Discussion: Marc Scaringi or Sam Rohrer

[tbone717]

Agreed. It just really irritates me to support someone who I can't picture voting for Ron Paul or supporting him publicly, like Scaringi has.

With the available candidates I don't see Rohrer personally voting for any of the others. And regarding endorsing, no one else in PA with any name recognition has made a formal endorsement of Paul. Even State Sen Mike Folmer, who endorsed in 08, hasn't this year. And Folmer, in my opinion, is about as pure as anyone could ever expect.

My guess is that a lot of guys are just staying out of this race because it has been so fluid.

[EdQ]

It is a matter of realism. The primary is in less than seven weeks and the guy has no name recognition, no money and little if any organization. Rohrer has all of the above and even has a phone from home program in place.

BTW what policy position of Rohrer's do you think is fundamentally different than Scaringi's? When you compare the two, I see little if any difference philosophically. The only difference that I can see is superficial as Scaringi's website is designed to attract the RP supporters by using the right buzzwords, where Rohrer's has a more broad based appeal.

Scaringi is absolutely opposed to the war on drugs, the wars, war with Iran, and he is in favor of serious monetary policy reform. Rohrer is also against the separation of church and state.

[tbone717]

Rohrer is also against the separation of church and state.

Quote? Source?

[tuggy24g]

So did we come to a definitive decision?

[Pennsylvania]

Scaringi

[tbone717]

So did we come to a definitive decision?

I have. I am supporting and volunteering for Rohrer. Both are great candidates, but Rohrer has a far better organization, financing and name recognition state wide. Based on that, and his stances on the issues it is a no-brainer for me. He is going to be here in my town doing a meet and greet and I already have a lot of people from my local area coming out for it.

[jeremiah89]

I'm still torn between the two, but given that Rohrer seems to have more name recognition at this point, I feel like it might be better to vote for him. I saw an old friend posted about him on Facebook. I'm pretty sure she's not a Paul supporter, but she's heavily involved with her local Tea Party. Seems like he could have a pretty broad appeal.

I've thought about voting Scaringi in the primary and then possibly Rohrer in the general if he makes it, but I feel like if too many people do that, we end up splitting the vote, and there's no possible way for either of them to win. And there's very little wrong with Rohrer, really. I was listening to some of the Conservative Declaration talk shows that someone posted a link to in here, and they basically referred to him as the Pennsylvanian Ron Paul, because he's so consistent.

So, for now at least, I plan to vote for Rohrer.

[tbone717]

I'm still torn between the two, but given that Rohrer seems to have more name recognition at this point, I feel like it might be better to vote for him. I saw an old friend posted about him on Facebook. I'm pretty sure she's not a Paul supporter, but she's heavily involved with her local Tea Party. Seems like he could have a pretty broad appeal.

I've thought about voting Scaringi in the primary and then possibly Rohrer in the general if he makes it, but I feel like if too many people do that, we end up splitting the vote, and there's no possible way for either of them to win. And there's very little wrong with Rohrer, really. I was listening to some of the Conservative Declaration talk shows that someone posted a link to in here, and they basically referred to him as the Pennsylvanian Ron Paul, because he's so consistent.

So, for now at least, I plan to vote for Rohrer.

You are right about Rohrer having broader appeal. He has successfully been able to market libertarian principles in a way that resonates with the average voter. Additionally, I think Rohrer has a better shot in the general over Scaringi and even over Welch. If we are able to get the Senate seat for Rohrer in Nov it will be a huge victory. To think that PA would have Toomey and Rohrer as Senators vs Specter and Casey that we had just a few short years ago would be monumental. Especially for a state like PA which tends to lean to the center left because of Philly and Pittsburgh.

And I would encourage you and others not only to vote for him, but to work for him. One vote is great but 100's of votes is even better.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...epublican.html

[GeorgiaAvenger]

[Jingles]

I'm for Scaringi all the way.

[tbone717]

I'm for Scaringi all the way.

And your reasoning? On what policies is he fundamentally different that Rohrer?

[Jingles]

And your reasoning? On what policies is he fundamentally different that Rohrer?

His site, does not even address foreign policy. Scaringi wants to eliminate the drugs war as well as is anti-war. I don't see this from Rohrer and from what I have heard and seen Rohrer is quite the neocon in this respect. I want to vote for a libertarian. Not a tea-partyish former state candidate.

I don't want a Tea Party candidate . I want a pure candidate rather than Rohrer.

http://scaringiforsenate2012.files.w...r-03-15-12.mp3

^Come on PA liberty friends... This our guy.

Also, my RLC friend. We are supposed to be about liberty. I don't care about "this guy can win" politics and neither should you. We are trying to spread the message of liberty and Scaringi is our guy in this regard. I just bothers me that you are so focused on the electoral process rather than an actual liberty candidate. Protest as you will, but what if the purpose of an RLC if you aren't only advocating liberty candidates and no one else. (I know the RLC endorsed Scaringi, but you make it seem to be the opposite).

[Jingles]

Come on, this is our dude.

[tbone717]

His site, does not even address foreign policy. Scaringi wants to eliminate the drugs war as well as is anti-war. I don't see this from Rohrer and from what I have heard and seen Rohrer is quite the neocon in this respect. I want to vote for a libertarian. Not a tea-partyish former state candidate.

I don't want a Tea Party candidate . I want a pure candidate rather than Rohrer.

http://scaringiforsenate2012.files.w...r-03-15-12.mp3

^Come on PA liberty friends... This our guy.

Also, my RLC friend. We are supposed to be about liberty. I don't care about "this guy can win" politics and neither should you. We are trying to spread the message of liberty and Scaringi is our guy in this regard. I just bothers me that you are so focused on the electoral process rather than an actual liberty candidate. Protest as you will, but what if the purpose of an RLC if you aren't only advocating liberty candidates and no one else. (I know the RLC endorsed Scaringi, but you make it seem to be the opposite).

Here is an interview with Rohrer that was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.conservativedeclaration.c...es-sam-rohrer/

Summary: against Read ID, against Patriot Act, for a Fed Audit, for competing currency, against Obamacare, for Soc Security opt outs, pro states rights, limited government champion, for deregulation, supports a flat tax as an improvement over current system (but believes fed withholding to be unconstitutional), mirrors Paul on immigration, against foreign aid, supports congressional declaration of war, against the dept of education.

As a side note the RLC endorsed Rohrer when he ran for Governor. I am not sure why they chose Scaringi over Rohrer this time, for all we know it could have been a split decision of the committee that does the endorsements.

And regarding Rohrer being a "neo-con", this is from an article he wrote earlier this month:

"Fostering Israel’s strength and stability should be a priority for U.S. foreign policy. As Israel deals with the challenges of potential Palestinian statehood, securing its borders and calculating its response to Iran’s growing nuclear threat, the United States must respect Israel’s sovereignty and right to self-determination...Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that Israel will be a stronger and more independent nation if the United States were to gradually reduce its aid to Israel over the years – and I agree. In fact, Israel is likely to enhance its strength vis-à-vis its enemies if the U.S. were to concurrently decrease its aid to Israel’s enemies as well, which we may fund as much as 4:1 over Israel. And with the foreign aid issue off the table, Israel’s stature would strengthen when dealing with the United States. These two freedom-loving nations with shared vision and values would be equal partners – neither nation would be subservient to the other"

That doesn't sound like a neo-con to me.

And one final point you stated, "We are trying to spread the message of liberty". This is absolutely correct. Between the two candidates, one has the realistic chance to advance our cause and spread the message of liberty, the other does not have a realistic chance to do so. If one truly wants to spread the message of liberty, we need to rally around and support candidates that have the means and the ability to do so. Rohrer can win the primary, and Rohrer can be competitive in the general. Scaringi cannot. So if we wish to advance our cause we need to support the candidate that has the chance of doing so, not simply lining up behind a guy because we like his rhetoric better regardless of his chance of winning.

As I said, there is little fundamental difference between Scaringi and Rohrer. Regarding Iran, Scaringi is more of an absolutist where Rohrer takes a more pragmatic approach - however both agree that any act of war needs to be declared by Congress, and isn't that the Constitutional position?

[liberalnurse]

Thursday, March22 @ 2pm, there's a candidate forum @ the Community Arts Center, Williamsport. Rohrer, Scaringi and Welsh are there. There's a fourth but can't think of their name. 2 aren't coming.

[liberalnurse]

An article about the PA Sentate race from 9/2011. Somwhow, I didn't know this, and he spoke at our meetup.

Four underdogs, including former Rick Santorum aide Marc Scaringi, are also running.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1pHUFPoUP

[Jingles]

Here is an interview with Rohrer that was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.conservativedeclaration.c...es-sam-rohrer/

Summary: against Read ID, against Patriot Act, for a Fed Audit, for competing currency, against Obamacare, for Soc Security opt outs, pro states rights, limited government champion, for deregulation, supports a flat tax as an improvement over current system (but believes fed withholding to be unconstitutional), mirrors Paul on immigration, against foreign aid, supports congressional declaration of war, against the dept of education.

As a side note the RLC endorsed Rohrer when he ran for Governor. I am not sure why they chose Scaringi over Rohrer this time, for all we know it could have been a split decision of the committee that does the endorsements.

And regarding Rohrer being a "neo-con", this is from an article he wrote earlier this month:

"Fostering Israel’s strength and stability should be a priority for U.S. foreign policy. As Israel deals with the challenges of potential Palestinian statehood, securing its borders and calculating its response to Iran’s growing nuclear threat, the United States must respect Israel’s sovereignty and right to self-determination...Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that Israel will be a stronger and more independent nation if the United States were to gradually reduce its aid to Israel over the years – and I agree. In fact, Israel is likely to enhance its strength vis-à-vis its enemies if the U.S. were to concurrently decrease its aid to Israel’s enemies as well, which we may fund as much as 4:1 over Israel. And with the foreign aid issue off the table, Israel’s stature would strengthen when dealing with the United States. These two freedom-loving nations with shared vision and values would be equal partners – neither nation would be subservient to the other"

That doesn't sound like a neo-con to me.

And one final point you stated, "We are trying to spread the message of liberty". This is absolutely correct. Between the two candidates, one has the realistic chance to advance our cause and spread the message of liberty, the other does not have a realistic chance to do so. If one truly wants to spread the message of liberty, we need to rally around and support candidates that have the means and the ability to do so. Rohrer can win the primary, and Rohrer can be competitive in the general. Scaringi cannot. So if we wish to advance our cause we need to support the candidate that has the chance of doing so, not simply lining up behind a guy because we like his rhetoric better regardless of his chance of winning.

As I said, there is little fundamental difference between Scaringi and Rohrer. Regarding Iran, Scaringi is more of an absolutist where Rohrer takes a more pragmatic approach - however both agree that any act of war needs to be declared by Congress, and isn't that the Constitutional position?

I know what you are saying... but my confusion is why you are supporting Rohrer rather than the true obvious libertarian in the race. If you are representing the RLC then I feel discomforted by it. I thought we meant full on true liberty candidate, but you made it sound like not so and we should apologize for someone' "not very liberty mindness".

I'm sorry, but I'm not playing those games. I will never vote for Rohrer. I will vote Scaringi in the primary and if he doesn't win I will vote Libertarian or the like. I don't want us to "compromise" on liberty issues. We need to be firm on them.

[Jingles]

http://scaringiforsenate2012.wordpre...n-afghanistan/

If you read his op-eds... this is the guy for us. Like why are you supporting Rohrer?

[tbone717]

I know what you are saying... but my confusion is why you are supporting Rohrer rather than the true obvious libertarian in the race. If you are representing the RLC then I feel discomforted by it. I thought we meant full on true liberty candidate, but you made it sound like not so and we should apologize for someone' "not very liberty mindness".

I'm sorry, but I'm not playing those games. I will never vote for Rohrer. I will vote Scaringi in the primary and if he doesn't win I will vote Libertarian or the like. I don't want us to "compromise" on liberty issues. We need to be firm on them.

What I think you don't see is that BOTH candidates are libertarian. Both candidates have been endorsed by the RLC at one time. As I stated, my guess is that it was a split decision at the RLC and if Scaringi was not running then the RLC would have endorsed Rohrer as they have in the past.

By saying "I will never vote for Rohrer", you are acting as though Rohrer is a socialist for Pete's sake. There is no compromise on liberty issues, they both have the same fundamental beliefs - there may be some implementation differences, but that is to be expected. There is nothing in Rohrer's statements, interviews or record that would make anyone think he is a compromise.

Have you listened to the interview I posted? If so, where are your disagreements? What disqualifies Rohrer in your mind that you will never vote for him? Where are these compromises? Is it because he doesn't use the absolutist rhetoric that Scaringi uses? Do you realize that when he ran for governor he had the support of Ron Paul supporters through C4L and Daily Paul?

[tbone717]

http://scaringiforsenate2012.wordpre...n-afghanistan/

If you read his op-eds... this is the guy for us. Like why are you supporting Rohrer?

Because when I read Rohrer's writings, listen to his interviews he is also the guy for us. And when making a choice between two outstanding libertarian candidates, I choose the one that has the ability to win. This is not a matter of personal preference. If the situations were reversed and Scaringi had the name recognition, the organization and the financing I would back him. I would not, however, back any of the other candidates that are in this race because they are not libertarians.

This is not about any major philosophical differences between Rohrer and Scaringi. It is about which of the two liberty candidates has a chance to win.

[Jingles]

What I think you don't see is that BOTH candidates are libertarian. Both candidates have been endorsed by the RLC at one time. As I stated, my guess is that it was a split decision at the RLC and if Scaringi was not running then the RLC would have endorsed Rohrer as they have in the past.

By saying "I will never vote for Rohrer", you are acting as though Rohrer is a socialist for Pete's sake. There is no compromise on liberty issues, they both have the same fundamental beliefs - there may be some implementation differences, but that is to be expected. There is nothing in Rohrer's statements, interviews or record that would make anyone think he is a compromise.

Have you listened to the interview I posted? If so, where are your disagreements? What disqualifies Rohrer in your mind that you will never vote for him? Where are these compromises? Is it because he doesn't use the absolutist rhetoric that Scaringi uses? Do you realize that when he ran for governor he had the support of Ron Paul supporters through C4L and Daily Paul?

I don't know what to say other than he isn't Scaringi who courageously defends libertarians causes. Even if Rohrer is semi-liberty minded, he is not as libertarian as I want him to be. I want Scaringi. He is the best candidate I have ever seen run in PA... Ever. I'm going to support him and if there is no Libertarian party candidate for senate in PA I am writing Scaringi in. I'm tired, of BS. It's full on libertarian for me or no go on candidates nowadays.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't want that. I want a true libertarian in office not some quasi-tea party crap.

[tbone717]

I don't know what to say other than he isn't Scaringi who courageously defends libertarians causes. Even if Rohrer is semi-liberty minded, he is not as libertarian as I want him to be. I want Scaringi. He is the best candidate I have ever seen run in PA... Ever. I'm going to support him and if there is no Libertarian party candidate for senate in PA I am writing Scaringi in. I'm tired, of BS. It's full on libertarian for me or no go on candidates nowadays.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't want that. I want a true libertarian in office not some quasi-tea party crap.

Did you listen to the interview? What did he say that makes it quasi-tea party crap? Why would C4L promote him if he wasn't a libertarian candidate? Why would RLC endorse him for governor if he did not meet their standards? What position does Rohrer advocate that does not make him libertarian? Or do you have such a narrow specific definition that encompasses not only ideology but methodology as well?

[Jingles]

Did you listen to the interview? What did he say that makes it quasi-tea party crap? Why would C4L promote him if he wasn't a libertarian candidate? Why would RLC endorse him for governor if he did not meet their standards? What position does Rohrer advocate that does not make him libertarian? Or do you have such a narrow specific definition that encompasses not only ideology but methodology as well?

He was good for governor, but I don't sipport him in national sense. He isn't with us in regards to foreign policy. Elect him, fine. Learn the hard way.

[CaptUSA]

I have to tell you, I'm torn here.

I like both of these guys. I have my problems with both as well. (although, in Scaringi's case it's more guilt by association... It seems to me, that working for Santorum would turn his stomach every day and yet, he still did it.)

I'd be satisfied with either of these candidates. So, to me, it would essentially come down to the electability factor. In that case, I think Rohrer has a better chance in winning against Casey.

[tbone717]

Another radio broadcast. The Sons of Liberty radio network discussing exactly what we are discussing here in this thread.

http://www.conservativedeclaration.c...es-conclusion/

[tbone717]

He was good for governor, but I don't sipport him in national sense. He isn't with us in regards to foreign policy. Elect him, fine. Learn the hard way.

Sam Rohrer's FP from his site (emphasis added):

"Sam feels that our nation has an obligation to uphold the individual liberties guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution and promote them on a world stage. One of the original orders of the Constitution was the provision for common defense and Sam believes we must maintain a strong defense at home -second to none. Sam feels that military engagements on foreign soil must be accompanied by a Congressional declaration of war and that to do less or to dispense foreign aid as is the current practice undermines the integrity of the Constitution and grants unjustified power to the Executive branch."

[HigherVision]

In a recent email from the Scaringi campaign he says:

"Scaringi is in a statistical dead heat with Tom Smith in the Republican Primary! Marc's crusade to "Restore Liberty to America" one Pennsylvanian voter at a time has brought results. Through his and his supporters grassroots efforts, Marc has dramatically jumped in the polls, up 8 points. Marc has been steadily gaining ground on the front-runner over the months, picking up points on Sam Rohrer, and is now just a few points behind."

So if that's the case I'm voting for Scaringi. Maybe if he was in dead last or something I'd vote for Rohrer, who I find utterly unimpressive, but if Scaringi isn't all that far away then f it, I'm voting my conscience. Maybe if we need to focus on building momentum for Scaringi. I guess donating would help. Sucks that I gave so much to Ron, this is arguably more important.

[HigherVision]

Did you listen to the interview? What did he say that makes it quasi-tea party crap?

Well one big thing for me is that he wants to keep cannabis illegal. Scaringi wants to end the war on drugs, period. That's a libertarian.

[CaptUSA]

In a recent email from the Scaringi campaign he says:

"Scaringi is in a statistical dead heat with Tom Smith in the Republican Primary! Marc's crusade to "Restore Liberty to America" one Pennsylvanian voter at a time has brought results. Through his and his supporters grassroots efforts, Marc has dramatically jumped in the polls, up 8 points. Marc has been steadily gaining ground on the front-runner over the months, picking up points on Sam Rohrer, and is now just a few points behind."

So if that's the case I'm voting for Scaringi. Maybe if he was in dead last or something I'd vote for Rohrer, who I find utterly unimpressive, but if Scaringi isn't all that far away then f it, I'm voting my conscience. Maybe if we need to focus on building momentum for Scaringi. I guess donating would help. Sucks that I gave so much to Ron, this is arguably more important.

I'm not just concerned about winning the primary, though. I tend to think Rohrer has a better chance of beating Casey.