# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Potential Liberty Senate challengers 2014

## Rocco

One area the liberty movement really needs to see some progress is in the Senate. We have Rand Paul in there right now who is a bona fide liberty guy, Mike Lee who is with us on 95% of issues and I would consider a bona fide liberty guy, then we'll have Demint and Cruz who are both with us on 85-90% of issues and are very strong allies to our movement. We will also have people like Flake, Deb Fischer, Ron Johnson and Pat Toomey who are with us probably 75-80% of the time and are relative allies. But where should we put our focus on for 2014? 

The formula for electability is to generally be going for a seat that has a good chance of going republican, for a seat that has no republican incumbent, in a place where the tea party movement is strong and we have a liberty candidate who can bridge to that coalition. Luckily, there's quite a few places which fit the bill: 

South Carolina- Does this one go against most of the criteria I set out? Yes, but it is also the race the liberty movement must pay the most attention to. When Obama beats Romney, the conservative wing of the party is going to look to 2014 to oust the RINO wing, and the man the conservative wing mostly considers RINO number one is Lindsey Graham. Graham has been vilified for his willingness to compromise on fiscal issues, to work with democrats and for his big spending ways. Luckily for us, the man positioning himself to be Grahams tea party challenger is liberty movement star Tom Davis. Davis gave a rousing speech at the We Are The Future rally in Tampa, and set himself up as a great future leader of this movement. Club for Growth has already pledged to work to take out Graham, and with a bona fide liberty candidate standing to gain from that support I have no doubt this is THE most important seat for our movement.  

Alaska- If South Carolina is the most important state to the movement, Alaska is a close second. With a pretty weak democrat incumbent and nobody else openly expressing interest on the republican side, bona fide liberty candidate Joe Miller looks poised to reach the US Senate. Though he withheld publicly endorsing during the primary, his family came out and endorsed Ron Paul during the primaries. He helped lead the Ron Paul takeover of the Alaska GOP, and as such should almost cake walk to the nomination. The only reason this is less important then South Carolina is because, quite frankly, it seems like a much more sure bet. I don't see Miller losing this. 

Iowa- With Ron Paul people controlling the organization in Iowa, and an incumbent democrat in a swing state, a chance to make a liberty senator emerge from here is great. Unless Terry Brandsted throws his hat in the ring I see no reason why a legitimate primary challenger for this seat cannot be found in the republican primary. Liberty Iowa PAC could play a big role here. 

New Hampshire- With the democratic incumbent having the least money of anyone running in 2014, this seat should be a target for the RNC nationally. With the huge roster of elected liberty officials in New Hampshire, along with our concentration of activists, we could and should make this seat a priority! 

Georgia- Saxby Chambliss has put himself in a bad spot with tea partiers with his support of raising taxes to shrink the deficit, and is anticipating a primary challenge. Now, you may ask yourself again, why in the hell am I listing a republican incumbent when that goes against pretty much every rule? Well, Georgia's GOP is in the middle of a large Ron Paul insurgency and the tea party wing of the party has had their sights on Chambliss for a few months now. Do we have a candidate out there? I'm not sure, I know Charles Gregory (the GA state chair of C4L before he ran for office) will be in the state senate as of November so it is certainly possible. 


Any states that I'm missing? Anything from these states I need to add?

----------


## Smart3

The power of Establishment candidates in those races can not and should not be underestimated.

but I appreciate your optimism.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

If we can get Lindsey Lohan out, that'd be enough victory to make me excited!  Then only McCain will be left of the 3 Amigos.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> If we can get Lindsey Lohan out, that'd be enough victory to make me excited!  Then only McCain will be left of the 3 Amigos.


Who's the third?

I always thought the interventionist butt buddies were Graham, McCain, and Lieberman. Lieberman is out after this year, McCain is in his last term (hopefully), and Graham will be primaried.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Who's the third?
> 
> I always thought the interventionist butt buddies were Graham, McCain, and Lieberman. Lieberman is out after this year, McCain is in his last term (hopefully), and Graham will be primaried.


But of course Rubio and Ayotte had to come along....

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Hmmm. In Iowa, I believe a few state senators endorsed Ron. Kent Sorenson comes to mind.

In GA, I have heard little talk of a challenge. I don't know who either; our best congressmen are Broun and Graves and I don't know if they would be willing to go through that. Somebody needs to oust our RINO governor as well.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> But of course Rubio and Ayotte had to come along....


Are you trying to tell me they don't favor a conservative foreign policy????

----------


## Smart3

> Hmmm. In Iowa, I believe a few state senators endorsed Ron. Kent Sorenson comes to mind.
> 
> In GA, I have heard little talk of a challenge. I don't know who either; our best congressmen are Broun and Graves and I don't know if they would be willing to go through that. Somebody needs to oust our RINO governor as well.


St. Reps Massie, Pearson and Schultz endorsed him. Only Sorenson is actually running in 2012 though.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

I love the way you think!  We should definitely target some of these Senate seats with our own people.

----------


## Shane Harris

A huge part of what gets done at the federal level is Foreign Policy related, and you say that Cruz and Demint are with us 85-90%?? They are with us on cutting some domestic spending, and taxes, and maybe the Fed. They are not with us on Foreign Policy or Drug Policy. They are nationalists who are with us (at best) 65% of the time.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Are you trying to tell me they don't favor a conservative foreign policy????

----------


## mz10

Are we sure that A) Joe Miller is actually planning on running and B) That Gov. Parnell isn't interested?

----------


## Okaloosa

In November the most important race for the Liberty movement is in Minnesota, as a Liberty candidate is running for the U.S. Senate. Kurt Bills is a State Representative who endorsed Ron Paul for President this year and supported him in 2008. He is also a High School Economics teacher who teaches free market and Austrian economics. 

He has also been endorsed by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RLC, Rand PAC, YAL PAC, and the FreedomWorks PAC. Ron Paul also sent me a fundraising letter on behalf of Kurt Bills stating that if you support only one candidate this November it should be Kurt Bills. 

He has been under attack for his support of Ron Paul, making this an important race to show that Liberty candidates can win. He will also be voting with Rand Paul in the Senate and can help Rand Paul out with a Presidential run in 2016. This election will also serve as a referendum on Liberty candidates that can either help or hurt Liberty candidates.  Al Franken will be up in 2014 and he can be taken down by a Liberty candidate we just need to help Kurt Bills out right now.  We will need to donate and inform those registered to vote in MN. They also just setup a phone from home program that we can help out with too.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

North Carolina (Possible) Greg Brannon US Senate 2014

----------


## Smart3

> In November the most important race for the Liberty movement is in Minnesota, as a Liberty candidate is running for the U.S. Senate. Kurt Bills is a State Representative who endorsed Ron Paul for President this year and supported him in 2008. He is also a High School Economics teacher who teaches free market and Austrian economics. 
> 
> He has also been endorsed by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RLC, Rand PAC, YAL PAC, and the FreedomWorks PAC. Ron Paul also sent me a fundraising letter on behalf of Kurt Bills stating that if you support only one candidate this November it should be Kurt Bills. 
> 
> He has been under attack for his support of Ron Paul, making this an important race to show that Liberty candidates can win. He will also be voting with Rand Paul in the Senate and can help Rand Paul out with a Presidential run in 2016. This election will also serve as a referendum on Liberty candidates that can either help or hurt Liberty candidates.  Al Franken will be up in 2014 and he can be taken down by a Liberty candidate we just need to help Kurt Bills out right now.  We will need to donate and inform those registered to vote in MN. They also just setup a phone from home program that we can help out with too.


Kurt Bills 2014! (since there is no way in hell he wins this time!)




> North Carolina (Possible) Greg Brannon US Senate 2014


Tell me more about him, and is he the same guy who has the Dr. next to his name on google? if so, what kind of Dr. is he?

I'd rather have you

----------


## Shane Harris

I'm most excited about Tom Davis taking on Lindsey in South Carolina. He already half announced in Tampa.

----------


## Rocco

Rand Paul and Mike Lee have a similarity in voting record rating of 90%. 

http://www.opencongress.org/people/c...commit=Compare

The score for Rand and Demint is also a 90% similarity rating. You are missing that these are also people who are against NDAA, people who generally vote with us on civil liberties. They are HUGE allies. 




> A huge part of what gets done at the federal level is Foreign Policy related, and you say that Cruz and Demint are with us 85-90%?? They are with us on cutting some domestic spending, and taxes, and maybe the Fed. They are not with us on Foreign Policy or Drug Policy. They are nationalists who are with us (at best) 65% of the time.

----------


## Shane Harris

> Rand Paul and Mike Lee have a similarity in voting record rating of 90%. 
> 
> http://www.opencongress.org/people/c...commit=Compare
> 
> The score for Rand and Demint is also a 90% similarity rating. You are missing that these are also people who are against NDAA, people who generally vote with us on civil liberties. They are HUGE allies.


Fair enough, just don't really seem to agree with this rating, at least not compared to Ron Paul. Foreign Policy is important to me.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

I love the liberty scale because you sort of know what you're getting.  It's also a prudent approach to moving this movement forward without throwing the baby out with the bathwater; and by that I mean we're creating a political environment in the Senate and House that will either wholeheartedly agree with our ideas or at least be sympathetic to them and potential allies in other areas. 


★★★★★ - Green Five stars is essentially Ron Paul incarnate.  So good you have to slap yourself silly to believe this person really exists!

★★★★★ - Five stars you're getting someone that agrees with us 99.9% of the time and will be one of the best House or Senator members in decades!

★★★★ - Four stars you're essentially getting a Mike Lee who is damn good on nearly everything, but might have to dial back their rhetoric concerning an issue or two.  We'll still agree 90-95% of the time and they'll be a great ally at your side on the issues we do agree upon.

★★★ - Three stars you're mostly getting a Jim Demint type.  Someone that is a fiscal hawk and wants to slash and burn the size of government.  There's still good potential they can be brought around on other liberty issues.  We'll agree 70-80% of the time on most pressing issues.

★★ - Two stars we'll agree on maybe 40-50% of the issues.  A Jeff Flake could probably fit into this category, unless you guys have a better example of a two star Congressman or Senator?

★ - One star you're getting someone that is a one trick pony, a candidate that *might* be of help in one focused area of the liberty spectrum, usually curtailing government spending or maybe a civil liberties lion.

No stars you are the arch enemy of liberty and we WILL defeat you!  Goodbye Lindsey Graham.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> A huge part of what gets done at the federal level is Foreign Policy related, and you say that Cruz and Demint are with us 85-90%?? They are with us on cutting some domestic spending, and taxes, and maybe the Fed. They are not with us on Foreign Policy or Drug Policy. They are nationalists who are with us (at best) 65% of the time.


A more accurate assessment would be Demint with us 70% of the time and Cruz will be somewhere between Demint and Lee, maybe 80%.  I will take those net gains and keep helping all candidates as long as they give us a net positive in liberty.

----------


## Rocco

That's why we have to take that next step in 2014! Look, before 2010 there was ZERO chance of a Mike Lee or Rand Paul coming in. Ted Cruz is 2012's outgrowth of that, but in 2014 with Tom Davis and Joe Miller we can put 2 more non interventionists in the senate! 




> Fair enough, just don't really seem to agree with this rating, at least not compared to Ron Paul. Foreign Policy is important to me.

----------


## jkob

South Carolina def needs to be the top priority. Tom Davis looks legit and seems to be willing, it's favored GOP in the general, and you'd be taking out Lindsay Graham. Wouldn't get any better.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> South Carolina def needs to be the top priority. Tom Davis looks legit and seems to be willing, it's favored GOP in the general, and you'd be taking out Lindsay Graham. Wouldn't get any better.


And this would be another referendum on the liberty movement as a whole and would really send shock waves to other office holders if we can dump an incumbent and replace them with a bonafide pro-liberty person. Bentivolio is that sort of thing on the Mich liberty movement to a lesser extent.

----------


## Michigan11

> And this would be another referendum on the liberty movement as a whole and would really send shock waves to other office holders if we can dump an incumbent and replace them with a bonafide pro-liberty person. Bentivolio is that sort of thing on the Mich liberty movement to a lesser extent.


Count me in for Tom Davis - Looking forward to it and the shockwaves it will send ousting that traitor Graham. Bentivolio is going to be starting brushfires in the House and in the mind of the public in that district. Can't wait....

----------


## Rocco

I agree 100%, so much so that I am pre-emptively planning to go down to South Carolina to help Tom Davis in any way I can when the time comes. We need to treat this with the same seriousness as we treated Rand 2010. This is not only an opportunity to get what will be the best guy or 2nd best guy in the senate into office, but Lindsey Graham personifies everything that is wrong with the republican party. To get him, the NUMBER ONE neocon out of office would be nothing short of game changing in terms of the power balance in the party. 





> And this would be another referendum on the liberty movement as a whole and would really send shock waves to other office holders if we can dump an incumbent and replace them with a bonafide pro-liberty person. Bentivolio is that sort of thing on the Mich liberty movement to a lesser extent.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> North Carolina (Possible) Greg Brannon US Senate 2014


We can have a Carolina revolution!

----------


## nobody's_hero

In Georgia, Chambliss would be easier to beat than Sen. Isakson, but we're a very red-state down here (too red, the GOP has become arrogant and feeling invincible here, and the democrats are so discouraged they have hardly put up anyone to run in statewide races). House races would be much more promising. 

Here in Georgia U.S. district 2 (Southwest Georgia), the democrats are still holding out, but the GOP has put up a neocon to contest him, so I don't see this district flipping unless we can have an anti-war republican challenge Democrat Sanford Bishop in 2014. John House (retired military, much like Allen West) is a bit too hawkish. Whoever appears on the GOP ticket in future District 2 races is going to have to be able to win over disenchanted democrats.

Atlanta has largely forsaken Southwest Georgia, so I see this as our best area to influence change in this state. 

(But I may be moving up to South Carolina to help Tom Davis)

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> A more accurate assessment would be Demint with us 70% of the time and Cruz will be somewhere between Demint and Lee, maybe 80%.  I will take those net gains and keep helping all candidates as long as they give us a net positive in liberty.


That's how it's going to have to be. We will (almost) never get 5-star liberty candidates into office, Rand was an exception and Massie will be too. Bentivolio was the work of an act of God!

The way towards a more liberty-oriented Senate will be through incrementalism. Demint and Lee started things off. Now we'll have Flake and Cruz, maybe Mack and Mourdoch.

----------


## sailingaway

Davis is the one I am interested in.  I WAS interested in primarying McConnell, but with Rand supporting him and Benton going there, I can't see we'd get enough unanimity to do much there.  So at this moment I've only identified Davis's as a race I am interested in.  But we don't know who all is interested in running yet, either.

----------


## Spoa

> That's why we have to take that next step in 2014! Look, before 2010 there was ZERO chance of a Mike Lee or Rand Paul coming in. Ted Cruz is 2012's outgrowth of that, but in 2014 with Tom Davis and Joe Miller we can put 2 more non interventionists in the senate!


About Ted Cruz: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...dler-would-not!

At last night's debate, he did AWESOME! Sadler (D) wants to continue foreign aid while Cruz (R) said that we shouldn't hand out blank checks. Democrats claim that the wars were all Bush's fault...they claim that all the infringements on civil liberties was President Bush's fault...but then when they take power...they just act as bad on civil liberties.

Ted Cruz won't be perfect...but he'll be between Jim Demint and Mike Lee type. His strong argument last night makes me even happier to support him!

----------


## Spoa

> Davis is the one I am interested in.  I WAS interested in primarying McConnell, but with Rand supporting him and Benton going there, I can't see we'd get enough unanimity to do much there.  So at this moment I've only identified Davis's as a race I am interested in.  But we don't know who all is interested in running yet, either.


Tom Davis is a COOL guy! He'll make a great senator. Personally though, I'm so sick of Graham that I would support any Republican over him. I'm sure everybody has had a chance to watch his speech against Senator Paul's amendment to cut foreign aid.

If you haven't, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVWqHkbJNPg

If that video doesn't get you pumped for 2014...I don't know what will. DEFEAT GRAHAM 2012!

----------


## AJ Antimony

Yeah those are good seats to target, but whether we actually have good candidates is another story.

Running people that have never held office or have never been involved in high-up politics is not the most efficient route toward victory. We really need to have state legislators first, then run THEM for federal office.

----------


## Rocco

Some liberty activists are trying to draft Jim Forsythe to run in 2014!

https://www.facebook.com/DraftJimForsytheForSenate2014

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah those are good seats to target, but whether we actually have good candidates is another story.
> 
> Running people that have never held office or have never been involved in high-up politics is not the most efficient route toward victory. We really need to have state legislators first, then run THEM for federal office.


I'd like Jim Forsythe, but I'd rather have BJ Lawson than most RLC state house candidates.  I'm open to reviewing the records of the exceptions, however.  I hope people will post possibles.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I do wonder if we should look more closely at these people who endorsed Ron Paul, even if we don't agree with them fully on all the issues. 

Frankly, anyone who endorsed Ron Paul during either the '08 campaign or this 2012 campaign was 'sticking their neck out' a bit. I remember when Tom Davis was expected to give his endorsement, the media was in a *frenzy* about how important this state senator's endorsement was. But, after he jumped in for Ron Paul, well, the media fell _silent_. I think it would be bad to just abandon some of these folks who might have potential. For instance, I had forgotten about Jim Forsythe, and I imagine that the mainstream media treated him pretty much the same way. I would be interested in learning more about him.

They've already passed one litmus test I have, which is the ability to take stand for an unpopular decision (endorse Ron Paul).

----------


## Spoa

I made a page for planning for conservatives to win: http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpres...lection-plans/

I added Jim Forsythe and Tom Davis to the list. I'm looking at this website and others to find good conservatives to run in 2014. All the candidates you see may not be what you term as "liberty candidates" because we all have different definitions. 

Before a candidate can be placed as a Possible Conservative, I have to review his/her record. I only include candidates who are pro-life and are fiscally responsible...this means I usually prefer that the candidate has a record to stand on.

----------


## sailingaway

> I do wonder if we should look more closely at these people who endorsed Ron Paul, even if we don't agree with them fully on all the issues. 
> 
> *Frankly, anyone who endorsed Ron Paul during either the '08 campaign or this 2012 campaign was 'sticking their neck out' a bit. I remember when Tom Davis was expected to give his endorsement, the media was in a frenzy about how important this state senator's endorsement was. But, after he jumped in for Ron Paul, well, the media fell silent. I think it would be bad to just abandon some of these folks who might have potential. For instance, I had forgotten about Jim Forsythe, and I imagine that the mainstream media treated him pretty much the same way. I would be interested in learning more about him.
> 
> They've already passed one litmus test I have, which is the ability to take stand for an unpopular decision (endorse Ron Paul).*


You and I think alike.  It isn't the whole ball of wax, but it adds to their credentials in a big way.

----------


## Smart3

> I made a page for planning for conservatives to win: http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpres...lection-plans/
> 
> I added Jim Forsythe and Tom Davis to the list. I'm looking at this website and others to find good conservatives to run in 2014. All the candidates you see may not be what you term as "liberty candidates" because we all have different definitions. 
> 
> Before a candidate can be placed as a Possible Conservative, I have to review his/her record. I only include candidates who are *pro-life* and are fiscally responsible...this means I usually prefer that the candidate has a record to stand on.


So if the candidate was identical to you on every issue except abortion, would you support him/her?

----------


## sailingaway

> I made a page for planning for conservatives to win: http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpres...lection-plans/
> 
> I added Jim Forsythe and Tom Davis to the list. I'm looking at this website and others to find good conservatives to run in 2014. All the candidates you see may not be what you term as "liberty candidates" because we all have different definitions. 
> 
> Before a candidate can be placed as a Possible Conservative, I have to review his/her record. I only include candidates who are pro-life and are fiscally responsible...this means I usually prefer that the candidate has a record to stand on.


Off hand I can't think of anyone Ron has endorsed who wasn't pro life.  I'm not saying he never would if the lines were clear on other issues, I don't know, but it is important to him.  There was a major stink when he ran Libertarian as I understand it, in part because he refused to bend on that point and said you couldn't defend liberty if you didn't defend life.  A bunch of big L libertarians said he wasn't sufficiently pure by their own lights on purity, in big part because of that.

----------


## Smart3

> Off hand I can't think of anyone Ron has endorsed who wasn't pro life.  I'm not saying he never would if the lines were clear on other issues, I don't know, but it is important to him.  There was a major stink when he ran Libertarian as I understand it, in part because he refused to bend on that point and said you couldn't defend liberty if you didn't defend life.  A bunch of big L libertarians said he wasn't sufficiently pure by their own lights on purity, in big part because of that.


According to Reason, 65% of self-identified libertarians are pro-choice. That seems about right.

That's a whole lot more than the general population. 

From my perspective, you can't defend liberty if you don't defend a woman's right to choose.

----------


## sailingaway

> According to Reason, 65% of self-identified libertarians are pro-choice. That seems about right.
> 
> That's a whole lot more than the general population. 
> 
> From my perspective, you can't defend liberty if you don't defend a woman's right to choose.


Yeah, so you wouldn't agree with Ron that someone needs to defend the baby.  Spoa seems to agree with Ron though.

----------


## Smart3

> Yeah, so you wouldn't agree with Ron that someone needs to defend the baby.  Spoa seems to agree with Ron though.


Ron Paul is libertarian on foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, etc, but not on social issues - he strongly opposes assisted death, marriage equality and abortion rights (or perhaps more accurately, the autonomy of the woman). 

It's almost certainly his religious views that have influenced his opinions on these issues. It's hard to imagine a non-religious person caring about assisted death.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> From my perspective, you can't defend liberty if you don't defend a woman's right to choose.


You can't defend liberty if you don't defend life.

----------


## Smart3

> You can't defend liberty if you don't defend life.


I agree 100%.

The question is: what is life? natural birth to natural death. (or, first breath to last breath)

----------


## Pisces

> It's almost certainly his religious views that have influenced his opinions on these issues. It's hard to imagine a non-religious person caring about assisted death.


Many, if not most, doctors are opposed to assisted death for non-religious reasons. I know at one time the official position of the AMA was opposed to assisted suicide, though that may have changed recently. They don't feel comfortable causing a person's death when all their training has been to heal and assist life. Psychiatrists in particular are opposed because they hate to see suicide encouraged for any reason and they believe the desire to die, even for terminal patients, is caused by depression which can be treated.

Now you may not agree or think that is old-fashioned but I write this to show that opposition to assisted suicide is not always about religion.

Of course if you're cynical you would just say that doctors get paid more for life extending treatments than they would for offing someone but I do think there are still doctors that take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to a patient seriously. I'm sure Ron Paul still does.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul is libertarian on foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, etc, but not on social issues - he strongly opposes assisted death, marriage equality and abortion rights (or perhaps more accurately, the autonomy of the woman). 
> 
> It's almost certainly his religious views that have influenced his opinions on these issues. It's hard to imagine a non-religious person caring about assisted death.


I'm interested in that in assisted death, although I suspect the context was one where assisted death might be pressured without informed consent.  I can understand the problems with saying it is permitted without safeguards, certainly, or for want of care, which Ron would have felt bound to provide, in his own practice.

but I don't care if Ron is a libertarian or not, his principles and his character in applying them are what is important to me.  Not labels.

----------


## Smart3

> Many, if not most, doctors are opposed to assisted death for non-religious reasons. I know at one time the official position of the AMA was opposed to assisted suicide, though that may have changed recently. They don't feel comfortable causing a person's death when all their training has been to heal and assist life. Psychiatrists in particular are opposed because they hate to see suicide encouraged for any reason and they believe the desire to die, even for terminal patients, is caused by depression which can be treated.
> 
> Now you may not agree or think that is old-fashioned but I write this to show that opposition to assisted suicide is not always about religion.
> 
> Of course if you're cynical you would just say that doctors get paid more for life extending treatments than they would for offing someone but I do think there are still doctors that take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to a patient seriously. I'm sure Ron Paul still does.


I do think Doctors oppose assisted death mainly for monetary reasons, however some do it because of the Hippocratic oath. 

In respect to religion, the least religious states - Washington and Oregon, have assisted death, while none of the other states have it. (that will hopefully change this year with Massachusetts).

It's a simple issue really:
John Doe has been given 6 months to live, and over that time he will lose the ability to move, speak, eat/drink, etc. If this is confirmed by more than one doctor, what reason does John Doe have to continue living? Most likely none, hence 'death with dignity'. 

Also, the terminology "assisted suicide" is misleading, since it's merely dying in advance of your...expiration date? 

and I don't support assisted death in the case of depressed people. There should be very clear restrictions to prevent abuse.

----------


## Pisces

> I do think Doctors oppose assisted death mainly for monetary reasons, however some do it because of the Hippocratic oath. 
> 
> In respect to religion, the least religious states - Washington and Oregon, have assisted death, while none of the other states have it. (that will hopefully change this year with Massachusetts).
> 
> It's a simple issue really:
> John Doe has been given 6 months to live, and over that time he will lose the ability to move, speak, eat/drink, etc. If this is confirmed by more than one doctor, what reason does John Doe to continue living? Most likely none, hence 'death with dignity'. 
> 
> Also, the terminology "assisted suicide" is misleading, since it's merely dying in advance of your...expiration date? 
> 
> and I don't support assisted death in the case of depressed people. There should be very clear restrictions to prevent abuse.


I think there is a difference between not making extraordinary efforts to keep someone alive and actively causing their death. Also, doctors aren't always accurate in their predictions of how long a patient will live or even that a disease is truly terminal. So I can see where many doctors might not want to actually be the cause of a patient's death.

 If assisted suicide becomes legal, will courts decide that a doctor refusing to provide this service is violating a person's rights? If the patient is able to, they should just kill themself and not ask a doctor to do it for them. If they're not able to, then they should ask a friend or family member. I don't have a problem with deciding not to prosecute people who help their loved ones end their lives. (The death should still be investigated though to make sure the patient truly wanted to die.) I do have a problem with the idea that people have a right to have someone assist their suicide. That's just a lot to ask from someone. A normal person just doesn't want to kill another human being. This natural feeling can be overcome if its a loved one that can't bear to see their relative in pain but I imagine it would still be very upsetting for them.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> I agree 100%.
> 
> The question is: what is life? natural birth to natural death. (or, first breath to last breath)


Moment of conception to natural death.

----------


## Spoa

> So if the candidate was identical to you on every issue except abortion, would you support him/her?


I take the position of Congressman Paul. I do NOT believe that a candidate can be pro-liberty and pro-abortion at the same time. 

The founders did not put Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if they had only meant to protect liberty. All 3 must be protected. That's my opinion and that's why my website is called LLPH Second Revolution. LLPH stands for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

----------


## Spoa

> I do think Doctors oppose assisted death mainly for monetary reasons, however some do it because of the Hippocratic oath. 
> 
> In respect to religion, the least religious states - Washington and Oregon, have assisted death, while none of the other states have it. (that will hopefully change this year with Massachusetts).
> 
> It's a simple issue really:
> John Doe has been given 6 months to live, and over that time he will lose the ability to move, speak, eat/drink, etc. If this is confirmed by more than one doctor, what reason does John Doe have to continue living? Most likely none, hence 'death with dignity'. 
> 
> Also, the terminology "assisted suicide" is misleading, since it's merely dying in advance of your...expiration date? 
> 
> and I don't support assisted death in the case of depressed people. There should be very clear restrictions to prevent abuse.


I disagree, but your analysis is respectful to that of others...so thank you.

Assisted suicide is the taking of life...which is not right...even if the person is going to die soon anyway.

This real scenario has something to do with what you are saying: I'm sure we all remember the Terry Schiavo case, where her husband supported cutting off food and water for her, so he could "get on" with his life. Even if she was near death, disabled, and probably wouldn't live much longer (which meant that the cost of hospital bills would just increase for her husband), nobody should be able to end the life of another human being.

----------


## sailingaway

That's the thing.  Ending it for someone who wants it, clearly is in pain, and wants to turn off machines or whatever, I can see as not being my business to interfere with. But deciding for someone else is.... a real problem.

But I also have a feeling that GOVERNMENT action is not the answer to every problem, and the harder it is to see clear right and wrong, the more I am concerned with government determinations, and would agree that local solutions are better than federal solutions.

----------


## Smart3

> I think there is a difference between not making extraordinary efforts to keep someone alive and actively causing their death. Also, doctors aren't always accurate in their predictions of how long a patient will live or even that a disease is truly terminal. So I can see where many doctors might not want to actually be the cause of a patient's death.
> 
>  If assisted suicide becomes legal, will courts decide that a doctor refusing to provide this service is violating a person's rights? If the patient is able to, they should just kill themself and not ask a doctor to do it for them. If they're not able to, then they should ask a friend or family member. I don't have a problem with deciding not to prosecute people who help their loved ones end their lives. (The death should still be investigated though to make sure the patient truly wanted to die.) I do have a problem with the idea that people have a right to have someone assist their suicide. That's just a lot to ask from someone. A normal person just doesn't want to kill another human being. This natural feeling can be overcome if its a loved one that can't bear to see their relative in pain but I imagine it would still be very upsetting for them.


I'm not sure how family members killing their dying loved ones is in anyway similar to a doctor handing a patient some drugs, which will end their life. We need to know with near certainty the person is actually going to die soon. I don't believe in legalizing some generic assisted suicide, just terminally ill patients who don't wish to wait for a painful and horrible death. 

for the record, I personally can't fathom asking for assisted death, and I would not be present at a family member or friend's death in this way.

----------


## Dick Chaney

I don't understand this fascination with Cruz & DeMint. Total establishment shills.

----------


## sailingaway

De Mint is true to his own principles. They aren't mine across the board but I respect that he is true to his own moral compass.  There are very very few people like that in Congress as far as I can tell.

Cruz I withhold judgment on, but he doesn't impress me as much as Bills or Kerry, and certainly not as much as Davis or NEARLY as much as Forsythe.

----------


## Pisces

> I'm not sure how family members killing their dying loved ones is in anyway similar to a doctor handing a patient some drugs, which will end their life. We need to know with near certainty the person is actually going to die soon. I don't believe in legalizing some generic assisted suicide, just terminally ill patients who don't wish to wait for a painful and horrible death. 
> 
> for the record, I personally can't fathom asking for assisted death, and I would not be present at a family member or friend's death in this way.


There are ways an ordinary person can kill someone and be sure they are dead. I was going to give an example of one but decided not to as the whole subject is gruesome. And that's my point, death is never really an easy thing. Just giving pills doesn't guarantee a smooth death either. If the dosage isn't right for a particular patient, they can survive. This even happens with lethal injection executions sometimes. If you would not be present at a family member's death, why do you think it is okay to mandate that a doctor not only be present but actually cause the death?

----------


## Spoa

> I don't understand this fascination with Cruz & DeMint. Total establishment shills.



I won't go into my whole lecture...but Demint was one of the few who supported Rand Paul's amendment to cut foreign aid (only 13), voted to withdraw from Afghanistan (out of 3 or 4), endorsed Rand Paul in 2010 for Senate, led the fight to Audit the Fed in the Senate before Rand Paul came along to take on the job, etc., Read more here by Jack Hunter: http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/c...nt?oid=4004299

Ted Cruz...here you go again (with your purist friends). I know that Ted Cruz will not be Jesus Christ (I'm so sorry...), but he is a ton better than Dewhurst. Cruz opposes the NDAA, the Patriot Act, supports abolishing the Federal Reserve (in addition to auditing them), opposed SOPA/PIPA, etc. Read more here from YAL-PAC:http://www.yaliberty.org/pac/candidates/cruz

You still may not think they are pure enough for you. I can't change your mind, and I'm not going to try (believe me...I've tried with a bunch of people on this site to no avail). But to put them in the same category with McConnell, Graham, Lugar, and others just because they aren't perfect is simply *RIDICULOUS*!

----------


## Smart3

> I disagree, but your analysis is respectful to that of others...so thank you.
> 
> Assisted suicide is the taking of life.*..which is not right...*even if the person is going to die soon anyway.
> 
> This real scenario has something to do with what you are saying: I'm sure we all remember the Terry Schiavo case, where her husband supported cutting off food and water for her, so he could "get on" with his life. Even if she was near death, disabled, and probably wouldn't live much longer (which meant that the cost of hospital bills would just increase for her husband), *nobody should be able to end the life of another human being.*


I don't intend to change your mind, especially if you really believe that. 

but I do not agree. Mrs. Schiavo married her husband, and upon doing so, he became her next of kin and had the right to pull the plug if he wishes - without objection. She had nothing in writing suggesting she would want to be kept alive in that scenario. 

I was rather young when the Schiavo case happened, so I've actually only learned the details in the last year. If my mother were put into the same situation, I would honor her wish to be kept alive, however if she had not made that known to me, I'd pull the plug. No human being should live like that.




> There are ways an ordinary person can kill someone and be sure they are dead. I was going to give an example of one but decided not to as the whole subject is gruesome. And that's my point, death is never really an easy thing. Just giving pills doesn't guarantee a smooth death either. If the dosage isn't right for a particular patient, they can survive. This even happens with lethal injection executions sometimes. If you would not be present at a family member's death, why do you think it is okay to mandate that a doctor not only be present but actually cause the death?


A doctor should have the right to refuse both giving the pills, and being present if he does give the pills.

I'm anti-DP, but I've always said that a simple shot to the back of the head is much more efficient and humane than lethal injection.

----------


## sailingaway

> I won't go into my whole lecture...but Demint was one of the few who supported Rand Paul's amendment to cut foreign aid (only 13), voted to withdraw from Afghanistan (out of 3 or 4), endorsed Rand Paul in 2010 for Senate, led the fight to Audit the Fed in the Senate before Rand Paul came along to take on the job, etc., Read more here by Jack Hunter: http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/c...nt?oid=4004299
> 
> Ted Cruz...here you go again (with your purist friends). I know that Ted Cruz will not be Jesus Christ (I'm so sorry...), but he is a ton better than Dewhurst. Cruz opposes the NDAA, the Patriot Act, supports abolishing the Federal Reserve (in addition to auditing them), opposed SOPA/PIPA, etc. Read more here from YAL-PAC:http://www.yaliberty.org/pac/candidates/cruz
> 
> You still may not think they are pure enough for you. I can't change your mind, and I'm not going to try (believe me...I've tried with a bunch of people on this site to no avail). But to put them in the same category with McConnell, Graham, Lugar, and others just because they aren't perfect is simply *RIDICULOUS*!


When you present it as better than Dewhurst I don't think you will get much argument from anyone.  We have lots of 'better than the other guy' candidates, we just put 'liberty candidates' (some of us) on a shorter list.

----------


## Spoa

> De Mint is true to his own principles. They aren't mine across the board but I respect that he is true to his own moral compass.  There are very very few people like that in Congress as far as I can tell.
> 
> Cruz I withhold judgment on, but he doesn't impress me as much as Bills or Kerry, and certainly not as much as Davis or NEARLY as much as Forsythe.


Agreed. I agree completely with your opinion of Senator Demint. And I agree on witholding judgement on Ted Cruz although I really think he will be very good (close to a Mike Lee type). After all, as much as people say he's close to Senator Rubio type (and I have a certain degree of respect for Senator Rubio although he has been below my expectations)...it is important to remember something:

Congressman Paul NEVER endorsed Senator Rubio...Congressman Paul DID endorse Ted Cruz.

----------


## sailingaway

> Agreed. I agree completely with your opinion of Senator Demint. And I agree on witholding judgement on Ted Cruz although I really think he will be very good (close to a Mike Lee type). After all, as much as people say he's close to Senator Rubio type (and I have a certain degree of respect for Senator Rubio although he has been below my expectations)...it is important to remember something:
> 
> *Congressman Paul NEVER endorsed Senator Rubio...Congressman Paul DID endorse Ted Cruz*.


Yeah.  I personally suspect he went the extra step to endorsement for Rand, but if he weren't at least borderline, I can't see Ron would have done it at all.  He would not have endorsed Rubio.

I hope Cruz is as good as Mike Lee.  I wouldn't want Lee as standard bearer for our movement, but I definitely think he is one of the lights in the Senate.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> You and I think alike.  It isn't the whole ball of wax, but it adds to their credentials in a big way.


Exactly. The worst case scenario is that there's something about these folks that repulses me so strongly that I cannot in good conscience vote for them. Yet, I think they might be good 'starting points.'

----------


## Pisces

> Congressman Paul NEVER endorsed Senator Rubio...Congressman Paul DID endorse Ted Cruz.


Rubio never endorsed Cruz either and he has endorsed and campaigned with other Senate candidates like Josh Mandel and Richard Mourdock. I wonder sometimes about Cruz myself. If he's sincere in what he says he's actually one of the better "liberty" candidates in that he was very vocal in opposing NDAA when it was being debated in the Senate. He's also come out hard against the TSA. So he's better than most on civil liberties. (Though not perfect on non-intervention.)

The problem I have with him sometimes is that he comes across as too smooth and rehearsed. This could just be due to the fact that he's been doing debates and public speaking since before he was a teenager. Also, as an appellate lawyer, he probably doesn't like to go off script and give too much away. I've heard that he is extremely ambitious so I'm waiting to see if he lives up to the hype. I voted for him twice already and will do so again, though.

----------


## Spoa

> Rubio never endorsed Cruz either and he has endorsed and campaigned with other Senate candidates like Josh Mandel and Richard Mourdock. I wonder sometimes about Cruz myself. If he's sincere in what he says he's actually one of the better "liberty" candidates in that he was very vocal in opposing NDAA when it was being debated in the Senate. He's also come out hard against the TSA. So he's better than most on civil liberties. (Though not perfect on non-intervention.)
> 
> The problem I have with him sometimes is that he comes across as too smooth and rehearsed. This could just be due to the fact that he's been doing debates and public speaking since before he was a teenager. Also, as an appellate lawyer, he probably doesn't like to go off script and give too much away. I've heard that he is extremely ambitious so I'm waiting to see if he lives up to the hype. I voted for him twice already and will do so again, though.


 . He is a good speaker. I actually thought that Senators Paul and Lee are good speakers as well. With Mandel and Mourdock, they are kind of different though.

With Mandel, we've had this discussion before. I still think he is worlds better than Senator Sherrod Brown, but some here disagree. So I won't go on about this (I'm here to have a conversation...not start a war  ).

With Mourdock though, I think he will be pretty close to our side than most people would think. Here are a few quotes that make me think this: 



> Richard supports the elimination of the IRS and moving our system of taxation away from a system that taxes income and productivity to a system that taxes consumption





> Richard supports efforts to require an audit of the Federal Reserve as a means of ensuring accountability.  Richard also believes that the Federal Reserve should narrowly focus its efforts on promoting stability and strengthening the dollar rather than attempting to artificially control such economic factors as employment levels and interest rates.  He opposes the Fed’s program of so-called “quantitative easing.”


 This language is pretty good...most candidates can only say that they would want to audit the fed.



> Richard believes that military force should be used only when a vital national interest is at stake and that any U.S. mission should come with clearly defined goals and objectives.


So I want to encourage people to donate to Richard Mourdock. He's in a tough race, and if he doesn't win...the RINOs will claim that Dick Lugar was the only one who could have won (which will have an impact in 2014 when we try to defeat RINO Graham): https://transaxt.com/Donate/XGL6AD/H...rdMourdockInc/

----------


## Pisces

> . He is a good speaker. I actually thought that Senators Paul and Lee are good speakers as well. With Mandel and Mourdock, they are kind of different though.
> 
> With Mandel, we've had this discussion before. I still think he is worlds better than Senator Sherrod Brown, but some here disagree. So I won't go on about this (I'm here to have a conversation...not start a war  ).
> 
> With Mourdock though, I think he will be pretty close to our side than most people would think. Here are a few quotes that make me think this: 
> 
>  This language is pretty good...most candidates can only say that they would want to audit the fed.
> 
> 
> So I want to encourage people to donate to Richard Mourdock. He's in a tough race, and if he doesn't win...the RINOs will claim that Dick Lugar was the only one who could have won (which will have an impact in 2014 when we try to defeat RINO Graham): https://transaxt.com/Donate/XGL6AD/H...rdMourdockInc/


I didn't mean for my comment to be interpreted as Mandel and Mourdock are horrible candidates. They are just more mainline conservatives. Plus, Rubio has to endorse some of these guys to keep what remaining Tea Party cred he has. I do want Mourdock to win. I'm still not too sure about Mandel but he's probably better than Sherrod Brown.

----------


## Spoa

> I didn't mean for my comment to be interpreted as Mandel and Mourdock are horrible candidates. They are just more mainline conservatives. Plus, Rubio has to endorse some of these guys to keep what remaining Tea Party cred he has. I do want Mourdock to win. I'm still not too sure about Mandel but he's probably better than Sherrod Brown.


Oh...I didn't mean that I thought you were saying Mandel and Mourdock were bad. I just wanted to clarify things so that anybody who hasn't been following these races would understand.

----------


## Smart3

There are three types of Republican Senators:
Lugar/Graham/McCain/Kyl/Inhofe/etc 
Jim DeMint/Mike Lee/Jeff Flake/Richard Mourdock/Ted Cruz (disputed)
Rand Paul/Ted Cruz (disputed)

We should always support the DeMints and Lees over the Inhofes, Lugars, etc. However, we should do this only in the primaries. If there is a Liberty candidate (LBT, CST, Independent, etc) in the general election, we should support that candidate over a Mandel or Mourdock.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> There are three types of Republican Senators:
>  However, we should do this only in the primaries. If there is a Liberty candidate (LBT, CST, Independent, etc) in the general election, we should support that candidate over a Mandel or Mourdock.


No, because then the D wins, which is ALWAYS worse than the Mandel/Mourdocks of the world. LP, CP, and I will NOT win.

----------


## Smart3

> No, because then the D wins, which is ALWAYS worse than the Mandel/Mourdocks of the world. LP, CP, and I will NOT win.


"then the D wins, which is ALWAYS worse"

not necessarily. Is Carmona really worse than Flake? Brown worse than Mandel? On the most important issue - the upcoming war with Iran, all four support it. 

would you not support Ron Paul as an Independent, because he couldn't win?

----------


## Spoa

> No, because then the D wins, which is ALWAYS worse than the Mandel/Mourdocks of the world. LP, CP, and I will NOT win.


AMEN! Why would we waste our time, money, and votes only to have a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT WIN. That is not a good philosophy. That purist thinking will not advance freedom.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Alaska- If South Carolina is the most important state to the movement, Alaska is a close second. With a pretty weak democrat incumbent and nobody else openly expressing interest on the republican side, bona fide liberty candidate Joe Miller looks poised to reach the US Senate. Though he withheld publicly endorsing during the primary, his family came out and endorsed Ron Paul during the primaries. He helped lead the Ron Paul takeover of the Alaska GOP, and as such should almost cake walk to the nomination. The only reason this is less important then South Carolina is because, quite frankly, it seems like a much more sure bet. I don't see Miller losing this.


I would love for him to win and I would donate....but I guess he got a bad reputation in Alaska for not conceding right after Murkowski won back in 2010, for trying to disenfranchise those who misspelled Murkowski's name. Hopefully Alaskans will forget.

----------


## sailingaway

> I would love for him to win and I would donate....but I guess he got a bad reputation in Alaska for not conceding right after Murkowski won back in 2010, for trying to disenfranchise those who misspelled Murkowski's name. Hopefully Alaskans will forget.


Didn't M say if she lost the primary she wouldn't run independent before she ran independent?

Just saying, surely there are two sides to that.

I liked him before, didn't love his character as much as Ron's but I don't know if I know better in Alaska.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Some liberty activists are trying to draft Jim Forsythe to run in 2014!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DraftJimForsytheForSenate2014


Jim would likely lose to a popular former governor (his opponent). However, even if he did lose, it would still be very good for the liberty movement. He could use his fundraising resources to help fund several pro-liberty state senate candidates and make a big difference in the make-up of the NH Senate. What is more realistic is him running for state senate or US Congress.

BTW, even think I think Kurt Bills has just about no chance in MN, I think he will be able to use his fundraising resources to him get several pro-liberty state rep or state senate level folks elected in MN in 2014. The GOP US Senate candidate in MN was likely going to lose anyway, it is good for the liberty movement that Bills was the chosen candidate.

----------


## sailingaway

> Jim would likely lose to a popular former governor (his opponent). However, even if he did lose, it would still be very good for the liberty movement. He could use his fundraising resources to help fund several pro-liberty state senate candidates and make a big difference in the make-up of the NH Senate. What is more realistic is him running for state senate or US Congress.
> 
> BTW, even think I think Kurt Bills has just about no chance in MN, I think he will be able to use his fundraising resources to him get several pro-liberty state rep or state senate level folks elected in MN in 2014. The GOP US Senate candidate in MN was likely going to lose anyway, it is good for the liberty movement that Bills was the chosen candidate.


But I want Forsythe to WIN, if he doesn't think he'd win as US Senator, I hope he'll run for US House.

----------


## Spoa

> "then the D wins, which is ALWAYS worse"
> 
> not necessarily. Is Carmona really worse than Flake? Brown worse than Mandel? On the most important issue - the upcoming war with Iran, all four support it. 
> 
> would you not support Ron Paul as an Independent, because he couldn't win?


War in Iran as the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE???? I don't think that you can say they all support the War in Iran since the issue hasn't been discussed. Can you provide evidence where Flake or Mandel or Mourdock said that they would support a WAR against Iran? What about Auditing the Fed (which Flake supports)? What about the fact that Mandel opposes foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya? What about the fact that Flake has voted against most CRs? What about the fact that Flake voted for the Audit the Fed bill? What about the fact that both of them would support repeal of Obamacare (which is one of the largest infringements on our liberty) while Caroma and Brown would NOT?

And your opposition to Mourdock is one that I strongly disagree with. Mourdock supports auditing the Fed, opposes the NDAA, and would end the IRS.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> De Mint is true to his own principles. They aren't mine across the board but I respect that he is true to his own moral compass.  There are very very few people like that in Congress as far as I can tell.
> 
> Cruz I withhold judgment on, but he doesn't impress me as much as Bills or Kerry, and certainly not as much as Davis or NEARLY as much as Forsythe.


Forsythe seems to be vastly superior to Cruz. BTW, Forsythe is still powerful in NH, even though he isn't running for reelection. He controls a PAC that is helping Andy Sanborn and others. 

Kerry is awesome. He was going to lose if there was a primary but that didn't happen. Make we should keep that in mind for future elections.

----------


## Spoa

> Forsythe seems to be vastly superior to Cruz. BTW, Forsythe is still powerful in NH, even though he isn't running for reelection. He controls a PAC that is helping Andy Sanborn and others. 
> 
> Kerry is awesome. He was going to lose if there was a primary but that didn't happen. Make we should keep that in mind for future elections.


I don't know about Forsythe being superior to Cruz, but I do know that Forsythe has a wonderful record of freedom. I would be proud to support his campaign against the LIBERAL Shaheen.

Quick question...when you say Kerry, are you referring to Kerry Bentivolio? Just wondering.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't know about Forsythe being superior to Cruz, but I do know that Forsythe has a wonderful record of freedom. I would be proud to support his campaign against the LIBERAL Shaheen.
> 
> Quick question...when you say Kerry, are you referring to Kerry Bentivolio? Just wondering.


Yes, I was.

Forsythe is wonderful, but we know him from 2008 as well.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I don't know about Forsythe being superior to Cruz, but I do know that Forsythe has a wonderful record of freedom. I would be proud to support his campaign against the LIBERAL Shaheen.
> 
> Quick question...when you say Kerry, are you referring to Kerry Bentivolio? Just wondering.


I mean, it terms of how he votes. He supports medical marijuana and several other pro-liberty civil issues that I doubt Cruz would support and I don't even know if Rand Paul would support.

If Cruz gets elected, it proves he is better at getting elected to a higher office. I guess MUCH better.

----------


## Spoa

> I mean, it terms of how he votes. He supports medical marijuana and several other pro-liberty civil issues that I doubt Cruz would support and I don't even know if Rand Paul would support.
> 
> If Cruz gets elected, it proves he is better at getting elected to a higher office. I guess MUCH better.


After doing some research on Mr. Forsythe, I found out that he is leaving the State Senate this year...is that why there is talk of him running for Senate in 2014? If he's going to run, he needs to announce soon ( a few months right after the 2012 elections would be good), so he can get his name out. I don't know New Hampshire politics that well, but how well known is he in the whole state?

----------


## sailingaway

> After doing some research on Mr. Forsythe, I found out that he is leaving the State Senate this year...is that why there is talk of him running for Senate in 2014? If he's going to run, he needs to announce soon ( a few months right after the 2012 elections would be good), so he can get his name out. I don't know New Hampshire politics that well, but how well known is he in the whole state?


He was Ron's co campaign chair and key to Ron's run there.  Ron came in second with over 20% of the vote there, if you recall. NH activists are VERY active.

----------


## sailingaway

> I mean, it terms of how he votes. He supports medical marijuana and several other pro-liberty civil issues that I doubt Cruz would support and I don't even know if Rand Paul would support.
> 
> If Cruz gets elected, it proves he is better at getting elected to a higher office. I guess MUCH better.


Forsythe is running in NH not Texas or Kentucky, and different positions are more popular in NH than in Texas and KY, as well.  I want Forsythe elected.  If he won't be elected for Senate, isn't there a House seat we can put him in?  I'd rather have him in the Senate, but I don't just want a perfect poster child loss, I really would like to see him in Congress.

----------


## Spoa

> He was Ron's co campaign chair and key to Ron's run there.  Ron came in second with over 20% of the vote there, if you recall. NH activists are VERY active.


Good. I found this statement by the NH Dems: http://nhsenatedemocrats.org/2010/09...e-senate-race/

Everything they said about him just makes me like him more. I'm not big on state legislature races, so I don't know much about him (although I should). But his strong pro-life stance (http://www.nhrtl.org/pac/2010/NHRTL-...2010-10-27.pdf) and strong fiscal responsibility (http://votesmart.org/candidate/evalu...e#.UG-VkZhZXWo ), and his position on education which I presume means that he won't support federal education (http://votesmart.org/public-statemen...n#.UG-VQZhZXWo) all are very appealing to me as a conservative.

Also, just wondering what everyone thinks about Ovide Lamontage's chances of winning the governor's race this year? I think Mr. Lamontage is a great candidate.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Forsythe is running in NH not Texas or Kentucky, and different positions are more popular in NH than in Texas and KY, as well.  I want Forsythe elected.  If he won't be elected for Senate, isn't there a House seat we can put him in?  I'd rather have him in the Senate, but I don't just want a perfect poster child loss, I really would like to see him in Congress.


If Frank Guinta (who is 1 of the best US Congressman on spending) but horrible on everything else loses his seat (he is tied with his opponent, former US Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter) than he could try to win in the primary. Truth is, I don't want Forsythe to be in the US Congress. He is much more useful in NH where 1 voice really makes a difference (only 24 NH state senators). I would also love to see him on the NH Executive Council (only 5 of them in NH) which as a whole is more than equal to the Lieutenant Governor in most states.

NH is more important than other states. We need to keep our good people here where it matters and send our not so good popular politicians to Congress where they can do less harm to us.

I am excited about Tom Davis running in SC and Joe Miller running in AK. I really think at least 1 of them can win and join the US Senate in 2014! Worst case, 2016. It is a shame that DeMint is going to leave the US Senate

----------


## Smart3

> War in Iran as the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE???? I don't think that you can say they all support the War in Iran since the issue hasn't been discussed. Can you provide evidence where Flake or Mandel or Mourdock said that they would support a WAR against Iran? What about Auditing the Fed (which Flake supports)? What about the fact that Mandel opposes foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya? What about the fact that Flake has voted against most CRs? What about the fact that Flake voted for the Audit the Fed bill? What about the fact that both of them would support repeal of Obamacare (which is one of the largest infringements on our liberty) while Caroma and Brown would NOT?
> 
> And your opposition to Mourdock is one that I strongly disagree with. Mourdock supports auditing the Fed, opposes the NDAA, and would end the IRS.


Jeff Flake:
Limiting the Iranian regimes access to the capital it needs to produce nuclear weapons is a necessary action to be taken, Flake said. We need to send a strong signal to Iran in advance of the Baghdad negotiations tomorrow that their actions to develop nuclear weapons wont be tolerated. Putting a choke hold on Irans financial resources could avert disaster for Israel and the rest of the Middle East. 

Mandel:
Divestment from Iran: As a State Legislator in Ohio, Representative Mandel introduced legislation to remove any retirement or other funds that the State of Ohio controls from companies that do business with Iran. As Treasurer, Mandel went forward with this divestment.

JTA Interview: In 2009, Treasurer Mandel *attended the AIPAC conference* and was interviewed by JTA television. In that interview he calls *Iran a threat to all democracies.* 

Mourdock:
 I would continue to support stronger sanctions against Iran and appreciate the work done by Senators Mark Kirk, *Jon Kyl, and Joseph Lieberman* to hold the administration to account on its failure to fully enforce sanctions against Iran.

----------


## Spoa

You are entitled to your opinion and everyone will have to make their own decisions on these candidates.

I think it should be noted that none of these statements say they will support war...they just say that they see Iran as a threat... Something that even Sen Paul has said.

In my opinion, there are other issues like ndaa, fiscal policy, auditing fed, etc. That are more important. Your priorities and level of purism are different from mine. I'm the type of person who supports those that are 75-80 percent with me. Everyone is different.

----------


## Smart3

> You are entitled to your opinion and everyone will have to make their own decisions on these candidates.
> 
> I think it should be noted that none of these statements say they will support war...they just say that they see Iran as a threat... Something that even Sen Paul has said.
> 
> In my opinion, there are other issues like ndaa, fiscal policy, auditing fed, etc. That are more important. Your priorities and level of purism are different from mine. I'm the type of person who supports those that are 75-80 percent with me. Everyone is different.


As a partisan Libertarian, I have no faith in the Republicans, so I only support those candidates who are pure or mostly pure.

----------


## Rocco

Is Carmona really worse then Flake? Are you high? Flake is a tax payer hero and a spending hawk only surpassed by Ron Paul. I'm pumped to have him in the senate. 




> "then the D wins, which is ALWAYS worse"
> 
> not necessarily. Is Carmona really worse than Flake? Brown worse than Mandel? On the most important issue - the upcoming war with Iran, all four support it. 
> 
> would you not support Ron Paul as an Independent, because he couldn't win?

----------


## sailingaway

> Good. I found this statement by the NH Dems: http://nhsenatedemocrats.org/2010/09...e-senate-race/
> 
> Everything they said about him just makes me like him more. I'm not big on state legislature races, so I don't know much about him (although I should). But his strong pro-life stance (http://www.nhrtl.org/pac/2010/NHRTL-...2010-10-27.pdf) and strong fiscal responsibility (http://votesmart.org/candidate/evalu...e#.UG-VkZhZXWo ), and his position on education which I presume means that he won't support federal education (http://votesmart.org/public-statemen...n#.UG-VQZhZXWo) all are very appealing to me as a conservative.
> 
> Also, just wondering what everyone thinks about Ovide Lamontage's chances of winning the governor's race this year? I think Mr. Lamontage is a great candidate.



I'm hearing his chances are pretty good, but I haven't specifically been tracking polls.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Also, just wondering what everyone thinks about Ovide Lamontage's chances of winning the governor's race this year? I think Mr. Lamontage is a great candidate.


My guess is 50/50. More if people donate. https://secure.donationreport.com/do...y=LTQGWQIQHOVT He was endorsed by Forsythe, whatever that means.

I have a sign in my yard. Currently, it is the only sign in my yard

----------


## Smart3

> Is Carmona really worse then Flake? Are you high? Flake is a tax payer hero and a spending hawk only surpassed by Ron Paul. I'm pumped to have him in the senate.


It's best not to be "pumped" until he wins. Carmona is leading in the polls.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I agree 100%, so much so that I am pre-emptively planning to go down to South Carolina to help Tom Davis in any way I can when the time comes. We need to treat this with the same seriousness as we treated Rand 2010. This is not only an opportunity to get what will be the best guy or 2nd best guy in the senate into office, but Lindsey Graham personifies everything that is wrong with the republican party. To get him, the NUMBER ONE neocon out of office would be nothing short of game changing in terms of the power balance in the party.


I couldn't agree more.  It would send shockwaves through the party and country and also set up other elections.  Candidates will want to be in the good graces of the liberty movement instead of the neocons or they'll be facing the liberty hammer.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That's how it's going to have to be. We will (almost) never get 5-star liberty candidates into office, Rand was an exception and Massie will be too. Bentivolio was the work of an act of God!
> 
> The way towards a more liberty-oriented Senate will be through incrementalism. Demint and Lee started things off. Now we'll have Flake and Cruz, maybe Mack and Mourdoch.


Yup, precisely.  Nothing changes overnight.  We need to make the House and Senate more fertile liberty environments and with time you'll start to see more 5-star candidates emerge and receive backing from others in office.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Davis is the one I am interested in.  I WAS interested in primarying McConnell, but with Rand supporting him and Benton going there, I can't see we'd get enough unanimity to do much there.  So at this moment I've only identified Davis's as a race I am interested in.  But we don't know who all is interested in running yet, either.


It would be horrible strategy for millions of reasons, not least of which is McConnell's 30 million treasure trove.  Besides McConnell is old, it could vary well be his last term and it gives us time to develop some of our farm prospects in Kentucky like Chris Hightower and others.  They can be groomed for these seats in the future

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Yeah those are good seats to target, but whether we actually have good candidates is another story.
> 
> Running people that have never held office or have never been involved in high-up politics is not the most efficient route toward victory. We really need to have state legislators first, then run THEM for federal office.


That's why we need to strengthen our farm team (state level offices) to be a feeder system for the big leagues in the House and Senate.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Some liberty activists are trying to draft Jim Forsythe to run in 2014!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DraftJimForsytheForSenate2014


Forsythe would be an outstanding Senator.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Off hand I can't think of anyone Ron has endorsed who wasn't pro life.  I'm not saying he never would if the lines were clear on other issues, I don't know, but it is important to him.  There was a major stink when he ran Libertarian as I understand it, in part because he refused to bend on that point and said you couldn't defend liberty if you didn't defend life.  A bunch of big L libertarians said he wasn't sufficiently pure by their own lights on purity, in big part because of that.


Peter Schiff.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> According to Reason, 65% of self-identified libertarians are pro-choice. That seems about right.
> 
> That's a whole lot more than the general population. 
> 
> From my perspective, you can't defend liberty if you don't defend a woman's right to choose.


Yeah but can't we ALL agree not to fight these battles at the federal level and allow each state to decide these dicey moral matters?  I think we could have a huge consensus to throw this back to the states and have them sort it out.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't understand this fascination with Cruz & DeMint. Total establishment shills.


Because you Puritans don't live in reality.  Gather your two other puritan disciples and crown one of them Burger King then.  Hooray.  Meanwhile the adults will discuss moving the United States Senate in our direction one strategic chess piece at a time.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Jim would likely lose to a popular former governor (his opponent). However, even if he did lose, it would still be very good for the liberty movement. He could use his fundraising resources to help fund several pro-liberty state senate candidates and make a big difference in the make-up of the NH Senate. What is more realistic is him running for state senate or US Congress.
> 
> BTW, even think I think Kurt Bills has just about no chance in MN, I think he will be able to use his fundraising resources to him get several pro-liberty state rep or state senate level folks elected in MN in 2014. The GOP US Senate candidate in MN was likely going to lose anyway, it is good for the liberty movement that Bills was the chosen candidate.


He has to run to win and he has to have a decent shot at winning.  We can't afford any vanity campaigns.  Senate races cost millions of dollars just to compete.  It's great that we have a lot of potential liberty candidates running for big office, but we need to make sure we can fund these guys properly and give them a good shot.  The fund raising for Bills is anemic and to a lesser degree Bentivolio and Massie didn't get huge fund raising help.  If it wasn't for Liberty For All pouring in money I'm not sure what would've happened.  Tom Davis' race along will cost $5 million.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If Frank Guinta (who is 1 of the best US Congressman on spending) but horrible on everything else loses his seat (he is tied with his opponent, former US Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter) than he could try to win in the primary. Truth is, I don't want Forsythe to be in the US Congress. He is much more useful in NH where 1 voice really makes a difference (only 24 NH state senators). I would also love to see him on the NH Executive Council (only 5 of them in NH) which as a whole is more than equal to the Lieutenant Governor in most states.
> 
> NH is more important than other states. We need to keep our good people here where it matters and send our not so good popular politicians to Congress where they can do less harm to us.
> 
> I am excited about Tom Davis running in SC and Joe Miller running in AK. I really think at least 1 of them can win and join the US Senate in 2014! Worst case, 2016. It is a shame that DeMint is going to leave the US Senate


I can respect Demint for wanting leave and move on to other things.  I'm sure he'll have a hand in choosing his successor. We need to build up our liberty farm team in SC.  Can you imagine having two liberty Senators from SC of all places!  What a coup that would be

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't know about Forsythe being superior to Cruz, but I do know that Forsythe has a wonderful record of freedom. I would be proud to support his campaign against the LIBERAL Shaheen.
> 
> Quick question...when you say Kerry, are you referring to Kerry Bentivolio? Just wondering.


Forsythe is a legit 5-star liberty candidate.

★★★★★ - Green Five stars is essentially Ron Paul incarnate.  So good you have to slap yourself silly to believe this person really exists!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> There are three types of Republican Senators:
> Lugar/Graham/McCain/Kyl/Inhofe/etc 
> Jim DeMint/Mike Lee/Jeff Flake/Richard Mourdock/Ted Cruz (disputed)
> Rand Paul/Ted Cruz (disputed)
> 
> We should always support the DeMints and Lees over the Inhofes, Lugars, etc. However, we should do this only in the primaries. If there is a Liberty candidate (LBT, CST, Independent, etc) in the general election, we should support that candidate over a Mandel or Mourdock.


I completely agree that there's a breakdown of how good a candidate is for liberty.  It's not black and white.  It's a much more nuanced approach to viewing candidates.  I think where many libertarians and people within this movement go wrong is they hold out for a messiah.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> As a partisan Libertarian, I have no faith in the Republicans, so I only support those candidates who are pure or mostly pure.


What about Gary Johnson wanting to intervene abroad for humanitarian reasons and finding Kony?  See you can poke a hole in any candidate playing the Puritan role.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I know that someone in some thread somewhere (don't know where) wanted more info on Greg Brannon, and I haven't provided that yet, but he would essentially be 5 green stars.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I know that someone in some thread somewhere (don't know where) wanted more info on Greg Brannon, and I haven't provided that yet, but he would essentially be 5 green stars.


He's in SC correct?  What position is he in at the moment, state government?  What's his experience and background?

Thanks Gunny!

----------


## sailingaway

> He has to run to win and he has to have a decent shot at winning.  We can't afford any vanity campaigns.  Senate races cost millions of dollars just to compete.  It's great that we have a lot of potential liberty candidates running for big office, but we need to make sure we can fund these guys properly and give them a good shot.  The fund raising for Bills is anemic and to a lesser degree Bentivolio and Massie didn't get huge fund raising help.  If it wasn't for Liberty For All pouring in money I'm not sure what would've happened.  Tom Davis' race along will cost $5 million.


people are going to spend their money as they please.  A really good candidate will get more leeway to try to change the minds of others to win.

----------


## Smart3

> What about Gary Johnson wanting to intervene abroad for humanitarian reasons and finding Kony?  See you can poke a hole in any candidate playing the Puritan role.


I did not support Johnson in the primaries, I supported R. Lee Wrights. Johnson supported the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - his only gripe is that it lasted too long. 

That goes completely against what I believe - which is that the Taliban are the legitimate government of Afghanistan and should return to power promptly. I'm anti-DP but I wouldn't mind seeing Karzai's body dragged through the streets of Kabul.




> I know that someone in some thread somewhere (don't know where) wanted more info on Greg Brannon, and I haven't provided that yet, but he would essentially be 5 green stars.


That was me.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> He's in SC correct?  What position is he in at the moment, state government?  What's his experience and background?
> 
> Thanks Gunny!


North Carolina.

----------


## Ivash

> According to Reason, 65% of self-identified libertarians are pro-choice. That seems about right.
> 
> That's a whole lot more than the general population. 
> 
> From my perspective, you can't defend liberty if you don't defend a woman's right to choose.


It is likely that the people who voted for Ron Paul in this election were overwhelmingly pro-life. And I can guarantee you that number>the number of libertarians.

Anyways, from a libertarian standpoint I can see it following both ways. On one hand, the government shouldn't be able to limit the woman's rights to chose. On the other hand it is scary that the government can simply declare that a group of individuals don't even have the 'right to life'.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> people are going to spend their money as they please.  A really good candidate will get more leeway to try to change the minds of others to win.


Yeah so?  You're missing the point.  I'm talking about our limited pool of funds.  Even a Senate run in the smaller states like Alaska and NH will be quite costly.  Probably $2-3 million each at the bare minimum estimate.  South Carolina will be 2-3X that amount.  If history has taught us anything its that we're not the best at spreading donations around strategically.  Other than Ron and Rand has any of our other candidates ever broke a million in donations from grassroots?  It's great that we have a lot of strong liberty candidates willing to run, its a good problem to have, but we got to be able to fund them or nobody will get anything.

----------


## Smart3

> It is likely that the people who voted for Ron Paul in this election were overwhelmingly pro-life. And I can guarantee you that number>the number of libertarians.
> 
> Anyways, from a libertarian standpoint I can see it following both ways. On one hand, the government shouldn't be able to limit the woman's rights to chose. On the other hand it is scary that the government can simply declare that a group of individuals don't even have the 'right to life'.


Don't be so sure of that, I know a ton of people who voted for Paul in the primaries and are as ardently pro-choice as I am.

----------


## sailingaway

Yeah, you are talking about "our" limited "pool" of funds, and I find it offensive.  Each person spends their own funds as they are moved to do so.

IMHO people donated to Rand from Ron's supporters hoping he would be like Ron and become our standard bearer in the future, so he was unusually unifying. (Now he has establishment funding but I'm speaking specifically of money from the liberty movement.)  People donated to Ron because he is the best liberty candidate in my lifetime.  

How likely they were to win only impacted the margins, if that.

Someone less galvanizing is more prone to 'practical considerations', and even someone terrific is prone to them to some extent, for example, I think BJ Lawson is wonderful but only donated a smaller amount than I would have because I didn't think his seat was winnable.  I wish he would move where it would be winnable.

But I wouldn't donate to anyone who voted for the Patriot Act extension or NDAA, ever, unless they had recanted (with the Patriot Act) and I actually believed it.  I don't care how likely they are to win.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> North Carolina.


Thanks

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Yeah, you are talking about "our" limited "pool" of funds, and I find it offensive.  Each person spends their own funds as they are moved to do so.


Gee really?  Next you'll be informing me that water is wet.  You are taking this way beyond to some philosophical realm now.

----------


## sailingaway

> Gee really?  Next you'll be informing me that water is wet.  You are taking this way beyond to some philosophical realm now.


I am pushing back on your collectivist direction.

----------


## Ivash

> Don't be so sure of that, I know a ton of people who voted for Paul in the primaries and are as ardently pro-choice as I am.


Well you know what they say about anecdotal evidence...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Any observer sees we can bankroll Ron with upwards of $35 million, but down ticket other candidates get scraps.  Gunny has talked about this before.  We're very myopic with our donations concerning Presidential election campaigns.  We want to strike that big decisive blow, but funding lower tier candidates might actually be the best bang for the buck, at a fraction of the cost.  My concern is that lost in translation part where we can $35 million for Ron, but can't raise $35k for others following in his footsteps.

----------


## sailingaway

> Any observer sees we can bankroll Ron with upwards of $35 million, but down ticket other candidates get scraps.  Gunny has talked about this before.  We're very myopic with our donations concerning Presidential election campaigns.  We want to strike that big decisive blow, but funding lower tier candidates might actually be the best bang for the buck, at a fraction of the cost.  My concern is that lost in translation part where we can $35 million for Ron, but can't raise $35k for others following in his footsteps.


It is RON, not 'presidential elections'.  If Ron were running for Senate, money would have followed him.  How much money is Johnson getting?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I am pushing back on your collectivist direction.


*sigh* pretty soon money bombs will be attacked for being collectivist.

----------


## Smart3

> Well you know what they say about anecdotal evidence...


I wasn't using anecdotal evidence. The abortion issue is a non-issue for most in the RP movement.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> It is RON, not 'presidential elections'.  If Ron were running for Senate, money would have followed him.  How much money is Johnson getting?


It's Ron, but its also the excitement and hoopla surrounding the Presidential election too.  Most people tune out in non Presidential years.  Would Ron get 10's of millions without raising his profile in 2007 in the Presidential field?  Probably not.  

And Johnson is comparing apples to oranges.  Nobody in their right mind thinks Johnson can win, they might pull the lever for him on election night, but people won't donate if they perceive it as wasted money.  People actually thought Ron had a shot at winning, especially in 2012 and further more the diehard cynics still thought it was worthwhile to fund him because he had such a huge stage to keep presenting his ideas.  Johnson has zero shot at winning and no elevated stage.

----------


## sailingaway

But people didn't donate to Johnson in the GOP primaries, either.

----------


## Smart3

> But people didn't donate to Johnson in the GOP primaries, either.


Speak for yourself, I gave him money.

----------


## sailingaway

> Speak for yourself, I gave him money.


Yeah, and you didn't support Ron Paul, I suspect.  I'm talking about the total amount of money Johnson got v Ron Paul.  It wasn't because Johnson wasn't running in the correct party as Bastiat suggests.

----------


## Smart3

> Yeah, and you didn't support Ron Paul, I suspect.  I'm talking about the total amount of money Johnson got v Ron Paul.  It wasn't because Johnson wasn't running in the correct party as Bastiat suggests.


I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't support and vote for Dr. Paul. I gave during Johnson's first moneybomb. That was back when I actually donated to candidates, before realizing the futility.

----------


## sailingaway

I meant donated to Ron Paul.  From your position as a 'partisan Libertarian' as you described yourself, I assumed you were one of the crowd who voted for Ron while saying 'and lets all vote for Gary in the general'.  But if you supported Ron, great, I just don't recognize your slant at some of his positions.

----------


## Smart3

> I meant donated to Ron Paul.  From your position as a 'partisan Libertarian' as you described yourself, I assumed you were one of the crowd who voted for Ron while saying 'and lets all vote for Gary in the general'.  But if you supported Ron, great, I just don't recognize your slant at some of his positions.


Given the option of Ron Paul as the Republican nominee, and R. Lee Wrights, Mary Ruwart, etc as the LP Nominee, it'd be an easy decision to vote for the LP.

However, RP VS GJ, I'd vote RP.

I've been disappointed by the GJ campaign from the get-go. His choice of Judge Gray was extremely disappointing, he should have picked R. Lee Wrights at least. So we could have a peacenik on the ticket. 

and remember, RP is a member of the Libertarian Party, so my voting for him isn't going against the LP. I read "Ron Paul (L)" not "Ron Paul (R)"

----------


## sailingaway

I'd vote for Ron Paul against Mary Ruwart, but if Mary Ruwart had the LP nomination I might vote for her rather than write Ron in.  I really want to write Ron in.... but I like her.

If the LP were running a candidate like that, we could see the attraction.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> But people didn't donate to Johnson in the GOP primaries, either.


Why would they?  Paul was a much better candidate on paper, minus having executive experience.  Vastly superior name recognition and fund raising apparatus.  Johnson also had very little face time, he only got invited to one or two debates very earlier on when hardly anyone was paying attention except political junkies.  Everyone knew Johnson would get frozen out.

----------


## Smart3

> I'd vote for Ron Paul against Mary Ruwart, but if Mary Ruwart had the LP nomination I might vote for her rather than write Ron in.  I really want to write Ron in.... but I like her.
> 
> If the LP were running a candidate like that, we could see the attraction.


I don't see the pointing in voting for Ron twice. In the primary and the general, unless of course he had won the nomination. 

but, evidently, Paul has no problem with people writing him in. (despite the fact he hasn't done anything to make that possible)

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see the pointing in voting for Ron twice. In the primary and the general, unless of course he had won the nomination. 
> 
> but, evidently, Paul has no problem with people writing him in. (despite the fact he hasn't done anything to make that possible)


But I really LIKE Ron Paul. He is pretty much an ideal candidate to me, not because of precise definition of policies even, but because of character and implacable determination that his office exists to serve the people and follow the Constitution, because he took an oath to do that.  I don't need a 'point' to vote for him. I'd have to be prevented from doing so.

----------


## Smart3

> But I really LIKE Ron Paul. He is pretty much an ideal candidate to me, not because of precise definition of policies even, but because of character and implacable determination that his office exists to serve the people and follow the Constitution, because he took an oath to do that.  I don't need a 'point' to vote for him. I'd have to be prevented from doing so.


Adam Kokesh is my ideal candidate, but he isn't old enough to run for President.

----------


## sailingaway

I donated to him a bit early in his run, but he has become too combative for me, at the moment. It detracts from his positions imho.   If he were on the ballot I'd vote for him over either of those running for congress in my district, but I don't see him getting there with his attitude, to be honest.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Adam Kokesh is my ideal candidate, but he isn't old enough to run for President.


Last I heard Adam he was talking about how he would make a paper airplane out of the Constitution.

----------


## matt0611

> Last I heard Adam he was talking about how he would make a paper airplane out of the Constitution.


LOL.

Adam takes and posts pictures online of himself smoking weed at ground zero.

He'll never be elected to any office let alone a US Senator or President. Not like he would want the job anyway.

----------


## DeMintConservative

I wrote this post in another thread but it probably makes more sense here:

1. Alaska. Joe Miller? The guy who managed to lose to a write-in candidate? This seat is for Parnell if he wants it. A super gadfly like Miller is done politically. At least for federal/statewide office. 
*
2. New Hampshire.* Shaheen should be vulnerable in 2014, especially if Obama is re-elected and I don't see any obvious Republican candidate. The GOP bench is pretty weak there. I suspect this nomination will go for "rich self-funding businessman", a la Ron Johnson (there are plenty of them in NH). 

3. South Dakota. I think Tim Johnson will retire. Kristi Noem, the current SD-(AL) representative will get the GOP nomination easily. 

*4. Montana.* Baucus is in a relatively strong position. I think he'll make this a toss-up to start with. No obvious GOP candidate either. I suspect we'll have another Ron Johnson type here.

5. Wyoming. Are you serious? Unless Enzi retires, which doesn't seem likely, he'll win the nomination and the general election with +75% of the vote. 


Here are some other potentially interesting seats:

6. Kansas. Roberts is a backbencher who will be 78 in 2014, has no path to a leadership position and no personal fortune (former military and congressional staffer). I think there are very good chances he'll retire to spend the rest of his life in a low-intensity lobbying job. I think Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins would be impossible to beat in a primary if she wants to run though. I'd be happy with her anyway. 

7. Mississippi. Cochran is a dinosaur, in his 70s, whose raison d'etre to serve was alwasy the ability to get pork. With earmarking becoming verbotten in the last few years and with little hope it'll make a come back in the near future, I think there's a chance he retires. Guys like Palazzo and especially Gregg Harper would be almost impossible to beat in a primary though. 
*
8. Oklahoma.* Inhofe is another guy hitting his 80s. He probably retires. If Mary Fallin runs, it's her seat. If not, it's a decent opening for a small government candidate. 

*9. Minnesota.* Al Franken. Minnesota loves their incumbents as long as they keep their head low but I suspect Franken is a more vulnerable one. The GOP would need to do a lot better than Bills though. 

10. North Carolina. Kay Hagan hasn't been doing much to become unpopular, but she's still in a relatively vulnerable position, especially if Obama is re-elected. I have a hard time seeing a Paulite type winning a primary here though.

The bolded states are the ones that seem more promising to Ron Paul-type candidates from where I stand - obviously with so much time to go there's no point in worrying too much about this type of ultra-early projections.

----------


## matt0611

Don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet but maybe Chuck Baldwin for Montana?

----------


## sailingaway

I'd think Chuck Baldwin would be great.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet but maybe Chuck Baldwin for Montana?


No chance.  Back to reality.

----------


## sailingaway

> Don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet but maybe Chuck Baldwin for Montana?


Seriously, if he'd run, he'd have a ton of support here, I'm pretty sure.

----------


## Spoa

> Don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet but maybe Chuck Baldwin for Montana?


Yes...yes...a thousand times yes! Chuck Baldwin is awesome and would be a strong candidate in Montana. Someone should start a draft facebook page for him.

On another note, I hope the heads of this forum consider making a 2014 candidates forum soon. Just a thought.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes...yes...a thousand times yes! Chuck Baldwin is awesome and would be a strong candidate in Montana. Someone should start a draft facebook page for him.
> 
> On another note, I hope the heads of this forum consider making a 2014 candidates forum soon. Just a thought.


I'd think after November that would make sense.  At least a catch all one.

You might want to put the suggestion in the forum suggestion box so Bryan and Josh see it, though.

----------


## Spoa

> I'd think after November that would make sense.  At least a catch all one.
> 
> You might want to put the suggestion in the forum suggestion box so Bryan and Josh see it, though.


. Understand completely. In the mean time, I hope we'll keep this conversation going. I plan to bump this thread so people can continue seeing it and discussing it. *Is there anyway we can make it a sticky or whatever you call it so it doesn't go off the front page of this forum?*

----------


## sailingaway

I can if it is in danger of disappearing, but people stop looking at stickies.  Bouncing this thread around catches attention and conversation more.  If I sticky it, you will see what I mean within the day, but I CAN sticky it, if we need to.

----------


## Spoa

> I can if it is in danger of disappearing, but people stop looking at stickies.  Bouncing this thread around catches attention and conversation more.  If I sticky it, you will see what I mean within the day, but I CAN sticky it, if we need to.


Ok. You know better than I do since I've only been here for a few months.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> Seriously, if he'd run, he'd have a ton of support here, I'm pretty sure.


Here = 3 votes in Montana and probably $10,000 in donations. Hardly a recipe for winning.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here = 3 votes in Montana and probably $10,000 in donations. Hardly a recipe for winning.


that isnt true.  We had a real shot at winning the state convention there.  And Baldwin is known and liked here from 2008

----------


## sailingaway

On Montana's state convention:




> Thought I'd post a heads up here in the state forum.  We had our State Convention here in Montana last week and into the weekend.  The short story is that our Chairman betrayed us, a very strong delegation of around 47%, and handed the delegate election over to the Mitt Romney camp.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but we are Montana and usually things run a bit differently up here.  We're sending zero delegates and one alternate that has little or no chance of being escalated to a national delegate.
> 
> Here's a detailed write up of the convention details, in case you're interested:
> 
> http://jeffwhiteside.com/2012/06/17/...-of-the-mtgop/
> 
> Sorry guys.  We hit it hard, even in the wake of Rand's announcement, and we were just a sliver away from taking the whole thing.
> 
> (Please click on the link, even if you don't read it.  I'm on the 2nd Google page for most searches about the Montana Republican Convention and I want it on the first.)

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Montana is a heavily Mormon area so if we were able to make it that close against Mittens, we'd probably easily get a majority had the candidate been anyone else.

Imagine Chuck Baldwin 2014 and then his son Tim in 2018.  Now that would be something I could get behind

----------


## Smart3

Chuck Baldwin 2014!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-...52426481568819

----------


## Spoa

> Chuck Baldwin 2014!
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-...52426481568819


Awesome!

----------


## sailingaway

> Chuck Baldwin 2014!
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-...52426481568819


liked and liked the internal likes as well!

and Ron has a new granddaughter!

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Remember, Chuck Baldwin was running for Lt. Governor but his running mate had no chance so he dropped out.

I think Senate is too big of a reach.

Get Chuck Baldwin a House seat first.

----------


## sailingaway

> Remember, Chuck Baldwin was running for Lt. Governor but his running mate had no chance so he dropped out.
> 
> I think Senate is too big of a reach.
> 
> Get Chuck Baldwin a House seat first.


With Chuck I think Senate is in reach.  I'd defer to his judgment but he doesn't just draw us, he draws the other side of the tea party too, like Davis, and evangelicals.   He doesn't have as much of a 'record', though, but that is what exploratory committees are for.... Forsythe is spectacular but I worry his profile might not be high enough, but I don't live in NH. I want Forsythe to WIN what he runs for, whatever it is. I think Baldwin's profile is higher, but that is just a guess.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> Remember, Chuck Baldwin was running for Lt. Governor but his running mate had no chance so he dropped out.
> 
> I think Senate is too big of a reach.
> 
> Get Chuck Baldwin a House seat first.


Montana only has 1 House seat, so either way, Senate or House, it's a statewide race.

----------


## sailingaway

> Montana only has 1 House seat, so either way, Senate or House, it's a statewide race.


Yeah, but not as much money is funneled into the House race because at the end of the day it is only one of 435 votes.  But I'd like him to run for Senate unless I am shown evidence that it is absolutely foreclosed.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

I don't see Montana electing someone as churchy as Baldwin to higher office.  Plus he's a recent transplant there.

----------


## Smart3

> I don't see Montana electing someone as churchy as Baldwin to higher office.  Plus he's a recent transplant there.


I concur, but we might be able to get him nominated at least. If the Dems have a civil war in the primary (Schweitzer v Baucus) then we do have a chance.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see Montana electing someone as churchy as Baldwin to higher office.  Plus he's a recent transplant there.


He's terrific on civil liberties and the Constitution altogether, imho. You'd have a hard time coming up with someone people here would get as excited about, as a group, but maybe I'm missing someone who is a possibility. Did you have someone in mind who people here would think better?

----------


## Spoa

> I concur, but we might be able to get him nominated at least. If the Dems have a civil war in the primary (Schweitzer v Baucus) then we do have a chance.


I second that. There are huge rumors that the Dems will have a civil war, so we should at least try. Maybe Congressman (Future Senator) Rehberg will help him out. After all, they both agree on ending the Patriot Act and stopping indefinite detention. Chuck Baldwin 2014!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> He's terrific on civil liberties and the Constitution altogether, imho. You'd have a hard time coming up with someone people here would get as excited about, as a group, but maybe I'm missing someone who is a possibility. Did you have someone in mind who people here would think better?


I'm not debating his ideology.  He just has never struck me as a particularly viable candidate.  With everything going on in New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, etc.  I'm a little disappointed more hasn't taken place in Montana?

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm not debating his ideology.  He just has never struck me as a particularly viable candidate.  With everything going on in New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, etc.  I'm a little disappointed more hasn't taken place in Montana?


Well, the Constitution Party has over 400,000 members.  I imagine that many of them know who Baldwin is and would support his Senatorial campaign.  I imagine that many Paul-backers would do the same.  There's a possibility that Baldwin could actually raise a ton of money, and as we know, the person with the most money almost always wins.

----------


## KingNothing

It will be interesting to see what happens between now and 2016.  I imagine that we'll start to see many more Republicans of our ilk rise by then, and have a good list of local and national folks to support.  At the same time, I suspect that a number of anti-authoritarian, anti-war, pro-transparency Democrats will rise in prominence as well.  If that happens, we might want to consider supporting them in elections that no Republican could hope to win.  If we can't have perfect Liberty candidates in place, we might as well have people who agree that the Bill of Rights are sacred and that we shouldn't go to war carelessly.

----------


## pochy1776

> The power of Establishment candidates in those races can not and should not be underestimated.
> 
> but I appreciate your optimism.


Can we just eliminate the 17th amendment.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Can we just eliminate the 17th amendment.


That would solve so much of the problem that it would seem irrational.  What I mean by that is that so very much of he problem we now have stems from the 17th Amendment, that the sheer volume of the problems it would fix wouldn't seem to make sense on the surface of it.  Which would make it a very very good idea to repeal the 17th.  The problem is there is not the political will to do it, and will not be for a long long time.  

When I ran in 2010, my opponent spent $100k in TV ads telling the voters that I would eliminate their right to vote for Senator, based on a single statement from my website critical of the effects of the 17th.  I won anyway because that seemed so very ridiculous that basically nobody believed him and it WAS ridiculous because 1) one guy by himself cannot amend the Constitution, and 2) my position was that it would be 16-20 years before America was even ready to _talk_ about the 17th much less move to repeal it.

Point being, sure we need to repeal the 17th, but good luck making that happen inside of 20 years, and good luck to any candidate brave enough to even discuss it!

----------


## Spoa

Roll Call did an article about the number of GOP Senate candidates oppose to the 17th Amendment: http://www.rollcall.com/news/GOP-Sen...-216856-1.html

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Well, the Constitution Party has over 400,000 members.  I imagine that many of them know who Baldwin is and would support his Senatorial campaign.  I imagine that many Paul-backers would do the same.  There's a possibility that Baldwin could actually raise a ton of money, and as we know, the person with the most money almost always wins.


How many are in Montana though?  Can they raise a cool million or more?  Baldwin just doesn't seem like he'd be a good campaigner.  You need to have a great candidate that connects with people and hits the campaign trail with his full being and making a serious attempt to win.  Baldwin campaigns have always seemed like an "also-ran" or vanity run to me.  Montana also has a quirky history with electing democrats, so them turning to a preacher-turn-politician seems like a stretch.  You're welcome to prove me wrong though.

----------


## Smart3

> How many are in Montana though?  Can they raise a cool million or more?  Baldwin just doesn't seem like he'd be a good campaigner.  You need to have a great candidate that connects with people and hits the campaign trail with his full being and making a serious attempt to win.  Baldwin campaigns have always seemed like an "also-ran" or vanity run to me.  Montana also has a quirky history with electing democrats, so them turning to a preacher-turn-politician seems like a stretch.  You're welcome to prove me wrong though.


The CP is basically non-existent in Montana.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> The CP is basically non-existent in Montana.


I thought that was the state where it was the strongest? Wasn't there a state senator or something that was CP at 1 time in MT?

----------


## DeMintConservative

I wasn't aware Baldwin was in Montana till I read this. I went to check his wikipedia page: 



> In 2010, Baldwin retired from his position as pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church and announced his intention to move to Montana, because he believed God had told him that the Mountain states were the "tip of the spear in the freedom fight.


What would he say to justify his candidacy? That just 3 years after his arrival God had told him that he should move to DC instead?

In my view, you cant' run this type non-entity perennial candidates in races like this and expect to win or have a respectable showing. There was that witch in Delaware, but she never had a chance in the general. 

I'm extremely doubtful, to put it gently, that the winner of the GOP Senatorial primary in Montana will be a guy who:

- has been living instate only for 4 years

- has been attacking the GOP in the past 15 years and is not even a Republican

- has never won an election in his life

- is known to be a gadfly perennial minor party candidate with plenty of incendiary remarks in his record

I understand why you might like Baldwin, but guys like him aren't the way to go, at least for a Senate race in a competitive state. You'll probably need a Republican, an elected official, even if a state legislator or maybe a million or a very popular person (and popular outside of political/libertarian circles). 

If Paulites survive as a cohesive political movement, you need to start focusing on lower office races. It seems you waste too much energy in long-shot races because of their higher profile. Any money and energy spent on Baldwin would be much better invested electing some state legislators and statewide officials like SOS that could possibly make a serious run in 2018.

----------


## Smart3

> I thought that was the state where it was the strongest? Wasn't there a state senator or something that was CP at 1 time in MT?


Montana's CP only rejoined the national party last year, and Rick Jore (the guy you're referring to) was a former member of the Legislature as a Republican, and that's why he beat the Democrat in the race.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I wasn't aware Baldwin was in Montana till I read this. I went to check his wikipedia page: 
> 
> 
> What would he say to justify his candidacy? That just 3 years after his arrival God had told him that he should move to DC instead?
> 
> In my view, you cant' run this type non-entity perennial candidates in races like this and expect to win or have a respectable showing. There was that witch in Delaware, but she never had a chance in the general. 
> 
> I'm extremely doubtful, to put it gently, that the winner of the GOP Senatorial primary in Montana will be a guy who:
> 
> ...


That's what i mean.  He's "churchy".  That might work in the Florida panhandle, but in the rocky mountain west, ehhh

----------


## Pisces

> That's what i mean.  He's "churchy".  That might work in the Florida panhandle, but in the rocky mountain west, ehhh


Helen Chenoweth was "churchy" and she had no problem winning in the mountain west.

----------


## DeMintConservative

To be fair, Idaho is quite a bit more "churchy" than Montana. And less competitive politically as well.

I think the "churchy" thing is just a small part of what makes Baldwin a non-viable candidate though.

----------


## sailingaway

> To be fair, Idaho is quite a bit more "churchy" than Montana. And less competitive politically as well.
> 
> I think the "churchy" thing is just a small part of what makes Baldwin a non-viable candidate though.


Well, if he runs he will get a lot of support here, then I guess we can find out.

----------


## Pisces

> To be fair, Idaho is quite a bit more "churchy" than Montana. And less competitive politically as well.
> 
> I think the "churchy" thing is just a small part of what makes Baldwin a non-viable candidate though.


I agree that Baldwin will have problems due to being perceived as a carpetbagger and a perennial candidate.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree that Baldwin will have problems due to being perceived as a carpetbagger and a perennial candidate.


Those are the kind of issues that seem to matter more to party types than to the average voter, imho.

----------


## Pisces

> Those are the kind of issues that seem to matter more to party types than to the average voter, imho.


True, plus a lot will depend upon the state of the country in 2014. If the economy is much worse, voters will be more open to ideas they would have previously thought were outside the "mainstream". I also think that the power of the mainstream media will continue to decline. As this happens, many of the old rules will become less and less relevant.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Those are the kind of issues that seem to matter more to party types than to the average voter, imho.


Aren't GOP primary voters in Montana (and in a midterm election to boot) party types to you?

Regardless of you label them, here's what they'll probably want their candidate to be: a Republican Montanan who hasn't spent the time since the start of the century attacking them and the candidates they vote for.

----------


## sailingaway

> I wasn't aware Baldwin was in Montana till I read this. I went to check his wikipedia page: 
> 
> 
> What would he say to justify his candidacy? That just 3 years after his arrival God had told him that he should move to DC instead?
> 
> In my view, you cant' run this type non-entity perennial candidates in races like this and expect to win or have a respectable showing. There was that witch in Delaware, but she never had a chance in the general. 
> 
> I'm extremely doubtful, to put it gently, that the winner of the GOP Senatorial primary in Montana will be a guy who:
> 
> ...


I have learned not to accept 'characerizations' as opposed to quotes, without reading the actual quotes, particularly regarding liberty candidate statements.  Find me the original, and I'd be happy to look at it, however, 'God led me' can be no more than a phrase of speech by those religious and who believe God guides where they go, when they pray and ask for guidance in making their decisions.  Why would that be a big deal?

And I would much rather have a few truly good candidates than a slate of mediocre ones, particularly if they aren't even ranked on civil liberties as some lists rank them.

----------


## sailingaway

> Aren't GOP primary voters in Montana (and in a midterm election to boot) party types to you?
> 
> Regardless of you label them, here's what they'll probably want their candidate to be: a Republican Montanan who hasn't spent the time since the start of the century attacking them and the candidates they vote for.


No, primary voters are more likely, it seems, to be outright fighting OR already sold on establishment positions, and more the latter than the former, imho, but many consider themselves non party types, just thinking someone like Gingrich is a non party type too... regardless of how ludicrous I might find that position to be, myself.

And most real people I know don't unless they have a personal preexisting loyalty, care at all if a person who is a better candidate moved there recently.

But we'll find out if Baldwin runs.  I'm sure there will be a lot of support for him here.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I have learned not to accept 'characerizations' as opposed to quotes, without reading the actual quotes, particularly regarding liberty candidate statements.  Find me the original, and I'd be happy to look at it, however, 'God led me' can be no more than a phrase of speech by those religious and who believe God guide's where they go.  Why would that be a big deal?
> 
> And I would much rather have a few truly good candidates than a slate of mediocre ones, particularly if they aren't even ranked on civil liberties as some lists rank them.


What would be the ideal liberty checklist in your opinion to gauge where a candidate fits on the liberty scale?

----------


## DeMintConservative

> No, primary voters are more likely, it seems, to be outright fighting OR already sold on establishment positions, and more the latter than the former, imho, but many consider themselves non party types, just thinking someone like Gingrich is a non party type too... regardless of how ludicrous I might find that position to be, myself.
> 
> And most real people I know don't unless they have a personal preexisting loyalty, care at all if a person who is a better candidate moved there recently.
> 
> But we'll find out if Baldwin runs.  I'm sure there will be a lot of support for him here.


Okay, I guess this is mostly semantics. 

Keep in mind though that those voters will vote at least 95% for Romney or close to it in the general. As they did for McCain and Bush. You want to run a perennial candidate who's spent most of the century attacking those people and their supporters. 

You keep believing you can somehow win the hearts of the GOP base by antagonizing them. It won't work. 





> I have learned not to accept 'characerizations' as opposed to quotes, without reading the actual quotes, particularly regarding liberty candidate statements.  Find me the original, and I'd be happy to look at it, however, 'God led me' can be no more than a phrase of speech by those religious and who believe God guides where they go, when they pray and ask for guidance in making their decisions.  Why would that be a big deal?
> 
> And I would much rather have a few truly good candidates than a slate of mediocre ones, particularly if they aren't even ranked on civil liberties as some lists rank them.


Personally I don't have a problem with that kind of statement, I was half joking - but the "so, now God told him to move to Washington?" joke/attack will be made plenty of time. And yeah, it can be a big deal. Perry got lots of slack for his usage of that type of expression. 

Even if you think Baldwin is a good candidate, if he's not viable electorally, what's exactly the point?

----------


## sailingaway

> Okay, I guess this is mostly semantics. 
> 
> Keep in mind though that those voters will vote at least 95% for Romney or close to it in the general. As they did for McCain and Bush. You want to run a perennial candidate who's spent most of the century attacking those people and their supporters. 
> 
> You keep believing you can somehow win the hearts of the GOP base by antagonizing them. It won't work.


We are talking about the Senate Race in Montana, not a presidential race, and I don't think people like Romney, they are just voting for him. I don't think two years later they will take umbrage on his account.  





> Personally I don't have a problem with that kind of statement, I was half joking - but the "so, now God told him to move to Washington?" joke/attack will be made plenty of time. And yeah, it can be a big deal. Perry got lots of slack for his usage of that type of expression. 
> 
> Even if you think Baldwin is a good candidate, if he's not viable electorally, what's exactly the point?


I think Montana is more, not less, religious.  I also would rather fight for a good candidate and keep our standard high and stand for something, than win a poor one and be no better than the other political slush out there.  I think he is viable, though, particularly in Montana.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> We are talking about the Senate Race in Montana, not a presidential race, and I don't think people like Romney, they are just voting for him. I don't think two years later they will take umbrage on his account.  
> 
> 
> I think Montana is more, not less, religious. * I also would rather fight for a good candidate and keep our standard high and stand for something, than win a poor one and be no better than the other political slush out there.*  I think he is viable, though, particularly in Montana.


They're voting for Romney because they're partisans though. Maybe they don't like Romney but like Sarah Palin. Or their neighbour Dick Chenney. Baldwin history of anti-GOP activism won't make him any favours. I think Baldwin is only mentioned because he's well known in national libertarian/3rd party circles. There's nothing at all in his resumé that suggests he's Senate material. Then again, as you've said often, we'll see (for the record, I don't believe he'll even run). 

I agree with the bolded part. I rarely find myself in the disposition of supporting flawed candidates in the primary. The point I was making though, was that if you can't find a good candidate for a Senatorial race, focus on lower level races. Say you can raise $50k in a Baldwin money bomb. I suspect that money would be wasted in his candidacy while it could put to very good use funding two or three state house candidates - and maybe one of them will then be a solid candidate for a senate seat in 2018.

----------


## sailingaway

> What would be the ideal liberty checklist in your opinion to gauge where a candidate fits on the liberty scale?


I'll put some thought into that, civil liberties and the Constitution in general is very high on that list.  The problem is with weighting and some things are absolute 'off my list' issues, like voting for NDAA, I wouldn't put that into wieghting.

----------


## Spoa

I might upset some people with this suggestion, and I want to encourage those who support Governor Gary Johnson to carry on with their fight. *This suggestion is in no way meant to disrespect him or his campaign.* 

Should Johnson not win this year's presidential election, I think he should consider running as a Republican in New Mexico in 2014 against Senator Udall. He would be an excellent and strong candidate. What do you all think?

----------


## Smart3

> I might upset some people with this suggestion, and I want to encourage those who support Governor Gary Johnson to carry on with their fight. *This suggestion is in no way meant to disrespect him or his campaign.* 
> 
> Should Johnson not win this year's presidential election, I think he should consider running as a Republican in New Mexico in 2014 against Senator Udall. He would be an excellent and strong candidate. What do you all think?


Only if he was cross-endorsed by NM's LP.

----------


## sailingaway

> They're voting for Romney because they're partisans though. Maybe they don't like Romney but like Sarah Palin. Or their neighbour Dick Chenney. Baldwin history of anti-GOP activism won't make him any favours. I think Baldwin is only mentioned because he's well known in national libertarian/3rd party circles. There's nothing at all in his resumé that suggests he's Senate material. Then again, as you've said often, we'll see (for the record, I don't believe he'll even run). 
> 
> I agree with the bolded part. I rarely find myself in the disposition of supporting flawed candidates in the primary. The point I was making though, was that if you can't find a good candidate for a Senatorial race, focus on lower level races. Say you can raise $50k in a Baldwin money bomb. I suspect that money would be wasted in his candidacy while it could put to very good use funding two or three state house candidates - and maybe one of them will then be a solid candidate for a senate seat in 2018.


If we would only make that I agree.  but if say we made $200,000 in a single money bomb, it would be a different picture in an ad market like Montana.

My point is that I think, and I could be wrong, that his race would be the kind that might bring that money in here.

It will depend on how many we have. If Jim Forsythe runs for Senate in NH, for example, that and Davis might take most of our attention.  But if he didn't, Baldwin has his own support as well as us, and I think he could make a big splash.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> I might upset some people with this suggestion, and I want to encourage those who support Governor Gary Johnson to carry on with their fight. *This suggestion is in no way meant to disrespect him or his campaign.* 
> 
> Should Johnson not win this year's presidential election, I think he should consider running as a Republican in New Mexico in 2014 against Senator Udall. He would be an excellent and strong candidate. What do you all think?


He should have done that this year

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Only if he was cross-endorsed by NM's LP.


Why should that matter?

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> Why should that matter?


It would add 0.1% to his vote total.

----------


## sailingaway

> It would add 0.1% to his vote total.


It would add the particular person who was giving their opinion, which is fair.  He has described himself as a 'partisan Libertarian.'

----------


## Smart3

> It would add the particular person who was giving their opinion, which is fair.  He has described himself as a 'partisan Libertarian.'


If Johnson went back to the Repubs, I'd be disappointed. I'd rather see him run as the LP nominee. 

Part of the reason Wilson won't beat Heinrich is the presence of the IAP candidate (who has polled 8-9% so far) and is a good liberty candidate.

----------


## BSU kid

New Plan infiltrate the Wyoming Democratic party, takes <10k votes to win the primary for the Senate Race. Then give them some PAC support and actively campaign, and it would be winnable.

They usually run awful candidates who don't know how to campaign, their current nom doesn't even have a website!

----------


## Smart3

> New Plan infiltrate the Wyoming Democratic party, takes <10k votes to win the primary for the Senate Race. Then give them some PAC support and actively campaign, and it would be winnable.
> 
> They usually run awful candidates who don't know how to campaign, their current nom doesn't even have a website!


Not a bad idea.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'll put some thought into that, civil liberties and the Constitution in general is very high on that list.  The problem is with weighting and some things are absolute 'off my list' issues, like voting for NDAA, I wouldn't put that into wieghting.


Maybe we could formulate 3 or 4 broad subject areas and then several subsections of each?  When I use the term liberty candidate I'm using it in all its beautiful glory...and I'm still stealing the star rating system

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

A House seat for Baldwin is much more realistic.  Some experience in local politics would also benefit him greatly.  Maybe we should raise 20k and elect him to a state level office first and build from there?

----------


## Spoa

bump for importance.

----------


## Rocco

I don't understand the Baldwin fascination personally. The guy has no electoral track record of success despite running many times, why would you want to run him again?

----------


## sailingaway

Because he is very principled about the Constitution, and means it, and doesn't pander.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I don't understand the Baldwin fascination personally. The guy has no electoral track record of success despite running many times, why would you want to run him again?


While I think it is easy to think in those terms, please remember that Ron Paul has run for president 3 times and one common criticism of him by mainstream republicans is essentially that 'he has no electoral track record of success.' (though he was re-elected by the good people of TX-14 many times). Mainstream partisan voters don't want someone with a good message, they don't want someone who would actually change things if elected, they want someone who can win. It's certainly hard to get anything done if you don't win, but winning a race with someone who has no passion for freedom is a wasted effort, anyway.

I would like to see Chuck try for a seat he could win. That might take him all the way down (or "up", in a republic, lol) to the Montana state legislature, but he's got a good message and I think he's one of the few who would actually change things if he wins. So, while I agree somewhat with your sentiment, I think we can't just abandon decent candidates because they've tried and lost. We should focus more on winnable races and building reputations at the local & state level instead of hoping to win presidential races every 4 years.

----------


## Rocco

The part I bolded is the major difference between Baldwin and Paul. Ron's successful electoral track record was what made him really the only viable libertarian to ever run. 




> While I think it is easy to think in those terms, please remember that Ron Paul has run for president 3 times and one common criticism of him by mainstream republicans is essentially that 'he has no electoral track record of success.' *(though he was re-elected by the good people of TX-14 many times)*. Mainstream partisan voters don't want someone with a good message, they don't want someone who would actually change things if elected, they want someone who can win. It's certainly hard to get anything done if you don't win, but winning a race with someone who has no passion for freedom is a wasted effort, anyway.
> 
> I would like to see Chuck try for a seat he could win. That might take him all the way down (or "up", in a republic, lol) to the Montana state legislature, but he's got a good message and I think he's one of the few who would actually change things if he wins. So, while I agree somewhat with your sentiment, I think we can't just abandon decent candidates because they've tried and lost. We should focus more on winnable races and building reputations at the local & state level instead of hoping to win presidential races every 4 years.

----------


## sailingaway

> The part I bolded is the major difference between Baldwin and Paul. Ron's successful electoral track record was what made him really the only viable libertarian to ever run.


If we really get behind someone, they are more likely to have an electoral track record.  That is very chicken and egg.  Some VOTED for him in 2008 if they didn't vote for Barr or write in Ron or drift off, but in a Senate or House race people would get behind him.  Rand wouldn't have had a track record if we hadn't gotten behind him, either.  And I can't imagine people here getting behind someone just because they 'can win'.  Or we'd be on the Obamney train.

----------


## nobody's_hero

What I'm trying to say is that there are people who are good messengers [candidates] who don't necessarily lose through their own faults. 

I thought Peter Schiff was a good candidate, but let's be honest, a republican in Connecticut was pretty much screwed no matter what. Top that off with the fact that he was up against a pro-wrestler's wife, McMahon, who had millions and millions of dollars of her own money to blow on the race. 

Can we really hold Peter Schiff personally responsible for those circumstances? Is there a reason to be less 'fascinated' with Peter Schiff because he lost an election in such an environment? 

Point being: 

*I just hate to see us cast aside worthy candidates because voters are often dumbasses.* (can we agree on that?) I'm all for a debate on where to run these people instead, if we can have that debate. There are certainly areas of this country where efforts would be more easily rewarded. We can consider 'grooming' them in local offices as well.

----------


## Rocco

Sometimes you have to play the game. Maybe Baldwin will prove me wrong if we have activists here who want to get behind him, but the only reason many of the people here supported Baldwin in 2008 was because of the horrid alternatives. 




> What I'm trying to say is that there are people who are good messengers [candidates] who don't necessarily lose through their own faults. 
> 
> I thought Peter Schiff was a good candidate, but let's be honest, a republican in Connecticut was pretty much screwed no matter what. Top that off with the fact that he was up against a pro-wrestler's wife, McMahon, who had millions and millions of dollars of her own money to blow on the race. 
> 
> Can we really hold Peter Schiff personally responsible for those circumstances? Is there a reason to be less 'fascinated' with Peter Schiff because he lost an election in such an environment? 
> 
> Point being: 
> 
> *I just hate to see us cast aside worthy candidates because voters are often dumbasses.* (can we agree on that?) I'm all for a debate on where to run these people instead, if we can have that debate. There are certainly areas of this country where efforts would be more easily rewarded. We can consider 'grooming' them in local offices as well.

----------


## sailingaway

> What I'm trying to say is that there are people who are good messengers [candidates] who don't necessarily lose through their own faults. 
> 
> I thought Peter Schiff was a good candidate, but let's be honest, a republican in Connecticut was pretty much screwed no matter what. Top that off with the fact that he was up against a pro-wrestler's wife, McMahon, who had millions and millions of dollars of her own money to blow on the race. 
> 
> Can we really hold Peter Schiff personally responsible for those circumstances? Is there a reason to be less 'fascinated' with Peter Schiff because he lost an election in such an environment? 
> 
> Point being: 
> 
> *I just hate to see us cast aside worthy candidates because voters are often dumbasses.* (can we agree on that?) I'm all for a debate on where to run these people instead, if we can have that debate. There are certainly areas of this country where efforts would be more easily rewarded. We can consider 'grooming' them in local offices as well.


I agree.  Our problem is too few really good candidates, and the winnable seat part might mean convincing people to move, honestly.  I wish BJ were willing to move.  Most of the candidates people call liberty candidates aren't enough of liberty candidates plus engaging manner to really interest people.  The RLC regularly has a long list of people who don't interest me, at least, whom they think 'can win'.  Calling them 'our candidates' doesn't make it so.

----------


## Rocco

What would your line be for who isn't one of "us"? 

Would you say Amash, Massie and Bentivolio qualify? What about Koster? Cruz? 




> I agree.  Our problem is too few really good candidates, and the winnable seat part might mean convincing people to move, honestly.  I wish BJ were willing to move.  Most of the candidates people call liberty candidates aren't enough of liberty candidates plus engaging manner to really interest people.  The RLC regularly has a long list of people who don't interest me, at least, whom they think 'can win'.  Calling them 'our candidates' doesn't make it so.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Sometimes you have to play the game. Maybe Baldwin will prove me wrong if we have activists here who want to get behind him, but the only reason many of the people here supported Baldwin in 2008 was because of the horrid alternatives.


I was one of them. I was a Barr supporter until Barr just went off the handle in terms of 'not wanting to associate' with the people at Ron Paul's 3rd party conference in 08. Chuck seemed to me to be more adept at finding critical areas of agreement and working with various groups on specific issues. I'm not what many would consider a devout Christian (more of a deist) but I found a lot to respect in Chuck's speech at PaulFest, particularly when he stated he would rather have a non-believer in office who follows the Constitution, than a 'believer' who abuses our rights.

Whether he runs for office or not, I think what he is doing with the "Black Regiment" and non-501c churches has an important role in trying to give a dose of reality to the 'religious right' who think Republicans are always good and Democrats are always bad. 

I think Baldwin's problem is that he aimed 'too high, too early' with a presidential run. That doesn't really make him non-effective, IMO, but I could see how he might need to focus on local races, before he builds a reputation of 'loser'.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sometimes you have to play the game. Maybe Baldwin will prove me wrong if we have activists here who want to get behind him, but the only reason many of the people here supported Baldwin in 2008 was because of the horrid alternatives.


If there were many BETTER that would be a different situation, as I mentioned earlier about if we have two really good races like Davis and Forsythe, but that isn't taking him in a vacuum.  He is quite good on the Constitution.  I think it is the 'pragmatic/idealistic' thing again, but people the pragmatists think 'can win' are often people the idealists aren't remotely interested in, not being interested in politics as usual.  'The game' is a big part of what I at least, am uninterested in, even revolted by.  I want someone who can explain our principles to more people and is principled enough to stick to them.  That they may 'keep their heads down' by not seizing every topic to make into a fight is one thing, pretending to beliefs they don't have -- all we can know for sure is that they are dishonest.  And if people pander one direction, I personally expect them to pander both directions.

----------


## BSU kid

> What would your line be for who isn't one of "us"? 
> 
> Would you say Amash, Massie and Bentivolio qualify? What about Koster? Cruz?


I'm not sure Cruz is a true liberty candidate, but he is pretty good compared to most.

----------


## sailingaway

> What would your line be for who isn't one of "us"? 
> 
> Would you say Amash, Massie and Bentivolio qualify? What about Koster? Cruz?


I don't know if Massie qualifies. I hope he does, I like him as a person, but the proof will be after he is elected.  Kerry seems to qualify on everything I've looked at.  Amash qualifies as the best there is so far, after Ron, and good enough on some underrepresented things I sure don't want to lose him.  He speaks out on what he believes, so while he doesn't always vote as I would it is more a matter of learning his own dividing lines.  

Cruz, is more in the 'we see eye to eye and may vote the same way on some important bills' category. I do not personally consider him 'one of us', but i retweet his stuff etc, as the best in the race, but I never donated to him.  I consider him more in the Club for Growth category.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Baldwin needs to work within the GOP if he wants to be successful.

His son is running for state house, and hopefully he wins.

----------


## mz10

> I don't know if Massie qualifies.


Why not?? Non-interventionist, anti-fed, wants to end the war on drugs. Not to mention he is a contributor on these boards and a fervent Ron Paul supporter. What else does he have to do?

----------


## sailingaway

> Why not?? Non-interventionist, anti-fed, wants to end the war on drugs. Not to mention he is a contributor on these boards and a fervent Ron Paul supporter. What else does he have to do?


I donated to him. I admit to a bias that I am more attached to people who endorsed Ron, and since Ron's supporter put so much into his campaign and Ron endorsed him, I think that would have been nice.  But as I said, I did donate to him, I just will wait to see how he votes, and speaks out on issues important to me.  I don't need to justify my opinions, and the 'play within the party' meme _to the extent it is being played_ makes me very uneasy, personally.

----------


## Spoa

bump for high importance! 

Vote here to fire Senator Graham: http://thesouthcarolinaconservative....ndsey-lindsey/

And vote for Tom Davis, an excellent conservative choice!

----------


## Spoa

bump for importance.

Here's a few additional important ideas so far:

1) State Senator Tom Davis to defeat RINO Senator Lindsey Graham.
2) Former State Legislator Jim Forsythe or someone else to defeat New Hampshire Senator Jean Shaheen (D).
3) Former Governor Gary Johnson to defeat Senator Udall of New Mexico (D).

Here's some for the House of Reps. that I thought of:
1) John Brunner (senate candidate) should primary one of those mediocre congressmen/women (dem or GOP---all in that state are mediocre or plain RINOs).
2) Bob Parker---maybe.
3) I'll reserve judgement until after the election, but it may be a good idea for some of these "libertarians" to infiltrate the RINO GOP and run as Republicans...following the examples of Thomas Massie, Kerry Bentivolio, Justin Amash, or Ted Yoho. (Ted Yoho is a very good example---talk normal talk---don't go into stuff like the NDAA or the Patriot Act during the primary).
4) We really need some new congressional challengers for a bunch of these RINOs.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I have a guy with the principles of Ron, the rhetoric of Rand, and the faith of Chuck Baldwin.

I suppose I'm going to end up being Cassandra on this one too....

----------


## Spoa

> I have a guy with the principles of Ron, the rhetoric of Rand, and the faith of Chuck Baldwin.
> 
> I suppose I'm going to end up being Cassandra on this one too....


Has he expressed any interest in running? I think somebody suggested this, and it might go a long way if Mr. Brannon really wants to run: talk to Congressman Paul or Senator Paul about endorsing Greg Brannon, send the Club for Growth a request for their endorsement (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/contact/?id=39) , e-mail Senator Demint and the SCF to endorse him (http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/contact), etc. If you can get the endorsement of the Pauls, the Club for Growth, and Senator Demint, you can get Mr. Brannon very far. It would probably be best to ask for the endorsements AFTER the November 6, 2012 elections.  By the way, what congressional district do you live in?

----------


## GunnyFreedom



----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> 


How can Brannon get the support of some GOPers?

I'm guessing Walter Jones would get behind him. I am sure you could get some legislators behind him. He needs to go introduce himself to everybody if he decides to run.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How can Brannon get the support of some GOPers?


That's actually the mind-blowing beauty of it.  He is so well beloved by the Tea Parties and mainstream Republicans that they tried to recruit him for federal office.  On the condition that he 'drop all that Ron Paul nonsense.'  

So he got louder.

So Ok, they were willing to forgive the Ron Paul obsession, because he had _so damn much potential_ they just couldn't pass it up.  They claimed the ability to just outright give him a state office, on one condition.  That he drop all that 10th Amendment nullification nonsense.

So he got louder.  

The Tea Parties, TeaPublicans, AstroTeas, mainstream Republicans, liberty caucus, Paulers... basically everybody on the entire right side of the spectrum loves this guy, except for the tiny handful cabal in leadership, who are mostly afraid of him.  They tried to recruit him because of his popularity but he wouldn't toe the line.




> I'm guessing Walter Jones would get behind him. I am sure you could get some legislators behind him. He needs to go introduce himself to everybody if he decides to run.


Indeed, we could pick up a huge wave of big name support.

I desperately want to put a bug in someone's ear for a Ron Paul and a Rand Paul endorsement.

I also need to build a high-power winning team, and to fill in the gaps for skills that I personally do not have.

I've never been a campaign manager.  This will not be an educational campaign, this will be a victory campaign.  I don't want to take any chances.  I'll need the help of everyone on these forums, as well as some ridiculous heavy-hitter campaign people to work the strategy.

ETA - seriously, this one is ours to lose.  Which means I need a brain trust and a kitchen cabinet to make absolutely certain that we don't drop the ball.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That's actually the mind-blowing beauty of it.  He is so well beloved by the Tea Parties and mainstream Republicans that they tried to recruit him for federal office.  On the condition that he 'drop all that Ron Paul nonsense.'  
> 
> So he got louder.
> 
> So Ok, they were willing to forgive the Ron Paul obsession, because he had _so damn much potential_ they just couldn't pass it up.  They claimed the ability to just outright give him a state office, on one condition.  That he drop all that 10th Amendment nullification nonsense.
> 
> So he got louder.  
> 
> The Tea Parties, TeaPublicans, AstroTeas, mainstream Republicans, liberty caucus, Paulers... basically everybody on the entire right side of the spectrum loves this guy, except for the tiny handful cabal in leadership, who are mostly afraid of him.  They tried to recruit him because of his popularity but he wouldn't toe the line.
> ...


You're getting me excited Gunny!!  The liberty tingles

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> That's actually the mind-blowing beauty of it.  He is so well beloved by the Tea Parties and mainstream Republicans that they tried to recruit him for federal office.  On the condition that he 'drop all that Ron Paul nonsense.'  
> 
> So he got louder.
> 
> So Ok, they were willing to forgive the Ron Paul obsession, because he had _so damn much potential_ they just couldn't pass it up.  They claimed the ability to just outright give him a state office, on one condition.  That he drop all that 10th Amendment nullification nonsense.
> 
> So he got louder.  
> 
> The Tea Parties, TeaPublicans, AstroTeas, mainstream Republicans, liberty caucus, Paulers... basically everybody on the entire right side of the spectrum loves this guy, except for the tiny handful cabal in leadership, who are mostly afraid of him.  They tried to recruit him because of his popularity but he wouldn't toe the line.
> ...


Great stuff!

When the time comes I'll be happy to help send emails to the various people who need to be aware of Brannon. I'd like to campaign for him and Davis as well. It's not too far off. By 2014 I will have much more time for campaigning.

----------


## Shane Harris

> That's why we have to take that next step in 2014! Look, before 2010 there was ZERO chance of a Mike Lee or Rand Paul coming in. Ted Cruz is 2012's outgrowth of that, but in 2014 with Tom Davis and Joe Miller we can put 2 more non interventionists in the senate!


Its progress but don't make the mistake of thinking Cruz and Demint are non-interventionists. Cruz endorsed Santorum.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Its progress but don't make the mistake of thinking Cruz and Demint are non-interventionists. Cruz endorsed Santorum.


Actually, I think Santorum endorsed Cruz. Cruz endorsed Perry earlier.

Neither are non-interventionists, but at the same time they are less interventionist. I really think that is what we need to strive for. Once we get the ball moving in that direction it will keep rolling.

----------


## Pisces

> Its progress but don't make the mistake of thinking Cruz and Demint are non-interventionists. Cruz endorsed Santorum.


Santorum endorsed Cruz but Cruz didn't endorse Santorum. He did endorse Perry but no one else after Perry dropped out of the race.

----------


## Shane Harris

> I do wonder if we should look more closely at these people who endorsed Ron Paul, even if we don't agree with them fully on all the issues. 
> 
> Frankly, anyone who endorsed Ron Paul during either the '08 campaign or this 2012 campaign was 'sticking their neck out' a bit. I remember when Tom Davis was expected to give his endorsement, the media was in a *frenzy* about how important this state senator's endorsement was. But, after he jumped in for Ron Paul, well, the media fell _silent_. I think it would be bad to just abandon some of these folks who might have potential. For instance, I had forgotten about Jim Forsythe, and I imagine that the mainstream media treated him pretty much the same way. I would be interested in learning more about him.
> 
> They've already passed one litmus test I have, which is the ability to take stand for an unpopular decision (endorse Ron Paul).


Exactly why I have major trust issues with Cruz & Co. We are giving some of these teocons too much credit. Yeah maybe they will be a small step up but don't expect them to be nearly as conservative as they claim they will be, ESPECIALLY if Romney wins.

----------


## Shane Harris

> Santorum endorsed Cruz but Cruz didn't endorse Santorum. He did endorse Perry but no one else after Perry dropped out of the race.


Thats supposed to be any better?

----------


## Pisces

> Thats supposed to be any better?


Not a whole lot. I guess you could say that he probably felt under some obligation to support the governor from his state.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Exactly why I have major trust issues with Cruz & Co. We are giving some of these teocons too much credit. Yeah maybe they will be a small step up but don't expect them to be nearly as conservative as they claim they will be, ESPECIALLY if Romney wins.


As Rand keeps becoming more popular whilst further trending more limits on the foreign policy outlook in conservative circles, the more willing Cruz and ilk of his sort will be in opening up to a more non-interventionist overseas approach. That's where the "Tea Party" helps, they help bring extra support to candidates that aren't establishment controlled yet tend to be more fiscally conservative (typically Rand endorsed) and we use them to help pick off the dead weight (aka hawks) like Lindsey and install our homies like Davis for instance. I'm just envisioning having the Senate composed of our top tier of Rand, Lee, Davis, Miller, Forsythe and whoever else I'm forgetting backed up by the 2nd stringers of the likes of DeMint, Cruz, Mourdock and some of the other more obscure Rand endorsed folk. That's a healthy start in not only reshaping the all important body of the Senate but also to line up major allies for '16. If R-money were to win, it's still all about Rand and having his popularity at an all time high as his influence over the rank and file conservative would be big enough for the Congress to stop Mitt's bs in its tracks.

----------


## Shane Harris

> As Rand keeps becoming more popular whilst further trending more limits on the foreign policy outlook in conservative circles, the more willing Cruz and ilk of his sort will be in opening up to a more non-interventionist overseas approach. That's where the "Tea Party" helps, they help bring extra support to candidates that aren't establishment controlled yet tend to be more fiscally conservative (typically Rand endorsed) and we use them to help pick off the dead weight (aka hawks) like Lindsey and install our homies like Davis for instance. *I'm just envisioning having the Senate composed of our top tier of Rand, Lee, Davis, Miller, Forsythe and whoever else I'm forgetting backed up by the 2nd stringers of the likes of DeMint, Cruz, Mourdock and some of the other more obscure Rand endorsed folk.* That's a healthy start in not only reshaping the all important body of the Senate but also to line up major allies for '16. If R-money were to win, it's still all about Rand and having his popularity at an all time high as his influence over the rank and file conservative would be big enough for the Congress to stop Mitt's bs in its tracks.


Sounds good to me

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> As Rand keeps becoming more popular whilst further trending more limits on the foreign policy outlook in conservative circles, the more willing Cruz and ilk of his sort will be in opening up to a more non-interventionist overseas approach. That's where the "Tea Party" helps, they help bring extra support to candidates that aren't establishment controlled yet tend to be more fiscally conservative (typically Rand endorsed) and we use them to help pick off the dead weight (aka hawks) like Lindsey and install our homies like Davis for instance. I'm just envisioning having the Senate composed of our top tier of Rand, Lee, Davis, Miller, Forsythe and whoever else I'm forgetting backed up by the 2nd stringers of the likes of DeMint, Cruz, Mourdock and some of the other more obscure Rand endorsed folk. That's a healthy start in not only reshaping the all important body of the Senate but also to line up major allies for '16. If R-money were to win, it's still all about Rand and having his popularity at an all time high as his influence over the rank and file conservative would be big enough for the Congress to stop Mitt's bs in its tracks.


Imagine the clout any emerging liberty candidate would have being endorsed by 5-6 of the best Senators we got and all the attention and donations that would flow in their direction.  Once we get a core of liberty folks in office like you outlined consisting of Rand, Lee, Davis, Miller, Forsythe, Bannon, and whoever else, they will go to bat for all our other candidates coming up.  The snowball effect could take hold very quickly and pretty soon ALL republicans running for office will want the liberty stamp of approval.  If we can focus our considerable fund raising might to these potential 2014 Senate races they could be game changers.

----------


## Nathan Hale

Has anybody approached Gary Johnson about running for the New Mexico senate seat that's up in 2014?  I know he has said in the past that he didn't want to "belly up to the trough" by running for the Senate, I wonder if he's changed his mind.

----------


## Smart3

> Has anybody approached Gary Johnson about running for the New Mexico senate seat that's up in 2014?  I know he has said in the past that he didn't want to "belly up to the trough" by running for the Senate, I wonder if he's changed his mind.


He's made it very clear he won't run. I'd rather he run for Congress as a L, he could probably win, and in the process - help elect dozens of L's in the future in districts that wouldn't vote for a liberty Republican.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Wish Gary would run for Senate too

----------


## Adrock

> Wish Gary would run for Senate too


It kind of pissed me off that he didn't do that this year. He would of probably won the open seat in New Mexico as an R. I would of supported him. Now, at best he will be a footnote.

----------


## itshappening

The litmus test will be whether they would join the Tea Party caucus with Rand Paul and Mike Lee, which Rand chairs.

Lots of these candidates sound good but wont give their vote to Rand, leaving them open to pressure from party leaders and lobbyists.

I do think if we can replace Graham with Tom Davis he will join the caucus giving Rand Paul 3 votes.  

In an evenly divided Senate Rand Paul could then hold the balance of power and would make him influential in dealing with Mitch McConnell on a legislative agenda.

So we need to work hard to recruit Davis and make sure he is well funded.

http://www.facebook.com/tomdavis2014

Joe Miller could run again in 2014, I think that would also be a good bet.

----------


## compromise

Tom Udall is up for re-election in 2014 (1st term). He's a Democrat.
Gary Johnson can run against him, but it'll be tougher than if he had run this year, where there was no incumbent.

As much as I'd like McConnell out, I don't think Rand will support a primary challenge.

----------


## jacque

Greg Brannon

https://www.facebook.com/groups/510386058979124/

----------


## sailingaway

> Greg Brannon
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/510386058979124/


is that the guy Gunny told us about? He sounds spectacular

----------


## Smart3

Wish it were a page like the Draft pages for Tom Davis, Jim Forsythe and Chuck Baldwin.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

//

----------


## jacque

> is that the guy Gunny told us about? He sounds spectacular


Yes it is.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Tom Udall is up for re-election in 2014 (1st term). He's a Democrat.
> Gary Johnson can run against him, but it'll be tougher than if he had run this year, where there was no incumbent.


I was hoping Gary would target this race as well, but he's out of the GOP now so he'd have to run indy, which means the GOP would also run a candidate, which really kills his chances.  Ventura shows how to effectively three-way a race, but Udall, even though he's freshman, is a democrat in a blue state - as you say it's going to be tough but it might be worth running for Gary.




> As much as I'd like McConnell out, I don't think Rand will support a primary challenge.


What if there was a Kentucky democrat that we liked?

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Wish it were a page like the Draft pages for Tom Davis, Jim Forsythe and Chuck Baldwin.


Is Baldwin in a state with a Senate seat up?  If he can get major party backing I'd be down with that, he got a lot of support from here (and RP's endorsement) in 08.  I don't know Tom Davis, but I'm a huge backer of Jim Forsythe.  I should be back in NH by mid 2013 and I want to jump right into his campaign.

----------


## Smart3

> Is Baldwin in a state with a Senate seat up?  If he can get major party backing I'd be down with that, he got a lot of support from here (and RP's endorsement) in 08.  I don't know Tom Davis, but I'm a huge backer of Jim Forsythe.  I should be back in NH by mid 2013 and I want to jump right into his campaign.


Yes, and Davis has virtually the same positions as Forsythe. 

I'm actually really excited at our prospects in North Carolina.

----------


## Okaloosa

In Mississippi the incumbent republican is going to be 76 in 2014 and may retire. State Senator Chris McDaniel has tea party support and could be a front runner. Given how republican this state is a primary win would seal the deal for him. He appears to be opposed to the NDAA bill and very promising.  The Liberty movement is small in Mississippi but I have heard very highly of Statee Senator Chris McDaniel from them.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Senato...91245027606060

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

Paul Broun.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ate-in-Georgia

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-...8586406?ref=hl

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Yes, and Davis has virtually the same positions as Forsythe. 
> 
> I'm actually really excited at our prospects in North Carolina.


Over in another thread, Keith and Stuff said that Forsythe isn't going to happen, he's too busy with other things.  Damn shame.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Over in another thread, Keith and Stuff said that Forsythe isn't going to happen, he's too busy with other things.  Damn shame.


Yeah, NH likes to keep their best politicians in their state house and share their dirty laundry with us in DC.

----------

