Chris McDaniel

[Warlord]

His foreign policy section on his website is encouraging:

-
America faces many threats to its national security and must remain vigilant in defending our country and our citizens. But we must also be wary of engaging in foreign entanglements that our not in our national interest or violate our constitutional principles.

Chris also believes we need to reevaluate our foreign aid process both from a national security and fiscal responsibility perspective. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing countries that are hostile to American security and values. Finally, Chris will oppose all international treaties that sacrifice American sovereignty, such as the LOST and the U.N. Arms treaties. Chris is committed to making sure the American military continues to be the strongest in the world, and will not sacrifice this strength in an effort to appease our enemies.
-

Please consider supporting him:

www.mcdaniel2014.com/

 

[Warlord]

While Chris is committed to protecting our national security, he is concerned about Washington’s growing disrespect for our fundamental civil liberties. He strongly opposes the NSA’s surveillance program of U.S. citizens and supports making fundamental changes to the PATRIOT Act.

 

[TheTyke]

Yeah, what I've seen so far of him has been very positive.... fingers crossed, and hope he pulls it off!!

 

[Vanguard101]

He's alright I guess. Don't like his character but meh

 

[lib3rtarian]

I was on board for McDaniel at first, but then I dropped by support for him after the comments he made about libertarians came to light.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...libertarianism-is-all-about-hookers-and-blow/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/republican-senate-candidate-riffs-on-gays-drugs-libertarians
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-mcdaniel-radio-show-libertarian-boobies

But to be fair to him, he did respond to the LP about it after they wrote to him.

Mario,


Thank you for writing. I appreciate your dedication to liberty.


I apologize for an email that is bound to be filled with typos, as I am in the campaign bus heading to Tupelo.


The comments were made almost 10 years ago, during a talk radio show I once hosted. To properly understand the context, one must understand the radio show. My producer, Jeremy, is an active member of the Libertarian Party. He and I had a great time over the years discussing liberty issues, and we agreed on most. However, one disagreement we did have surrounded the candidates being utilized to serve the liberty-movement.


My comments during that 10-minute clip were aimed more at one particular candidate than the party. In fact, I defended the Libertarian party on many occasions, despite objections from some on the political right. Like President Reagan, I have always believed Libertarians to be an instrumental part of the conservative family. In my speeches, I often refer to my Libertarian spirit.


I don’t have a firm recollection of a show from almost 10 years ago, but I do remember the basis of my opinion at the time. Put simply, the idea of a candidate using his or her body — more than his or her mind — was disappointing to me. The female candidate who was representing the movement (the one I was discussing) may be a wonderful person, but the impression she was leaving with her advertisements was more comedic than serious, more silly than principled. In the eyes of many voters, such an approach minimizes and marginalizes a very complex political philosophy into nothing more than a movement of sex and drugs (more libertine than libertarian). Such a direction alienates potential converts, particularly when the candidate is less than professional in conduct and appearance.


Put simply, I was frustrated.


If the liberty movement is to be successful, it must first be in the business of CONVINCING people of its real merits, not SHOCKING people with half-dressed candidates — men or women — proposing limited agendas. Its foundation must remain with the U.S. Constitution, not controversial candidates. If the liberty movement is to advance, in my opinion, it must run articulate individuals with serious ideas that appeal to voters.


I consider myself one of the most “liberty-minded” members of the Mississippi Senate, and the longer I serve in government, the more my positions evolve.
Indeed, my record speaks for itself:


(1) I presented two resolutions condemning the NDAA, as well as a Tenth Amendment “sovereignty” resolution which passed the Senate in 2010.


(2) I was one of four who voted against the pseudoephedrine ban.


(3) I was one of two who voted against the texting ban.


(4) I was one of the reasons the public smoking ban failed in the Judiciary A committee, and again later in the Judiciary B committee. I led the charge against its
adoption, despite strong pressure from anti-smoking groups. Private property rights matter.


(5) I voted against the cigarette tax, and fought Haley Barbour over eminent domain abuse.


(6) I drafted and introduced the 4th Amendment Protection Act, which was aimed directly at illegal NSA activities. I also authored the 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which would have demanded our state agencies not cooperate with federal overreach designed to violate our rights.


(7) I’ve taken public positions against the Federal Reserve and favor a full audit, if not more aggressive action.


(8) I’m the only Republican who’s ever introduced legislation supported a vaccination exception for parents who object.


(9) I have taken public positions demanding a more prudent foreign policy, including strongly objecting to military interventionism in Syria.


(10) I’m a vocal proponent of Jefferson, Bastiat and Hayek, not central planners.


As you can see, my agenda is about limiting government overreach from all levels, creating an environment where individuals embrace self-government without force or coercion.


And that’s just the beginning. My record is actually much more extensive, with my votes and in my public speaking.


Although I am a proud and lifelong member of the Republican party and a two-term GOP state senator, I have always been an advocate of the liberty movement and its intellectual efforts. I will continue to do so.


To allow perpetual statists to divide us on the basis of a 10-minute radio clip from nearly a decade ago is hardly a recipe for success. To my friends in the liberty family, we can either light the torch of liberty together or continue to curse at the darkness. In 2014, we have an outstanding opportunity to replace a 42-year incumbent who has consistently voted to expand the size and scope of government. If you haven’t had the opportunity to study Thad Cochran’s record, I encourage you to do so. I like Senator Cochran, but he hasn’t been an advocate for limited government or Constitutional-Conservatism.


Although we all may not agree on every conceivable issue, I do hope you join me, as we begin the march to restore and expand liberty.


If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me anytime.


I wish you the best,


Chris


4/14/14

 

[William Tell]

I was on board for McDaniel at first, but then I dropped by support for him after the comments he made about libertarians came to light.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...libertarianism-is-all-about-hookers-and-blow/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/republican-senate-candidate-riffs-on-gays-drugs-libertarians
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-mcdaniel-radio-show-libertarian-boobies

But to be fair to him, he did respond to the LP about it after they wrote to him.

Almost 10 years ago? Come on, cut the guy some slack besides, so what. His reply was excellent, you know Cochran drudged this up just to make us stop supporting Chris. And I noticed this in one of your links:

The Tea Party lawmaker also made news last year after he spoke to a neo-Confederate group outfitted in Confederate uniforms and antebellum ball gowns, alongside speakers who questioned the birthplace of President Barack Obama and referred to President Abraham Lincoln as a “Marxist.”

Sounds like an awesome guy!
If he lets us down, so be it, but I really hope he wins this race. I don't know exactly where he will end up on foreign policy.

 

[invisible]

Almost 10 years ago? Come on, cut the guy some slack besides, so what. His reply was excellent, you know Cochran drudged this up just to make us stop supporting Chris. And I noticed this in one of your links:


Sounds like an awesome guy!
If he lets us down, so be it, but I really hope he wins this race. I don't know exactly where he will end up on foreign policy.

He at least partly answered the foreign policy issue in #9. I'm pretty impressed with his reply as well. Just think of how many good people could be getting into Congress and the Senate if we were paying more attention to those running in deep red districts. Luckily, we get a second chance on this one with a runoff.

 

[William Tell]

He at least partly answered the foreign policy issue in #9. I'm pretty impressed with his reply as well. Just think of how many good people could be getting into Congress and the Senate if we were paying more attention to those running in deep red districts. Luckily, we get a second chance on this one with a runoff.

Hey, he looks like a dream come true to me, absolutely! But you never know for sure until they get in office. I hope he the second Larry McDonald! The Republican, U.S Senate version!

 

[Paulatized]

Just out:

On his endorsement, Dr. Paul said, “Chris McDaniel has been a fighter in the Mississippi Senate for smaller government and more personal liberties. We need Chris McDaniel in the U.S. Senate and I am proud to endorse his campaign.”

https://mcdaniel2014.com/ron-paul-endorses-chris-mcdaniel-for-u-s-senate/

“Ron Paul has been an inspiration to so many to become involved in politics and to engage the system, which is exactly what our nation needs at this crucial juncture,” McDaniel said. “Dr. Paul is a true champion for civil liberties and opponent of government overreach and out-of-control spending, and I’m very excited to have his endorsement in our fight for liberty in Mississippi,” McDaniel concluded.

 

[William Tell]

Just out:


https://mcdaniel2014.com/ron-paul-endorses-chris-mcdaniel-for-u-s-senate/

MEGA + REP! posted in it's own thread, gave you credit.
Give the guy bunches of rep, fellow users!

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

...is Ron Paul's endorsement realistically going to carry any weight? I mean, it didn't help Cuccinelli in Virginia and chances are the liberty folks in Mississippi probably would have voted for McDaniel with or without Ron Paul's endorsement?

 

[William Tell]

...is Ron Paul's endorsement realistically going to carry any weight? I mean, it didn't help Cuccinelli in Virginia and chances are the liberty folks in Mississippi probably would have voted for McDaniel with or without Ron Paul's endorsement?

A Ron Paul endorsement ALWAYS helps.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

A Ron Paul endorsement ALWAYS helps.

...you mean like it helped Ken Cuccinelli? And David Dewhurst? And Greg Brannon?

 

[William Tell]

...you mean like it helped Ken Cuccinelli? And David Dewhurst? And Greg Brannon?

Absolutely, but not enough to win, it helped Greg Brannon the most of the three. Don't know how much it helped the Dew, because I did not vote for him or Patrick. But it was after the endorsement that I really saw Liberty people considering him.

 

[DP714]

I didn't know about him until a few days before the Mississippi primary. I think he's pretty much awesome...perhaps too awesome . I find his speeches to be inspiring...the guy knows how to draw you in. And plus, his accent is cool, though I'm not sure how he managed to have a Scottish/Irish accent, since his family has been in the state for generations! The last politician, who's speeches got me as excited, was Ron Paul. But yeah, because he is very Conservative, even to a libertarian-esque extent, and yet isn't very comfortable with owning the label "libertarian," I do have some suspicions that he may still favor legislating morality to some extent at the state level. It's not ideal, but it doesn't bother me as much, as he is a strict Constitutionalist, with an above average understanding of the concepts that the republic is/was/should still be composed of loosely-bound sovereign states, private property is the foundation for liberty, and a seemingly increasing knowledge of Austrian economic theory, just to name a few.

In fact, when conveying the aforementioned "federalist" concepts of sovereign states, he sends the same message that Brannon attempted to deliver to his voters, but does so much more successfully, in a way that resonates with the voters' deeper subconscious. He never goes and outright says it, but if you listen for it, it is definitely there. I think it's genius how he accomplishes this. It is similar to how Rand delivers the non-interventionist message to neocons (for example, in his speech at the Values Voters Summit, he says something along the lines of how "the world needs to be policed," and then goes on to say that "the Muslim world must police itself"). I guess the term "rhetorical judo" describes it best. Anyway, I am very impressed by him, and truly believe he could be another "game-changer" in the Senate. From the get go, he has carried himself as "electable" and as if he has already won, and psychologically, this is a very powerful trait. Also, he has the grassroots pretty fired up to say the least, and though his primary results were too close for comfort, I think that the incumbent has more to fear by that than he does. The run-off is his to win, provided that he has enough funding to be able to win by a margin large enough to counter any voter fraud that could potentially occur against him in the nasty politics of his state. I wish Rand or others could go rally for him and help him out.

Ahh!! He better win this, I can only handle a certain amount of depression per year, and after Brannon's loss, I can't do this S**t anymore!

 

[Paulatized]

The run-off is his to win, provided that he has enough funding to be able to win by a margin large enough to counter any voter fraud that could potentially occur against him in the nasty politics of his state.

He is being outspend 3 to 1 and could use some help. https://mcdaniel2014.com/splash/?redirect=/

 

[William Tell]

ChristianAnarchist posted this at the DP.

 

[Vanguard101]

Ok I'm back to supporting him. I really disapprove of how people think about hip-hop but I guess I have to get over it. His reply was excellent. Nearly a decade ago? Cmon, how many of us were libertarian leaning a decade ago? Well, in my defense, I was 8 LOL

...you mean like it helped Ken Cuccinelli? And David Dewhurst? And Greg Brannon?

Ok, that was the LP's fault and partially Ken's. Dewhurst had ZERO chance. Ron never actually endorsed Dewhurst and a lot of libertarians were fed up with his so called "endorsement". Dewhurst barely had any Tea Party backing and a lot of the people we support in Texas actually preferred Dan Patrick. It's a fact tbh. Greg Brannon was just a miss.