity" of Rand, Amash, Cruz and damn near every other major candidate that is up for election this year. RPF is quickly becoming the virtual version of a LP meeting with 5 guys sitting around the table at Denny's talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If folks here want to see this site grow and continue to have some influence, people are going to need to come to grips with the fact that there are tons of people out there that share the same vision and goals as you do, but do have some differences of opinion. You can either welcome them, or you can continue to denigrate them.
The Dennys contingent is usually prone to hyperbole & rigid standards, but in this case they have a valid point. Flake has a few very questionable votes. He's easily a tier or two below DeMint, Rand and Lee in terms of constitutional integrity.

[cajuncocoa]

The Dennys contingent is usually prone to hyperbole & rigid standards, but in this case they have a valid point. Flake has a few very questionable votes. He's easily a tier or two below DeMint, Rand and Lee in terms of constitutional integrity."Dennys contingent"...nice. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm "prone to...rigid standards" when it comes to upholding the Constitution and civil liberties. In the words of the man whose name you symbolize in your own username "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

If I had my way, each and everyone of the turncoats who voted for the damned Patriot Act would have been thrown out of Congress in November 2002. It's a travesty that there is an attempt to get Liberty activists to support one of those traitors.

[JorgeStevenson]

I love these libertarian pissing contests.

Look, adding Flake to the team RIGHT TODAY makes our bullpen stronger. We'd have a strong ally on fiscal conservative issues. That doesn't mean we can't dump him when a better all-around player comes along, but right today he makes our roster stronger.

His flaws are glaring. They are a huge turnoff. But they are flaws that any realistic replacement right today would also have. If my option is to add a guy that is poor on fiscal conservatism AND civil liberties, or to add a guy that is only poor on civil liberties, I will choose to add the second guy while continuing to look for a guy who is poor on neither.

We aren't retiring the guy's jersey. We're just adding him to the team for a season or two until we can find somebody better. In that sense, he's an asset.

[cajuncocoa]

You can't really call it a "libertarian pissing contest" when there is only one libertarian involved. :p

But whatever, go ahead and support the PATRIOT Act-voting moron if that's what you want to do. Seriously, at some point, y'all are going to have to consider merging this board with Free Republic.

[sailingaway]

Ugh, this thread is sucking the life out of me.

No one is asking you to open up your purse strings and send money to Flake. You are in LA, and you can't vote for him, so it is a moot point in that regard.

The overall discussion in here has been that Flake will be a net positive for the Liberty Movement based on his record, and that because of this we should not be in shock when a liberty PAC spends their own money to support him, or a candidate similar to him.

OK it's 8am, time to make some money.

and I think a lot think that those votes are so evil, your argument fails.

[sailingaway]

Ok I have a few minutes here, so I wanted to give a little timeline and clarification on Flake's NDAA votes.

Flake voted "nay" on the 2012 NDAA which was the one that established indefinite detention. Paul also voted against that bill.

The 2013 bill is where clarification is needed. Indefinite detention provisions were already law at this point. The Smith-Amash Amendment that was offered did two things: 1) It removed the indefinite provisions from the bill that were already signed into law thus overturning that law. 2) it granted foreign enemy combatants the right to a jury trial if captured on US soil. Flake voted against the amendment. @LibertyEagle - I saw the thread on here during the vote for that. You stated at that time, that the amendment could very well have passed if the language in the bill applied to US citizens only. That is where I see the reasoning for the failure of the bill, as it granted new rights to foreign combatants. Essentially, if foreign soldiers are captured on foreign land, it's business as usual (ie the way things have been for 100 years), but if they were captured on US soil they have full Constitutional protections. In that sense, many felt the amendment went too far.

Continuing with the 2013 bill, Flake voted "yay" on the Goebert amendment which reinstated the "habeus corpus" language into NDAA. Also that year Flake and Bartlett cosponsored an amendment that "prohibits federal agencies from mandating anti-competitive and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) and using PLA preferences on federal construction contracts authorized by the NDAA". That amendment passed (Paul voted for that amendment).

As we know Flake voted for the 2013 NDAA. But the indefinite detention aspect of the bill was already law, so in that sense he did not vote to institute it (as the 2012 bill did).

Sure he could have voted against 2013 NDAA, but with the Goebert Amendment and his own, I can understand why he supported it.

In all honesty, saying that Flake voted for indefinite detention because he voted for the 2013 bill is like saying he voted for the establishment of the federal withholding tax, because he voted for a budget plan.

Again, he is not perfect, but maybe this little bit of history will clarify his reasoning for the votes.

He voted against Smith Amash -- keeping indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. On the scale of malum prohibitum v. malum in se, those votes are definitely malum in se, imho.

http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/2012/03/malum-in-se-malum-prohibitum.html

And my definition of a 'liberty movement candidate' would never include one who COULD vote that way. That is simply foul.

And Flake KNEW it was foul, but for whatever 'pragmatic reason' did it to the country, anyhow.

I agree with someone else that if the title of the thread had been 'Flake would be a better Senator than the other guy', this argument wouldn't have arisen so sharply, however, NDAA is possibly THE worst, most anti-Constitutional vote since allowing Japanese Americans (and German Americans) to be interred in WWII. In fact, it essentially WOULD allow that. Think about what they were saying about Japanese (and Germans), at the time.

[pcosmar]

and I think a lot think that those votes are so evil, your argument fails.

I signed on this board because of Ron Paul and I support him because of his long held positions and principles.

It seems that some are ready to call any "R" that gives limited lip service to some aspect,, a "liberty Candidate".

I do NOT. They are just another "R" politician till PROVEN otherwise.

And that is just more of the same as I have seen for 40 years.

[tbone717]

All in all when I read through this thread and others here on the site I see people who share the same ultimate goal of the restoration of liberty and a return to our founding principles, but I see two schools of though on how that can be achieved.

One group will have their own personal litmus tests for candidates, and support only those candidates that can meet their standards. For lack of a better term, I'll call them the purists. The other believes that the best method to achieving the ultimate goal is to build coalitions of like-minded officials who can work together to advance the cause. For lack of a better term I'll call them the 90% crowd.

Now being one who is of the 90% crowd, I accept that those who are purists have the right to believe what they believe. While I disagree with the path you have chosen, I accept the fact that you have a right to operate the way you do and am tolerant of your viewpoint. I get the feeling though that the purists are not tolerant of the counter view (but maybe I am incorrect in that assumption).

Nonetheless, each of us will continue down our chosen path. Time will tell which one of the two viewpoints is ultimately successful at achieving the ultimate goal.

[LibertyEagle]

He voted against Smith Amash -- keeping indefinite detention of American citizens without trial,

I fully understand why he did it and he was right in proposing it, but the Amendment, as I recall, also included non-citizens. That is why it sounded like a number of them dissented.

Back at the time, I remember remarking that I wish Justin would have split this into 2 separate amendments. Because I think at least the part pertaining to American citizens would have stood a far better chance of passing.

[LibertyEagle]

All in all when I read through this thread and others here on the site I see people who share the same ultimate goal of the restoration of liberty and a return to our founding principles, but I see two schools of though on how that can be achieved.

One group will have their own personal litmus tests for candidates, and support only those candidates that can meet their standards. For lack of a better term, I'll call them the purists. The other believes that the best method to achieving the ultimate goal is to build coalitions of like-minded officials who can work together to advance the cause. For lack of a better term I'll call them the 90% crowd.

Now being one who is of the 90% crowd, I accept that those who are purists have the right to believe what they believe. While I disagree with the path you have chosen, I accept the fact that you have a right to operate the way you do and am tolerant of your viewpoint. I get the feeling though that the purists are not tolerant of the counter view (but maybe I am incorrect in that assumption).

Nonetheless, each of us will continue down our chosen path. Time will tell which one of the two viewpoints is ultimately successful at achieving the ultimate goal.

Tbone, there are plenty of us who are willing to work with other factions on those issues we share in common. Just please do not try to sell them to us as "liberty candidates", when they simply are not. Or, that designation will soon be as worthless as all the others.

[tbone717]

I fully understand why he did it and he was right in proposing it, but the Amendment, as I recall, also included non-citizens. That is why it sounded like a number of them dissented.

Back at the time, I remember remarking that I wish Justin would have split this into 2 separate amendments. Because I think at least the part pertaining to American citizens would have stood a far better chance of passing.

I give Amash a pass on the legislative aspect of this. He was new for one, and he allied himself with a far left Congressman in Smith on this amendment. Perhaps, he had the right intentions but was not skilled enough in the legislative workings of the House to build a coalition large enough to pass the amendment. Perhaps next year he will propose a different amendment that can garner the support of those who opposed the 2012 NDAA.

[angelatc]

I signed on this board because of Ron Paul and I support him because of his long held positions and principles.

It seems that some are ready to call any "R" that gives limited lip service to some aspect,, a "liberty Candidate".

I do NOT. They are just another "R" politician till PROVEN otherwise.

And that is just more of the same as I have seen for 40 years.

The GOP allowed Democrats to co opt the conservative movement using the same logic, I think.

[LibertyEagle]

I give Amash a pass on the legislative aspect of this. He was new for one, and he allied himself with a far left Congressman in Smith on this amendment. Perhaps, he had the right intentions but was not skilled enough in the legislative workings of the House to build a coalition large enough to pass the amendment. Perhaps next year he will propose a different amendment that can garner the support of those who opposed the 2012 NADA.

I wasn't blaming him. I was explaining why I think some people, who otherwise would have voted for the amendment, did not.

[tbone717]

Tbone, there are plenty of us who are willing to work with other factions on those issues we share in common. Just please do not try to sell them to us as "liberty candidates", when they simply are not. Or, that designation will soon be as worthless as all the others.

It's not only my tag line, others use it as well in regards to many of these candidates. No one has exclusive right to determine who is and who isn't a liberty candidate other than their own personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide what constitutes a "liberty candidate".

If RPF wants to come up with a committee that can have a means test and candidate survey to determine who is a "liberty candidate" and who is not, then the site is free to do so.

[angelatc]

It's not only my tag line, others use it as well in regards to many of these candidates. No one has exclusive right to determine who is and who isn't a liberty candidate other than their own personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide what constitutes a "liberty candidate".

If RPF wants to come up with a committee that can have a means test and candidate survey to determine who is a "liberty candidate" and who is not, then the site is free to do so.

u mad?

I thought we all agreed that the constitution gave us the list of issues we screen with. Indefinite detention isn't constitutional.

[tbone717]

I wasn't blaming him. I was explaining why I think some people, who otherwise would have voted for the amendment, did not.

Oh i know, I was continuing the thought. The quoting here sometimes suggests otherwise.

[LibertyEagle]

It's not only my tag line, others use it as well in regards to many of these candidates. No one has exclusive right to determine who is and who isn't a liberty candidate other than their own personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide what constitutes a "liberty candidate".

Here is a hint. If they voted for NDAA or the Patriot Act, and have not denounced their actions, they are NOT a liberty candidate. They do not pass GO and there is no reason to continue to further issues....

That doesn't mean that we can't work with them on other issues where we have agreement. But, they aren't a liberty candidate.


If RPF wants to come up with a committee that can have a means test and candidate survey to determine who is a "liberty candidate" and who is not, then the site is free to do so.
:rolleyes:

[tbone717]

u mad?

I thought we all agreed that the constitution gave us the list of issues we screen with. Indefinite detention isn't constitutional.

Not mad at all. If I got mad over a web forum, I would have some serious issues and need to get out of the house more LOL

Earlier I posted some info on the NDAA votes by Flake, and as I see it his vote for the 2013 bill was not a bill to establish indefinite detention as it was already law by its 2012 passage. Perhaps he felt the Goebert (sp?) amendment was sufficient in what it added to the bill. I don't know you'd have to ask him, I can only speculate.

[tbone717]

Here is a hint. If they voted for NDAA or the Patriot Act, and have not denounced their actions, they are NOT a liberty candidate. They do not pass GO and there is no reason to continue to further issues....

That doesn't mean that we can't work with them on other issues where we have agreement. But, they aren't a liberty candidate.


:rolleyes:

Got it.

As I said earlier, you can have your definition and others will have theirs. I support the right of organizations like this Liberty PAC to deem support for whomever they choose to support and determine that on their own. Just as I support your right to do the same.

So what about the War on Drugs? Immigration issues? The Fed Audit?

There was someone on here that stated that unless someone supported ending the fed and competing currencies and made that their top priority, they were not a liberty candidate.

We can go down this road all day long, and I am sure at the end of the day you will have a dozen or two different opinions on what the various litmus tests are.

[KingNothing]

I love these libertarian pissing contests.

Look, adding Flake to the team RIGHT TODAY makes our bullpen stronger. We'd have a strong ally on fiscal conservative issues. That doesn't mean we can't dump him when a better all-around player comes along, but right today he makes our roster stronger.

His flaws are glaring. They are a huge turnoff. But they are flaws that any realistic replacement right today would also have. If my option is to add a guy that is poor on fiscal conservatism AND civil liberties, or to add a guy that is only poor on civil liberties, I will choose to add the second guy while continuing to look for a guy who is poor on neither.

We aren't retiring the guy's jersey. We're just adding him to the team for a season or two until we can find somebody better. In that sense, he's an asset.

That's a good post!

Flake is better than almost everyone in the Senate. And that is more a critique of the Senate than a compliment to Flake. If Flake were the WORST guy in Washington, things would be looking pretty good... no? I think we should definitely back Purist, Hardcore-Libertarians when we can. In congressional elections where that is not possible, if we can elect someone who is with us far more often than his opponent, why shouldn't we do that?

[angelatc]

I think it's all about building coalitions. But I am afraid ( and I hope I am wrong ) that the new power brokers are using us (Rand, Liberty PAC, etc) to build their movement instead of us using them for that purpose.

[LibertyEagle]

What are we really talking about here? What does "adding him to the team" mean? Is the intent for us to call Flake a liberty candidate or is it to encourage us to vote for him if we live in Arizona?

Why is it so important that we call him a liberty-candidate?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Got it.

As I said earlier, you can have your definition and others will have theirs.

Then I guess anyone can arbitrarily define liberty.

[LibertyEagle]

edited the title ...

lol. But, isn't that too strong, Casey? He's not a liberty candidate, but he did vote on most things the same way that a liberty candidate would have. He, as opposed to most others, will oftentimes vote along with us on legislation our guys put forward.

So, I do think he will be someone that will be helpful at times.

[tbone717]

What are we really talking about here? What does "adding him to the team" mean? Is the intent for us to call Flake a liberty candidate or is it to encourage us to vote for him if we live in Arizona?

Why is it so important that we call him a liberty-candidate?

Frankly I don't care what people call him. My point for the majority of the thread here is that people need to be aware that there are groups out there that share the same end goals as most here do, but may go about achieving those goals in a different manner. It's Flake now, and down the road there will likely be others. So in 2014 if some group tosses some money towards Walter Jones, I am sure you will see some have a conniption over that as well since even though he was one of the few in the House to endorse Paul, he committed the unforgivable sin of voting for the Patriot Act in 2001.

[tbone717]

Then I guess anyone can arbitrarily define liberty.

Theoretically they can. That is why it is up to each individual to choose whom they will support financially, volunteer for, vote for, etc. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that people working for the same goal may have differences of opinions on candidates.

[LibertyEagle]

Perhaps, but I think he has since changed his mind about it, Tbone. That's important. At least to me.

[tbone717]

Perhaps, but I think he has since changed his mind about it, Tbone. That's important. At least to me.

As it is to me. But there could very well be others that see that differently.

I forget what the vote was, but a while back there were a few here calling for Amash's head IIRC.

[tbone717]

Ok folks. Back to work.

I think I'll write big fat check to Flake today LOL.

[KingNothing]

I forget what the vote was, but a while back there were a few here calling for Amash's head IIRC.

There definitely was, and he briefly thought about quitting because of it. It wasn't our proudest moment. Amash is as good as anyone in Congress. Ever. He's completely, 100-percent, on our side. And we almost forced him out for not being a "Liberty" candidate. Or something.

But Flake is not Amash. Flake is tolerable at best, and we cold tactically support him. Amash is an asset. He should ALWAYS have our support and financial backing. He's done more than prove himself worthy of that.

[cajuncocoa]

Ok folks. Back to work.

I think I'll write big fat check to Flake today LOL.Not at all surprised.

[sailingaway]

Frankly I don't care what people call him. My point for the majority of the thread here is that people need to be aware that there are groups out there that share the same end goals as most here do, but may go about achieving those goals in a different manner. It's Flake now, and down the road there will likely be others. So in 2014 if some group tosses some money towards Walter Jones, I am sure you will see some have a conniption over that as well since even though he was one of the few in the House to endorse Paul, he committed the unforgivable sin of voting for the Patriot Act in 2001.

I'm pretty sure Jones voted against it since and spoke out against it.

People don't 'achieve the same goals different ways' if they are voting FOR the horrible legislation we are trying to route out, however, and to say otherwise seems pretty disingenuous.

[sailingaway]

There definitely was, and he briefly thought about quitting because of it. It wasn't our proudest moment. Amash is as good as anyone in Congress. Ever. He's completely, 100-percent, on our side. And we almost forced him out for not being a "Liberty" candidate. Or something.

But Flake is not Amash. Flake is tolerable at best, and we cold tactically support him. Amash is an asset. He should ALWAYS have our support and financial backing. He's done more than prove himself worthy of that.

No, he isn't as good as Ron. However, he is the best in there when Ron leaves, and did NOT vote for either the Patriot Act or NDAA, note. Instead he led the most viable opposition AGAINST NDAA, which is the Smith Amash bill Flake OPPOSED. He is also a freshman and finding his feet, which Flake can't claim, Flake got WORSE when he decided to run for Senate, as if he had decided to 'play the game' imho.

[sailingaway]

Got it.

As I said earlier, you can have your definition and others will have theirs. I support the right of organizations like this Liberty PAC to deem support for whomever they choose to support and determine that on their own. Just as I support your right to do the same.

So what about the War on Drugs? Immigration issues? The Fed Audit?

There was someone on here that stated that unless someone supported ending the fed and competing currencies and made that their top priority, they were not a liberty candidate.

We can go down this road all day long, and I am sure at the end of the day you will have a dozen or two different opinions on what the various litmus tests are.

this particular pac was asking our opinion in posts here. I'm pretty sure they already know where the RLC stands, we are saying where WE stand.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Well, lets just recognize that Flake is somebody Paul, DeMint, and Lee can work with in the future. As I mentioned, he is flawed in many areas, but is right in some where just about nobody is.

He is on our side when it comes to:

Fiscal Issues(Great)
War on Drugs/Gambling
Sanctions
Foreign Aid
National sovereignty

He is mixed when it comes to war.

And while he has voted for bad civil liberties legislation, he has also added some good amendments to those bills.

Again, I will emphasize that nobody needs to give him money. He has the race locked up. Put in the future, just recognize that he will be helpful in the Senate.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm with you on that, Georgia. :)

[gerryb]

So who exactly are you all working for and supporting?

We don't have Liberty candidates because we are a non-factor in fund-raising and on the ground game.

Get active and then we will have "pure" liberty candidates. Until then, quit yer bitchin' and support the best we have available.

[sailingaway]

Well, lets just recognize that Flake is somebody Paul, DeMint, and Lee can work with in the future. As I mentioned, he is flawed in many areas, but is right in some where just about nobody is.

He is on our side when it comes to:

Fiscal Issues(Great)
War on Drugs/Gambling
Sanctions
Foreign Aid
National sovereignty

He is mixed when it comes to war.

And while he has voted for bad civil liberties legislation, he has also added some good amendments to those bills.

Again, I will emphasize that nobody needs to give him money. He has the race locked up. Put in the future, just recognize that he will be helpful in the Senate.

I think the surprise here is how much a PAC funded by a Ron Paul supporter is giving. I wonder if the donor knew his voting record.

I agree that Flake will be a sure vote on fiscal issues, at least where the military isn't involved. It is just that calling him a liberty candidate is like calling Boxer one because she DID stand against NDAA. One issue does not a liberty candidate make, and I really do see NDAA as such a blatant violation of their oath of office, they seem not to care about the Constitution when they voted for it.

[tbone717]

I'm pretty sure Jones voted against it since and spoke out against it.

People don't 'achieve the same goals different ways' if they are voting FOR the horrible legislation we are trying to route out, however, and to say otherwise seems pretty disingenuous.

Read my post 123 for the context of that statement.

To summarize I said there are two schools of thought here. One is the purists who have their personal litmus tests, and then there are those who are comfortable with building coalitions.

If I understand you correctly, you have your litmus tests as to who is and who is not worthy of support. I, on the other hand, recognize the value in building coalitions with folks like Flake.

Nothing I say is going to change your mind, and nothing you say is going to change mine. I will continue to support, volunteer for and vote for candidates that I believe share the same overall principles that I hold to, and recognize that there can be issues where I might depart from them. As I have said many times, I am happy with someone who will vote the way I would personally vote 90% of the time or more. Those folks get my money and my support. That doesn't mean that I am going to send a $2500 check to anyone who is the least bit conservative, but I do support a much broader field of candidates than you do.

I respect your viewpoint and your methodology and believe that you have every right to act in the way you choose to act. Whether or not you respect my viewpoint and those whom are similar to me - well, I'll leave that for you to comment on.

[sailingaway]

I disagree on your schools of thought as well. I think a basic minimum is not a 'purity test' it is having the term mean anything at all.

[jmdrake]

fiscally conservative isn't a liberty candidate in itself, and I see nothing else to recommend him.

It is each person's own decision, but I think where we NEED funding is where the arbitrary left/right paradigm misses, where you have candidates that are BOTH fiscally conservative AND oppose the police state, for example, giving them no 'lobbiest base'. Those people are speaking for me, at least. Not those wholly on the partisan right or the partisan left.

If we spend our resources on run of the mill Club for Growth candidates, we will lose the ability to get actual liberty candidates elected. And candidates will have little incentive to BE actual liberty candidates.

+rep! If we're going to start supporting folks just on the idea that they agree with us on some things, then why not have a Dennis Kucinich moneybomb?

[cajuncocoa]

So who exactly are you all working for and supporting?

We don't have Liberty candidates because we are a non-factor in fund-raising and on the ground game.

Get active and then we will have "pure" liberty candidates. Until then, quit yer bitchin' and support the best we have available.If someone like Flake is "the best we have available", I won't. I don't have to support anyone, and I certainly won't support someone who gifted us with the Patriot Act. And when an RPF member tries to pass such a candidate off as a "friend of liberty", I'm going to keep "bitching".

[sailingaway]

So who exactly are you all working for and supporting?

We don't have Liberty candidates because we are a non-factor in fund-raising and on the ground game.

Get active and then we will have "pure" liberty candidates. Until then, quit yer bitchin' and support the best we have available.

I think we have fundraising and ground game when we have inspiring liberty candidates. We are KNOWN FOR our fundraising and ground game....

Look at Ron Paul.

If we work just as hard for people who are working for someone else's principles and voting against ours, they will think it is just fine to do that, imho.

[tbone717]

I disagree on your schools of thought as well. I think a basic minimum is not a 'purity test' it is having the term mean anything at all.

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

[jmdrake]

Got it.

As I said earlier, you can have your definition and others will have theirs. I support the right of organizations like this Liberty PAC to deem support for whomever they choose to support and determine that on their own. Just as I support your right to do the same.


Private organizations like this "Liberty PAC" have a right to support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney if they choose. And under the first amendment they have a right to call that person a "liberty candidate". And?



So what about the War on Drugs? Immigration issues? The Fed Audit?


None of those issues represents nearly as bad of an assault on the U.S. constitution as does the NDAA. And yes that includes the Fed. As horrible as the Fed is, its existence isn't expressly precluded by the constitution. What it does is another matter altogether.



There was someone on here that stated that unless someone supported ending the fed and competing currencies and made that their top priority, they were not a liberty candidate.

We can go down this road all day long, and I am sure at the end of the day you will have a dozen or two different opinions on what the various litmus tests are.

If you want to donate to or campaign for someone who's gone against one of the most basic of all constitutional rights, that's on you.

[sailingaway]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

I do disagree with Rand on several things. Endorsing Romney while his father's delegates are still working to nominate his father at RNC is another.

But DeMint I believe voted AGAINST the Patriot Act the last time it was up. You keep raising votes of people who have proven they have changed their minds by votes in the other direction. I KNOW he voted against NDAA.

Also, while I think De MInt is better than most in the Senate, I'm not sure I'd call him one of us. We can work together on a lot of things, though.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

As far as the Liberty For All PAC money infusion, somebody mentioned that it may have been earmarked for Flake.

I just don't see the point of putting anymore money into the race. Flake will crush Cardon in the primary, and will assuredly win the general. Furthermore, there is already a lot of money in this race.

[jmdrake]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

Ron Paul has had alliances with Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank and others. He gave a joint third party endorsement to and Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader along with Chuck Baldwin. (He later exclusively endorsed Baldwin, but only because Bob Barr was being a jackass in demanding that Dr. Paul endorse a single candidate and hoping to bully Dr. Paul into endorsing him. The joke ended up on Barr.) I'm pretty sure you don't consider Kucinich, Frank, McKinney or Nader "liberty candidates"? Anyhow, Rand endorsed Romney, so an alliance with Rand does not a liberty politician make.

[jmdrake]

I think the surprise here is how much a PAC funded by a Ron Paul supporter is giving. I wonder if the donor knew his voting record.

Is the PAC in question the one funded in part by Peter Thiel?

[AuH20]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

But DeMint is much better than Flake. Jim voted against NDAA and SOPA I believe. DeMint isn't weak on illegal immigration like Flake. I don't understand the rationale for lowering the bar for someone like Flake. I hope he wins but I'm not overly excited.

[sailingaway]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

I don't consider shunning to be useful in most contexts. Diluting our brand would be bad, though, it permits co-option.

As for Ron, he will TALK to ANYONE. As angelatc said in a thread some time ago 'it isn't a flaw, it is a feature'.

[sailingaway]

But DeMint is much better than Flake. Jim voted against NDAA and SOPA I believe. DeMint isn't weak on illegal immigration like Flake. I don't understand lowering the bar for someone like Flake.

I agree De Mint is better than Flake. I disagree with DeMint primarily on managed trade and foreign policy, off of the top of my head, and trade and foreign policy are at least true functions of the federal govt under the Constitution. Indefinitely detaining citizens without trial is forbidden.

[gerryb]

I think we have fundraising and ground game when we have inspiring liberty candidates. We are KNOWN FOR our fundraising and ground game....

Look at Ron Paul.

It's a paper tiger. We did not have a ground game. In my location, we had 25 people out working polls on election day. Good, right? We're one of the more active groups. The GOP had 400 people out on the same day. We had lots of rallies of students, who are not involved past attending a speech or two and posting on facebook.

Kurt Bills is our "pure" candidate for Senate, and he has raised a measly $80,000 against $7m. My friend hosted and I volunteered at an event that raised 1/8th of that for him...

If a candidate is 80% with us, they are worthy of support.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[cajuncocoa]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.I don't care what Rand does at this point. He lost me when he endorsed Mittens.

[Kluge]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

[sailingaway]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

I noticed that as well. I didn't do it, if you are wondering. I did CONSIDER putting 'controversial' in it, but didn't.

[pcosmar]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

It's you,, and the thread title was changed slightly.

[LibertyEagle]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Why is this so hard to understand? Working with someone on an issue is different than calling them one of our own. Angelatc was right when she said that this is how the conservative movement was taken over by the neocons.


Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

Again, they are not liberty candidates. It doesn't however mean we cannot work with them on issues where we share agreement. We can build alliances on those issues.

[tbone717]

I do disagree with Rand on several things. Endorsing Romney while his father's delegates are still working to nominate his father at RNC is another.

But DeMint I believe voted AGAINST the Patriot Act the last time it was up. You keep raising votes of people who have proven they have changed their minds by votes in the other direction. I KNOW he voted against NDAA.

Also, while I think De MInt is better than most in the Senate, I'm not sure I'd call him one of us. We can work together on a lot of things, though.

According to this roll call, DeMint voted for the 2012 NDAA the same one Flake voted against (source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218). The 2013 NDAA has not been voted yet in the Senate according to this - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN03254:@@@R

According to this roll call, DeMint did vote for the 2006 re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00025

[sailingaway]

It's a paper tiger. We did not have a ground game. In my location, we had 25 people out working polls on election day. Good, right? We're one of the more active groups. The GOP had 400 people out on the same day. We had lots of rallies of students, who are not involved past attending a speech or two and posting on facebook.

Kurt Bills is our "pure" candidate for Senate, and he has raised a measly $80,000 against $7m. My friend hosted and I volunteered at an event that raised 1/8th of that for him...

If a candidate is 80% with us, they are worthy of support.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The ordinary in political circles is pretty bad, not good.

And Bills, unfortunately, for some reason isn't seen as pure and is avoiding lighting the fires Ron lights. I'm not following it that closely but I also think people were just broke from Ron's run by the time he came around, and his wasn't seen as a particularly winnable seat, in the context of seats out there. I absolutely think he needs more support and I am hoping he will get it in the upcoming money bomb (note my signature). However, what I say is NOT a paper tiger if you look at those who DO excite us. Ron made quite a bit, Amash made more than Bills in a single money bomb. Bills is up against a popular candidate in that part of the world, and is NOT rallying us, but trying to be under the radar. Those who AVOID speaking for us because they are frightened of backlash can't expect us to get as excited about them.

[tbone717]

Why is this so hard to understand? Working with someone on an issue is different than calling them one of our own. Angelatc was right when she said that this is how the conservative movement was taken over by the neocons.



Again, they are not liberty candidates. It doesn't however mean we cannot work with them on issues where we share agreement. We can build alliances on those issues.

But who is this "we" who is "our" -- is it RPF's definition? Yours? Sailings? That has been my point here all along. Your definition of what constitutes a liberty candidate may be different from mine, which may differ from Sailing's, which may differ from cajuncocoa's.

No one has any sort of exclusivity on the term. But I respect your opinion, and while I am not calling you out personally there are some in here that have no tolerance for anyone that differs with their mindset and agenda.

Basically what I see here is that there is a contingency that is essentially saying Flake, DeMint, Lee or whomever aren't liberty candidates and anyone who calls them as such is wrong.

My point all along, is that there are many people and organizations that are working towards the same goal of restoring liberty that will see things differently that others. Whether or not those views are tolerated or not will determine how large this segment of the movement grows, or how small it shrinks.

You "shun" enough people, as was suggested, and RPF is going to be ineffectual when it comes to promoting candidates down the road.

Eventually, folks like myself are going to tire of the constant attacks on our principles and just leave you all to yourselves.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

For the final NDAA, I know DeMint voted against it, but he did vote for the first one.

I think after going on Glenn Beck he found out about the indefinite detention, but I may be thinking about somebody else.

[gerryb]

But who is this "we" who is "our" -- is it RPF's definition? Yours? Sailings? That has been my point here all along. Your definition of what constitutes a liberty candidate may be different from mine, which may differ from Sailing's, which may differ from cajuncocoa's.

If we went by MY definition of a Liberty candidate, no one would be supporting Ron Paul -- he isn't pure enough. /Voluntarism

[tsai3904]

For the final NDAA, I know DeMint voted against it, but he did vote for the first one.

What tbone linked to was the Senate roll call vote for final passage of NDAA Fiscal Year 2012. DeMint voted for final passage.

Here's the vote again:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

[jmdrake]

It's a paper tiger. We did not have a ground game. In my location, we had 25 people out working polls on election day. Good, right? We're one of the more active groups. The GOP had 400 people out on the same day. We had lots of rallies of students, who are not involved past attending a speech or two and posting on facebook.

Kurt Bills is our "pure" candidate for Senate, and he has raised a measly $80,000 against $7m. My friend hosted and I volunteered at an event that raised 1/8th of that for him...

If a candidate is 80% with us, they are worthy of support.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The answer is fix the ground game. The answer isn't divert money away from the perfect to the crappy pretending to be good. And sure, this "Liberty PAC" is free to donate to whoever they want. I'm glad I didn't donate to them.


The ordinary in political circles is pretty bad, not good.

And Bills, unfortunately, for some reason isn't seen as pure. I'm not following it that closely but I think mostly people were just broke from Ron's run by the time he came around. It is NOT a paper tiger if you look at those who DO excite us. Ron made quite a bit, Amash made more than Bills in a single money bomb. Bills is up against a popular candidate in that part of the world, and is NOT rallying us, but trying to be under the radar. Those who AVOID speaking for us because they are frightened of backlash can't expect us to get as excited about them.

^This. Rand Paul benefited not only from being Ron's son but also running 2 years after the 2008 election when most folks had financially "reloaded".

[Brian4Liberty]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

I thought it was a new thread.

[sailingaway]

According to this roll call, DeMint voted for the 2012 NDAA the same one Flake voted against (source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218). The 2013 NDAA has not been voted yet in the Senate according to this - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN03254:@@@R

According to this roll call, DeMint did vote for the 2006 re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00025

Wow, then I was wrong about De Mint and I revise my opinion accordingly. I considered him a Constitutionalist of a more national security sort, and vague on sovereignty issues in trade. I am very sorry to learn I was wrong about the NDAA vote. I will have to look into that. I saw somewhere that he had voted against it. Of maybe he voted for Rand's amendment to remove the one section first and then when it failed voted for it. I have to look into it, but I absolutely believe what I said, that no one who voted for that (or in Flake's case, against the amendment by Smith-Amash which would have removed it) can say they are true to their oath of office.

See? I do change my mind when I get new facts. You haven't changed my mind on Flake, but you have given me more serious doubts about De Mint.

--
edit, however, as I said to begin with, I did NOT consider De Mint a liberty candidate, I just considered him better on several issues than most.

[LibertyEagle]

But who is this "we" who is "our" -- is it RPF's definition? Yours? Sailings? That has been my point here all along. Your definition of what constitutes a liberty candidate may be different from mine, which may differ from Sailing's, which may differ from cajuncocoa's.

No one has any sort of exclusivity on the term. But I respect your opinion, and while I am not calling you out personally there are some in here that have no tolerance for anyone that differs with their mindset and agenda.

I see what you are saying, Tbone, and that is true. However, there is a basic line that most of us here can agree that no one on the left of it, can in any way shape or form, call themselves a liberty candidate. I think it is fair to say that line is the Patriot Act and the NDDA. With the exception that they might be somewhat excused if they have since denounced it. Beyond that, yes, there will be disagreement. But, I don't understand how you can stand there claiming that someone is a liberty candidate who doesn't at least pass this most basic of constitutional tests.

[sailingaway]

I see what you are saying, Tbone, and that is true. However, there is a basic line that most of us here can agree that no one on the left of it, can in any way shape or form, call themselves a liberty candidate. I think it is fair to say that line is the Patriot Act and the NDDA. With the exception that they might be somewhat excused if they have since denounced it. Beyond that, yes, there will be disagreement. But, I don't understand how you can stand there claiming that someone is a liberty candidate who doesn't at least pass this most basic of constitutional tests.

Yeah, we each have hot buttons and we each have areas where our requirements arent as strict, but the body of principles is pretty easy for US to understand, and some are just beyond the pale. Look at the Constitution as a first cut.

[tsai3904]

Wow, then I was wrong about De Mint and I revise my opinion accordingly. I considered him a Constitutionalist of a more national security sort, and vague on sovereignty issues in trade. I am very sorry to learn I was wrong about the NDAA vote. I will have to look into that. I saw somewhere that he had voted against it.

Hold on...

The link that tbone and I shared was for final passage of the Senate bill for NDAA FY12. The Senate bill did not become law.

It went into conference and DeMint voted against the Conference Report, which was the very last act before the bill became law.

Here's the roll call vote on the Conference Report:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

No wonder so many people don't follow politics...it's so hard to follow exactly what goes on.

So DeMint voted for final passage of the Senate version of NDAA but voted against the Conference Report.

[sailingaway]

Hold on...

The link that tbone and I shared was for final passage of the Senate bill for NDAA FY12. The Senate bill did not become law.

It went into conference and DeMint voted against the Conference Report, which was the very last act before the bill became law.

Here's the roll call vote on the Conference Report:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

No wonder so many people don't follow politics...it's so hard to follow exactly what goes on.

So DeMint voted for final passage of the Senate version of NDAA but voted against the Conference Report.

Yea!

I will look at it for when NDAA was added etc, but if he voted against the Conference report, he voted against it before it became law.

My feeling about De Mint is that he tries to do the right thing, by his lights. I would be very sorry to think otherwise.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Wow, then I was wrong about De Mint and I revise my opinion accordingly. I considered him a Constitutionalist of a more national security sort, and vague on sovereignty issues in trade. I am very sorry to learn I was wrong about the NDAA vote. I will have to look into that. I saw somewhere that he had voted against it. Of maybe he voted for Rand's amendment to remove the one section first and then when it failed voted for it. I have to look into it, but I absolutely believe what I said, that no one who voted for that (or in Flake's case, against the amendment by Smith-Amash which would have removed it) can say they are true to their oath of office.

See? I do change my mind when I get new facts. You haven't changed my mind on Flake, but you have given me more serious doubts about De Mint.

--
edit, however, as I said to begin with, I did NOT consider De Mint a liberty candidate, I just considered him better on several issues than most.

DeMint voted against the final version: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230#position

I strongly support DeMint. He recently worked to halt two U.N. treaties.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/239095-demint-holds-up-un-disabilities-treaty-as-home-school-opposition-grows
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/16/demint-says-law-sea-treaty-now-dead/

[tbone717]

I see what you are saying, Tbone, and that is true. However, there is a basic line that most of us here can agree that no one on the left of it, can in any way shape or form, call themselves a liberty candidate. I think it is fair to say that line is the Patriot Act and the NDDA. With the exception that they might be somewhat excused if they have since denounced it. Beyond that, yes, there will be disagreement. But, I don't understand how you can stand there claiming that someone is a liberty candidate who doesn't at least pass this most basic of constitutional tests.

But I am not the sole person calling someone a liberty candidate, friend of liberty, liberty republican or whatever adjective you want to give to someone. It is a myriad of other organizations, PACs, etc that are identifying candidates as liberty candidates. If RPF wants to have their own definition then that is fine as well.

And BTW, I don't think I ever referred to Flake as being a liberty candidate, but that other groups do consider him one and I am fine with that. It's been a lot of typing today, and I am doing this in between sales calls, so I cannot recall everything that was posted.

But yes, I consider Flake to be a libertarian-conservative. Is he right on every issue? No. But, I don't have anyone I agree with 100%. 90% is good enough for me, provided the embrace the same overall principles that I hold to. And I don't fault someone for votes they have made along the way because I realize in some cases they can give a sound reason for their vote.

Like DeMint, why did he vote for the NDAA 2012 Senate bill, but they against the conference report? I don't know, nor do I have the time to research it all. But I am not going to cast him aside because of it. His record throughout his career is good enough for me to know that he is one of the good guys, and if he ran for the nomination I would be happy to back him (provided there wasn't someone else in the race that I preferred)

[tbone717]

Yea!

I will look at it for when NDAA was added etc, but if he voted against the Conference report, he voted against it before it became law.

My feeling about De Mint is that he tries to do the right thing, by his lights. I would be very sorry to think otherwise.

It's hard to find all of it after the session expires. Sorry for any confusion.

[AJ Antimony]

I think it's all about building coalitions. But I am afraid ( and I hope I am wrong ) that the new power brokers are using us (Rand, Liberty PAC, etc) to build their movement instead of us using them for that purpose.

What are you talking about? What power brokers? Arizona Republicans are running a US Senate candidate, Jeff Flake. Arizona Ron Paul Republicans aren't even running a Senate candidate! Why would they waste their time 'using us' when we can't even run our own candidates?

[sailingaway]

But I am not the sole person calling someone a liberty candidate, friend of liberty, liberty republican or whatever adjective you want to give to someone. It is a myriad of other organizations, PACs, etc that are identifying candidates as liberty candidates. If RPF wants to have their own definition then that is fine as well.

Yeah, but our folks shouldn't think when RLC says someone is a liberty candidate that they mean the same thing we do, then. I do wonder if this PAC would have given this money, given that they specifically sought our input, if we had posted this when they asked about candidates. I just didn't see Flake raised at that time, and admittedly did not track their site.

I can't imagine a 21 year old Texas College student Ron Paul supporter getting excited about someone who voted against removing indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, and FOR making the Patriot Act provisions permanent.

That RLC and others may have much looser requirements for what they term a 'liberty candidate' than most Ron Paul supporters (to the point that some chapters of RLC even endorsed other candidates OVER Ron Paul) is just something our people need to keep in mind. It is why 'liberty candidate' might not be a useful term without a specific list of key votes, including the Smith Amash amendment and Patriot Act.

[tbone717]

Yeah, but our folks shouldn't think when RLC says someone is a liberty candidate that they mean the same thing we do, then. I do wonder if this PAC would have given this money, given that they specifically sought our input, if we had posted this when they asked about candidates. I just didn't see Flake raised at that time, and admittedly did not track their site.

I can't imagine a 21 year old Texas College student Ron Paul supporter getting excited about someone who voted against removing indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, and FOR making the Patriot Act provisions permanent.

That RLC and others may have much looser requirements for what they term a 'liberty candidate' than most Ron Paul supporters (to the point that some chapters of RLC even endorsed other candidates OVER Ron Paul) is just something our people need to keep in mind. It is why 'liberty candidate' might not be a useful term without a specific list of key votes, including the Smith Amash amendment and Patriot Act.

As I understand the process, candidates approach the RLC for their endorsement - not the other way around. So Karen K, Kerry B, Massie, Rand, Amash, Cruz, Bills, Gunny, etc all went to the RLC, filled out their candidate questionnaire and submitted it for approval. And if I understand it correctly, they all open up their checkbook and pay the membership dues as well. So obviously all these folks that RPF have supported see some value in the organization, otherwise why would they spend the time and money to affiliate with it?

BTW here is the survey the federal candidates complete

http://www.rlc.org/rlc-federal-candidate-survey/

[AJ Antimony]

Then I guess anyone can arbitrarily define liberty.

They can on an internet message board that encourages free thought and debate..

[KingNothing]

What are you talking about? What power brokers? Arizona Republicans are running a US Senate candidate, Jeff Flake. Arizona Ron Paul Republicans aren't even running a Senate candidate! Why would they waste their time 'using us' when we can't even run our own candidates?

Excellent post, my friend!

[sailingaway]

As I understand the process, candidates approach the RLC for their endorsement - not the other way around. So Karen K, Kerry B, Massie, Rand, Amash, Cruz, Bills, Gunny, etc all went to the RLC, filled out their candidate questionnaire and submitted it for approval. And if I understand it correctly, they all open up their checkbook and pay the membership dues as well. So obviously all these folks that RPF have supported see some value in the organization, otherwise why would they spend the time and money to affiliate with it?

BTW here is the survey the federal candidates complete

http://www.rlc.org/rlc-federal-candidate-survey/

We want our candidates endorsed by groups, generally. We would like them endorsed by Club for Growth, so long as they don't change their principles to get it. That doesn't make the OTHER candidates endorsed by those organizations the same as ours.

We were glad when Palin endorsed Rand. That doesn't mean we were planning to vote for Fiorini. (Although, actually, I guess I may have, in voting AGAINST Feinstein. But I never considered her a liberty candidate.)

Others who endorse, including RLC may overlap with us without being us or having our concerns as their criterion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-cruz-would-bring-conservative-muscle-to-senate/article/2503393

Despite some of his questionable votes, I'm starting to think that a Flake victory would be very helpful to our movement. Flake is far from perfect, but it seems like he will consistently vote with the Rand block if elected. Also, Flake's opponent Wil Cardon does not seem friendly to Liberty in any way, shape, or form.

I'm starting to understand why the Liberty For All PAC is helping him out with that massive ad buy. We could potentially have a friendly ally in the senate for the next 20-30 years.

Thoughts?

There is only one movement with that being the American Movement. All other movements, whether friend or foe, are false. The one true American Movement can never be altered from returning the American people to the revering of our Founding Fathers, to the independence they declared seperating us from tyranny, and to the Civil-Purpose they established for us with it being based on a sound natural law.

[KingNothing]

I think Flake's race is a bit different than a standard Presidential race. In a presidential race, it literally does not matter who you vote for. No matter who wins, we'll be saddled with someone who will increase the national debt, support the expansion of government, have a hostile foreign policy, shred civil liberties, and endorse the Federal Reserve. Flake isn't perfect, sure. But is his opponent? One of those two will win. Will either work to end the Fed? Will either support a repeal of the Patriot Act & NDAA? Will either be an anti-war crusader? No on all accounts, correct? At the very least, Flake will try to lessen the debt. Given the choice between that, and someone who is wrong on all fronts, why not take that?


Further, it would certainly be better to have Republicans control the Senate if Obama is in the White House (which he almost certainly will be.) At least then we can hope to have partisan bickering slow down the growth of the state.

[tbone717]

We want our candidates endorsed by groups, generally. We would like them endorsed by Club for Growth, so long as they don't change their principles to get it. That doesn't make the OTHER candidates endorsed by those organizations the same as ours.

We were glad when Palin endorsed Rand. That doesn't mean we were planning to vote for Fiorini. (Although, actually, I guess I may have, in voting AGAINST Feinstein. But I never considered her a liberty candidate.)

Others who endorse, including RLC may overlap with us without being us or having our concerns as their criterion.

Ok I get that, but who is this "we", "us" and "our". This is a forum not a PAC or organization. If you want a closed forum, with strict criteria on who is endorsed and who is not then you can do that - but if you want an open forum for discussion and debate you are going to have varying opinions.

[sailingaway]

I think Flake's race is a bit different than a standard Presidential race. In a presidential race, it literally does not matter who you vote for. No matter who wins, we'll be saddled with someone who will increase the national debt, support the expansion of government, have a hostile foreign policy, shred civil liberties, and endorse the Federal Reserve. Flake isn't perfect, sure. But is his opponent? One of those two will win. Will either work to end the Fed? Will either support a repeal of the Patriot Act & NDAA? Will either be an anti-war crusader? No on all accounts, correct? At the very least, Flake will try to lessen the debt. Given the choice between that, and someone who is wrong on all fronts, why not take that?


Further, it would certainly be better to have Republicans control the Senate if Obama is in the White House (which he almost certainly will be.) At least then we can hope to have partisan bickering slow down the growth of the state.

I think most are saying Flake is better than his opponent for voting purposes, it was the 'liberty candidate/ liberty movement' tag that was being disavowed.

[sailingaway]

Ok I get that, but who is this "we", "us" and "our". This is a forum not a PAC or organization. If you want a closed forum, with strict criteria on who is endorsed and who is not then you can do that - but if you want an open forum for discussion and debate you are going to have varying opinions.

Yes, and we should make it clear which candidates would /did support NDAA etc so people can know what definitions we are using. 'Liberty candidate' is clearly too vague.

[tsai3904]

I think most are saying Flake is better than his opponent for voting purposes, it was the 'liberty candidate/ liberty movement' tag that was being disavowed.

Yea, this whole discussion boils down to defining the term "liberty candidate/movement".

[cajuncocoa]

Instead of worrying about who makes the perfect liberty candidate, maybe we should focus solely on getting liberty ISSUES passed (and, of course, oppose anti-liberty issues). That way, it doesn't matter whether a candidate is 5% with us or 95% with us. What matters is whether the legislation gets passed or not.

[sailingaway]

Instead of worrying about who makes the perfect liberty candidate, maybe we should go us solely on getting liberty ISSUES passed (and, of course, oppose anti-liberty issues). That way, it doesn't matter whether a candidate is 5% with us or 95% with us. What matters is whether the legislation gets passed or not.

that is a different branch of the tree, and something we absolutely need to focus on, as with Audit the Fed. But when it comes to asking for funding for CANDIDATES as liberty candidates, it would be useful to either have a definition we agree on, or at least a set of issues where we specify their position and reason we have for believing they are sincere.

[tbone717]

Yes, and we should make it clear which candidates would /did support NDAA etc so people can know what definitions we are using. 'Liberty candidate' is clearly too vague.

And again with Flake regarding NDAA he did vote against the 2012 bill that established indefinite detention. It was the 2013 bill (after indefinite detention was already signed into law) that he voted for. And while he did vote against the Smith Amash Amendement, there were provisions in that amendment that went over and above the mere reversal of the indefinite detention clauses.

[KingNothing]

Yea, this whole discussion boils down to defining the term "liberty candidate/movement".


...oh. who cares? Its semantics. Voting records speak for themselves.

[tsai3904]

...oh. who cares? Its semantics. Voting records speak for themselves.

Exactly. I could care less if Rubio is considered a "Tea Party" candidate.

Just look at their voting records and judge yourself based on the issues that are most important to you.

[cajuncocoa]

that is a different branch of the tree, and something we absolutely need to focus on, as with Audit the Fed. But when it comes to asking for funding for CANDIDATES as liberty candidates, it would be useful to either have a definition we agree on, or at least a set of issues where we specify their position and reason we have for believing they are sincere.Unless I find the second coming of Ron Paul, I'm pretty much done with funding candidates...it's too easy to get burned. Think I'll hop on over to the issues branch of the tree.

[libertskee]

Wow. A lot has happened since I last checked this thread.

First off, I agree that Jeff Flake is not a pure Liberty candidate. I consider myself a voluntaryist, so he is pretty far from my ideal candidate. All I was trying to say is that having an extra senator to vote with Rand, DeMint, and Lee on MANY of our issues will be be an overall POSITIVE for our movement.

Also, I don't understand why people are giving the Liberty for All PAC such a hard time. The Ramsey fellow spent a ton of money to elect Massie and is giving a much needed boost to the Bentivolio campaign. Massie and Bentivolio are well accepted on these forums as "Liberty candidates". Just because you disagree with one move they are making, doesn't mean you should write off an organization that has a lot of potential to help us and has already done some good things.

[sailingaway]

And again with Flake regarding NDAA he did vote against the 2012 bill that established indefinite detention. It was the 2013 bill (after indefinite detention was already signed into law) that he voted for. And while he did vote against the Smith Amash Amendement, there were provisions in that amendment that went over and above the mere reversal of the indefinite detention clauses.

No, only over and above the 'American citizen' part.
There is no part of Smith Amash that should not be a no brainer for a 'liberty candidate'.

Ron's bill went further.

[sailingaway]

Wow. A lot has happened since I last checked this thread.

First off, I agree that Jeff Flake is not a pure Liberty candidate. I consider myself a voluntaryist, so he is pretty far from my ideal candidate. All I was trying to say is that having an extra senator to vote with Rand, DeMint, and Lee on MANY of our issues will be be an overall POSITIVE for our movement.

Also, I don't understand why people are giving the Liberty for All PAC such a hard time. The Ramsey fellow spent a ton of money to elect Massie and is giving a much needed boost to the Bentivolio campaign. Massie and Bentivolio are well accepted on these forums as "Liberty candidates". Just because you disagree with one move they are making, doesn't mean you should write off an organization that has a lot of potential to help us and has already done some good things.

no one has written them off, we are wondering if they were misled in this particular situation, or if they actually support Flake kind of candidates, generally.

[gerryb]

Unless I find the second coming of Ron Paul, I'm pretty much done with funding candidates...it's too easy to get burned. Think I'll hop on over to the issues branch of the tree.

There is no one your supporting locally? Young Republican Chairs, College Republican Secretaries, Precinct Captains, nothing?

[jkob]

Wil Cardon is just absolutely terrible.

Saw a Liberty For All Superpac ad for Flake yesterday

[NoOneButPaul]

Changing thread titles to fit your own agenda is pretty damn disingenuous.

It's hilarious how often this site censors what people say when they don't agree with the majority here.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think Flake's race is a bit different than a standard Presidential race. In a presidential race, it literally does not matter who you vote for. No matter who wins, we'll be saddled with someone who will increase the national debt, support the expansion of government, have a hostile foreign policy, shred civil liberties, and endorse the Federal Reserve. Flake isn't perfect, sure. But is his opponent? One of those two will win. Will either work to end the Fed? Will either support a repeal of the Patriot Act & NDAA? Will either be an anti-war crusader? No on all accounts, correct? At the very least, Flake will try to lessen the debt. Given the choice between that, and someone who is wrong on all fronts, why not take that?




Further, it would certainly be better to have Republicans control the Senate if Obama is in the White House (which he almost certainly will be.) At least then we can hope to have partisan bickering slow down the growth of the state.

While elections work for tyranny to the benefit of tyranny and to the detrement of the disadvantaged people, the American Movement has always worked outside of the electoral process to the detrement of tyranny and to the benefit of the disadvantaged people. How can anyone deny this and claim to be on the side of the disadvantaged people? Well, I guess they can just be asleep. Zzzzz . . .

[tbone717]

No, only over and above the 'American citizen' part.
There is no part of Smith Amash that should not be a no brainer for a 'liberty candidate'.

Ron's bill went further.

I think the "American Citizen" part is a big deal. I read the text of the amendment today, and I would have voted against it if I were in the House. I'm not sure of all the legislative action that went on, but I am unaware if anyone proposed an amendment with better language.

[sailingaway]

Changing thread titles to fit your own agenda is pretty damn disingenuous.

It's hilarious how often this site censors what people say when they don't agree with the majority here.

I didn't do it, but it isn't 'disingenuous' at all. It is the tweeting of RON PAUL FORUMS and the site traffic here that makes thread titles get tweeted out and near the top of google searches. If RPF wants its thread titles to not carry appearance of endorsement of non RPF ideas, that is absolutely fair.

[sailingaway]

I think the "American Citizen" part is a big deal. I read the text of the amendment today, and I would have voted against it if I were in the House. I'm not sure of all the legislative action that went on, but I am unaware if anyone proposed an amendment with better language.

Ron proposed one that cut out the entire sections. However, leadership wouldn't bring it to the vote.

Smith Amash was the best brought to vote, and I think anyone who let indefinite detention continue when it could have been so cut back is not a liberty candidate. I see no possible liberty justification for voting against that bill.

Obviously, you differ, but it just shows how meaningless the terms are, and how much people need to nail down specific positions of candidates not just assume they know what those positions are because someone calls them a 'liberty candidate'.

[AJ Antimony]

no one has written them off, we are wondering if they were misled in this particular situation, or if they actually support Flake kind of candidates, generally.

Misled? They are the only libertarian-leaning super PAC that has flat out stated that they are primarily interested in winning elections. Massie's primary race was winnable, Bentivolio's race is winnable, Flake's race is winnable.

Candidates like Robinson and Hamlin are NOT in winnable races. I bet if Bills' race becomes more competitive they will make some ad buys for that race.

[specsaregood]

I didn't do it, but it isn't 'disingenuous' at all. It is the tweeting of RON PAUL FORUMS and the site traffic here that makes thread titles get tweeted out and near the top of google searches. If RPF wants its thread titles to not carry appearance of endorsement of non RPF ideas, that is absolutely fair.

Which account is supposedly twitting these? linkie? Thanks in advance.

[cajuncocoa]

There is no one your supporting locally? Young Republican Chairs, College Republican Secretaries, Precinct Captains, nothing?No, there isn't. Reason being, I'm not into hearing promises when people want to be elected, only to be burned when they claim they made a "pragmatic decision". The GOP is on a short leash with me. I won't say I'll never vote for a worthy GOP candidate, but I just don't know any right now...other than Ron Paul.

[sailingaway]

Which account is supposedly twitting these? linkie? Thanks in advance.

as far as I know, RPF is only tweeting the stuff on the front page, but Economic Mayhem and two or three others (Liberty something and Jason (?) B something (the avatar is a Red Pill) tweet them, at minimum, in an 'I assume it is a bot' way.

[tbone717]

Ron proposed one that cut out the entire sections. However, leadership wouldn't bring it to the vote.

Smith Amash was the best brought to vote, and I think anyone who let indefinite detention continue when it could have been so cut back is not a liberty candidate. I see no possible liberty justification for voting against that bill.

Obviously, you differ, but it just shows how meaningless the terms are, and how much people need to nail down specific positions of candidates not just assume they know what those positions are because someone calls them a 'liberty candidate'.

The problem with the amendment was that it went too far. The author (Smith) is to the left of Pelosi based on his voting record. In all honesty, to me the amendment reads like it was written by the Code Pink crowd.

I feel that by not specifying "citizens" in the amendment, it would mean that foreign combatants captured on US soil would not be able to be held by the military, but would have to be transferred over to civil court. That changes a US policy that has been in place forever IIRC. If I remember my history, when we captured British soliders during the war of 1812, we didn't give them a civil trial. At least that is my understanding when I read the bill. Keep in mind, I'm an economics guy not a defense guy.

The Paul one, if it is as you described, should have been the one to go to the floor. But Goebert (or whatever his name was) was the one who got his amendment to the floor. The Dems put up the Smith amendment, which is too far left for my tastes.

All in all it is another reason, why we need more of our guys in the House. So in a situation like this, the Paul one would have been the one that was introduced.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Misled? They are the only libertarian-leaning super PAC that has flat out stated that they are primarily interested in winning elections. Massie's primary race was winnable, Bentivolio's race is winnable, Flake's race is winnable.

Candidates like Robinson and Hamlin are NOT in winnable races. I bet if Bills' race becomes more competitive they will make some ad buys for that race.

Seems to be two kinds of members debating in this forum. Either they are lawyers, or they lick the boots of lawyers. If it ain't the legal way, there ain't no way. Well, I guess even these kinds of folks can be trusted more than a Santa Anna boot licker (the illegal who crosses over the border with the idea that the tyranny they just fled from is somehow better than the United States).

[sailingaway]

The problem with the amendment was that it went too far. The author (Smith) is to the left of Pelosi based on his voting record. I feel that by not specifying "citizens" in the amendment, it would mean that foreign combatants captured on US soil would not be able to be held by the military, but would have to be transferred over to civil court. At least that is my understanding when I read the bill. Keep in mind, I'm an economics guy not a defense guy.

The Paul one, if it is as you described, should have been the one to go to the floor. But Goebert (or whatever his name was) was the one who got his amendment to the floor. The Dems put up the Smith amendment, which is too far left for my tastes.

All in all it is another reason, why we need more of our guys in the House. So in a situation like this, the Paul one would have been the one that was introduced.

regardless of whether the one is 'too far left' if it requires non military picked up on the streets here need a trial, which I think is in the Constitution as well, I think choosing to NOT vote away indefinite detention for American citizens for fear of having to give due process to foreigners picked up on the streets of the US (as we have historically done for criminals including deadly ones, including terrorists) is not the sign of a liberty candidate. And 'left / right' red meat terms don't persuade me.

[gerryb]

No, there isn't. Reason being, I'm not into hearing promises when people want to be elected, only to be burned when they claim they made a "pragmatic decision". The GOP is on a short leash with me. I won't say I'll never vote for a worthy GOP candidate, but I just don't know any right now...other than Ron Paul.

How are you goign to concentrate on "issues" if you can't even recruit like minded candidates at the VERY bottom of the totem poll in your area?

[tbone717]

How are you goign to concentrate on "issues" if you can't even recruit like minded candidates at the VERY bottom of the totem poll in your area?

I have to agree with gerryb here cajuncocoa. We've talked at length about this in other threads, but seriously no one running for school board, tax collector, township manager or sheriff you can get behind?

[tbone717]

regardless of whether the one is 'too far left' if it requires non military picked up on the streets here need a trial, which I think is in the Constitution as well, I think choosing to NOT vote away indefinite detention for American citizens for fear of having to give due process to foreigners picked up on the streets of the US (as we have historically done for criminals including deadly ones, including terrorists) is not the sign of a liberty candidate. And 'left / right' red meat terms don't persuade me.

Well perhaps Flake felt the Goebert amendment, which put the habeus corpus language in the bill was sufficient. One would have to contact his office for an explanation I would imagine.

Nonetheless, I still feel he will be an asset in the Senate and I'd wager that he'll be a fourth, fifth or sixth guy in those DeMint, Rand, Lee press conferences come January.

[cajuncocoa]

How are you goign to concentrate on "issues" if you can't even recruit like minded candidates at the VERY bottom of the totem poll in your area?


I have to agree with gerryb here cajuncocoa. We've talked at length about this in other threads, but seriously no one running for school board, tax collector, township manager or sheriff you can get behind?Are you guys trying to be this obtuse on purpose?

Do we not have bills coming up for a vote all the time? When I say "issues" that's what I mean.

I'm not interested in getting behind someone in the GOP for school board or sheriff. Who cares? And I was never speaking about recruiting people to run for office.

[sailingaway]

How are you goign to concentrate on "issues" if you can't even recruit like minded candidates at the VERY bottom of the totem poll in your area?

I voted for and passed out lists of the central committee members when they were running in the primary. I will do the same with any I know are good liberty candidates, I'm just not going to wholesale adopt someone ELSE's list of who they are.

[sailingaway]

Well perhaps Flake felt the Goebert amendment, which put the habeus corpus language in the bill was sufficient. One would have to contact his office for an explanation I would imagine.

Nonetheless, I still feel he will be an asset in the Senate and I'd wager that he'll be a fourth, fifth or sixth guy in those DeMint, Rand, Lee press conferences come January.

I would call his office if I saw a possible way he was a liberty candidate. I care about Amash's rationale when I disagree with his votes. I don't care about Flake's because they are too frequent. Patriot Act, NDAA, there is a pattern.

[pcosmar]

I have to agree with gerryb here cajuncocoa. We've talked at length about this in other threads, but seriously no one running for school board, tax collector, township manager or sheriff you can get behind?

There were some in my area,, but the "Tea Party" endorsed a Big Gov rubber stamp that came out of nowhere.

I supported Glenn Wilson. Unfortunately not enough others did.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/09/michigan-independent-glenn-wilson-takes-on-democratic-republican-political-mafia-in-new-ad/

[tbone717]

I'm not interested in getting behind someone in the GOP for school board or sheriff. Who cares? .

Honestly, most of us here should care. I detailed this elsewhere on the site, but sitting right here in my home I have one House rep, 2 Senators, 1 state rep and 1 state Senator. But there are 26 local offices that are decided here as well. County Commissioner, County Controller, Sheriff, Prothonotary & Clerk of Courts, Recorder of Deeds...I'd list them all but you get the picture. While the folks on the school board certainly don't determine foreign policy, they do determine what I am paying in school tax - it's important that those offices are filled my libertarian-conservatives as well.

[gerryb]

Are you guys trying to be this obtuse on purpose?

Do we not have bills coming up for a vote all the time? When I say "issues" that's what I mean.

I'm not interested in getting behind someone in the GOP for school board or sheriff. Who cares? And I was never speaking about recruiting people to run for office.

YOU care. You want a pure candidate. The only way to get a "pure" candidate is to recruit someone that is 100% in agreement with you and push them forward up the ranks.

Instead of supporting a candidate that is 80% or greater with us and will vote our way for all but the remaining 20%... you'd rather pursue issues and grovel at the feet of those who are against us 80% of the time?

How much effort has been put into Audit the Fed? A TON - and it doubt it will pass the Senate. It's easier to replace than to change their minds.

[sailingaway]

Honestly, most of us here should care. I detailed this elsewhere on the site, but sitting right here in my home I have one House rep, 2 Senators, 1 state rep and 1 state Senator. But there are 26 local offices that are decided here as well. County Commissioner, County Controller, Sheriff, Prothonotary & Clerk of Courts, Recorder of Deeds...I'd list them all but you get the picture. While the folks on the school board certainly don't determine foreign policy, they do determine what I am paying in school tax - it's important that those offices are filled my libertarian-conservatives as well.

Only if they are truly good ones. I will work for truly good ones, whatever their office. But I don't care about 'libertarian conservatives' of the watered down sort I don't consider liberty candidates.

[tbone717]

There were some in my area,, but the "Tea Party" endorsed a Big Gov rubber stamp that came out of nowhere.

I supported Glenn Wilson. Unfortunately not enough others did.

We actually have a nice little success story here. Our school board in made up of 9 folks. Every year like clockwork they raise the school tax. Not a huge amount, but still they raise it. And up to last year no one voted no. But this past year we got two strong fiscal conservatives on the board and for the first time the tax increase was a 7-2 vote. There are a few more seats up next year I think. Hoping that eventually, we can get it to 5-4 "no" vote.

[gerryb]

Honestly, most of us here should care.

Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty..

Someone said that once. He wasn't 100% pure, though.

[cajuncocoa]

If I knew someone like that, other than Ron Paul, I would push them. The problem is, people like that are rare....and they don't tend to run for office. Even if they do and get elected, the power goes to their head and then they do something stupid like endorse Mittens.

The majority of people who run for political office are lying hypocritical bastards who will say anything to get elected and them turn their back on you once they take the oath of office. That's why nothing ever changes.

[sailingaway]

YOU care. You want a pure candidate. The only way to get a "pure" candidate is to recruit someone that is 100% in agreement with you and push them forward up the ranks.

Instead of supporting a candidate that is 80% or greater with us and will vote our way for all but the remaining 20%... you'd rather pursue issues and grovel at the feet of those who are against us 80% of the time?

How much effort has been put into Audit the Fed? A TON - and it doubt it will pass the Senate. It's easier to replace than to change their minds.

audit the fed isn't all I care about. IF they perpetuate the Patriot Act and NDAA, they shouldn't be there, either. I will vote for my best choice, but there should be INCENTIVE to be a liberty candidate and to champion liberty issues. If we 'give it away' to those who only hit one of our issues, why should they bother to take on the difficutl stuff?

[cajuncocoa]

Only if they are truly good ones. I will work for truly good ones, whatever their office. But I don't care about 'libertarian conservatives' of the watered down sort I don't consider liberty candidates.


audit the fed isn't all I care about. IF they perpetuate the Patriot Act and NDAA, they shouldn't be there, either. I will vote for my best choice, but there should be INCENTIVE to be a liberty candidate and to champion liberty issues. If we 'give it away' to those who only hit one of our issues, why should they bother to take on the difficutl stuff?


I think you said what I meant a lot better than I did.

[tbone717]

Only if they are truly good ones. I will work for truly good ones, whatever their office. But I don't care about 'libertarian conservatives' of the watered down sort I don't consider liberty candidates.

I say libertarian-conservatives often to distinguish from the "capital L" Libertarians. That is actually pretty much where Rand is more so than a guy like Johnson or whoever else they ran on the LP ticket in the past.

[AJ Antimony]

I'm not interested in getting behind someone in the GOP for school board or sheriff. Who cares?

Well, then unfortunately you're going to be losing elections for the rest of your life.

It's amazing that you've been here since 2007 and still have ZERO idea how politics works. Are you telling me you have NEVER noticed the types of people who generally run for certain offices?

Who typically runs for US Senate? US Representatives.
Who typically runs for US Representative? State Representatives.
Who typically runs for State Representative? LOCAL office holders such as "school board, tax collector, township manager or sheriff"
Who typically runs for LOCAL offices? People like YOU who want to make a difference and change policy but who don't want to sit on their ass waiting for someone else to do it.

[gerryb]

IThat's why nothing ever changes.

Nothing ever changes because YOU don't change it. Why would a liberty candidate, or one who is close, run for office in your area? You won't support them, so it would be a waste of time.

We get the candidates we deserve.

[cajuncocoa]

Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty..

Someone said that once. He wasn't 100% pure, though.Exercise some "eternal vigilance" by not labeling people who voted NDAA and the Patriot Act as Liberty Candidates!!

[NoOneButPaul]

I didn't do it, but it isn't 'disingenuous' at all. It is the tweeting of RON PAUL FORUMS and the site traffic here that makes thread titles get tweeted out and near the top of google searches. If RPF wants its thread titles to not carry appearance of endorsement of non RPF ideas, that is absolutely fair.

The problem is this is incredibly narrow minded for the site to do because now all of the sudden we're holding people to a forum standard... yes a forum with 40,229 people (perhaps not all of them even American citizens) now decides what the proper "standard" is for particular candidate.

Jeff Flake was 1st on the Congressional Liberty Index in 2010:
http://www.rlc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LI2009.pdf

He beat out Ron Paul who was in fact #2.

Say what you will about the rankings themselves what is clear is he's in the top tier of liberty republicans and to try to dismiss him because you don't like one or two of his issues is exactly the kind of absurd "standard" that will cause this movement to go NOWHERE.

The type of standard you're placing should be held against people when we actually hold the party and aren't still a tireless minority. The time to hold people to that standard is when we have 300 Jeff Flakes and not 10.

Is he perfect? No, no one is, even the people you think are perfect now, when elected, will do 1-2 things you don't like- then what? We destroy them to and change their thread titles and self-destruct all on our own?

Do you not see where such a ridicoulous standard will get you? We need to grow and in order to do that we have to vote in the most like-minded liberty people we can and sort out the best and the worst later. We won't even get to that point if we hold everyone to such a standard now.


And, on top of all of that, there's 42,000 members but how many are active really? 1-2 thousand?

So now we're holding the entire liberty movement to a standard that 1 to 2 thousand people on a forum decide?

This is total insanity.

A Jeff Flake Victory WILL help the Liberty Movement even if he's not a carbon copy of Ron Paul.

1-2 thousand people spreading the idea his victory WONT help the Liberty Movement will only suppress his own support and cause the opposition, who is clearly inferior, to win and HURT THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT.

[sailingaway]

I say libertarian-conservatives often to distinguish from the "capital L" Libertarians. That is actually pretty much where Rand is more so than a guy like Johnson or whoever else they ran on the LP ticket in the past.

you include a lot of people I don't like.

I am noting that the thrust of this entire thread is people not having the same definitions. I will work like crazy for people who satisfy my own.

[cajuncocoa]

Nothing ever changes because YOU don't change it. Why would a liberty candidate, or one who is close, run for office in your area? You won't support them, so it would be a waste of time.

We get the candidates we deserve.Where and when did I say I "won't support" a liberty candidate?

You're taking my words out of context.

I said I won't support someone I don't know who claims to be a liberty candidate. If all I know about them is that they take the liberty label, that's not enough. And it's especially not enough when I learn they've supported the main bills that have destroyed our civil liberties! That gets them a big fat NO from me.

[gerryb]

Exercise some "eternal vigilance" by not labeling people who voted NDAA and the Patriot Act as Liberty Candidates!!

As has been stated no less than half a dozen times, who is labeling them as "Liberty" candidates? What makes that mark?

If we held out for what I consider a liberty candidate -- Ron Paul's public policy does not even qualify. His personal thoughts probably do. We would get nowhere.

[tbone717]

you include a lot of people I don't like.

I am noting that the thrust of this entire thread is people not having the same definitions. I will work like crazy for people who satisfy my own.

And you write off people I think will be very helpful. Nonetheless, I believe we share the same ultimate goals.

[cajuncocoa]

Well, then unfortunately you're going to be losing elections for the rest of your life.

It's amazing that you've been here since 2007 and still have ZERO idea how politics works. Are you telling me you have NEVER noticed the types of people who generally run for certain offices?

Who typically runs for US Senate? US Representatives.
Who typically runs for US Representative? State Representatives.
Who typically runs for State Representative? LOCAL office holders such as "school board, tax collector, township manager or sheriff"
Who typically runs for LOCAL offices? People like YOU who want to make a difference and change policy but who don't want to sit on their ass waiting for someone else to do it.For reasons I'm not going to go into here (because they're none of anyone's business) I'm not running for office, and I have no intention of doing so.

But thank you for assuming the only option for me is to "sit on (my) ass" :rolleyes:

[sailingaway]

The problem is this is incredibly narrow minded for the site to do because now all of the sudden we're holding people to a forum standard... yes a forum with 40,229 people (perhaps not all of them even American citizens) now decides what the proper "standard" is for particular candidate.

Jeff Flake was 1st on the Congressional Liberty Index in 2010:
http://www.rlc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LI2009.pdf

He beat out Ron Paul who was in fact #2.

Say what you will about the rankings themselves what is clear is he's in the top tier of liberty republicans and to try dismiss him because you don't like one or two of his issues is exactly the kind of absurd "standard" that will cause this movement to go NOWHERE.

The type of standard you're placing should be held against people when we actually hold the party and aren't still a tireless minority. The time to hold people to that is when we have 300 Jeff Flakes and not 10.

Is he perfect? No, no one is, even the people you think are perfect now, when elected, will do 1-2 things you don't like- then what? We destroy them to and change their thread titles and self-destruct all on our own?

Do you not see where such a ridicoulous standard will get you? We need to grow and in order to do that we have to vote in the most like-minded liberty people we can and sort out the best and the worst later. We won't even get to that point if we hold everyone to such a standard now.


And, on top of all of that, there's 42,000 members but how many are active really? 1-2 thousand?

So now we're holding the entire liberty movement to a standard that 1 to 2 thousand people on a forum decide?

This is total insanity.

A Jeff Flake Victory WILL help the Liberty Movement even if he's not a carbon copy of Ron Paul.

1-2 thousand people spreading the idea his victory WONT help the Liberty Movement will only suppress his own support and cause the opposition, who is clearly inferior, to win.

You are saying Ron Paul Forum's internet clout should advertise that Flake is a liberty candidate which is what the title said before it was modified, essentially, even though there is absolutely NOT a consensus on that. AS I said, I didn't change the title, but that would have been equally wrong and would have come up in a google article search as a RON PAUL FORUMS thread.

If the OP wants to pm a mod with a different title that does assume one way or the other (Flake is better than his opponent, for example) I'm sure any mod would be happy to change it.

I don't think anyone wants to advertise AGAINST Flake in his race, but nor do many of us want him to appear to be one of our own.

[sailingaway]

And you write off people I think will be very helpful. Nonetheless, I believe we share the same ultimate goals.

I'm not sure we do. At least I think issues I think are absolute baseline you think are in the 'wouldn't it be pleasant if we got that' category. That could definitely lead us to pushing different candidates in a specific race.

[gerryb]

You are saying Ron Paul Forum's internet clout should advertise that Flake is a liberty candidate which is what the title said before it was modified, essentially, even though there is absolutely NOT a consensus on that..

I don't know what it was before, I am assuming the [NOT] was inserted. IF that's the only change.. Then who is calling him a liberty candidate in the thread title? It says help the Liberty Movement. IF the person will vote 1 time more for liberty issues than the opponent, it is helpful to the liberty movement...

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Is there anybody on the forum that actually believes Flake won't be helpful to the liberty movement?

Whether he is a liberty candidate is debatable.

The title should be changed back. Anyone who believes he will not help(hurt) the liberty movement is delusional.

[cajuncocoa]

As has been stated no less than half a dozen times, who is labeling them as "Liberty" candidates? What makes that mark?

If we held out for what I consider a liberty candidate -- Ron Paul's public policy does not even qualify. His personal thoughts probably do. We would get nowhere.

Yes, we all have our own ideas of what makes someone a liberty candidate. On that point, we agree.

However, I would have never guessed (although lately I probably should have known) that I would find a thread here that was originally titled " A Jeff Flake Victory will help the Liberty Movement", and after reading a few posts, I learn this Jeff Flake has voted for not only the PATRIOT Act, not only the Iraq War, not only NDAA, not only to create the TSA, but all 4 of those things!! How can someone like that "HELP" the liberty movement?? Is that so hard to understand??