List of Liberty-minded Candidates for US Congress (2014)

[MichaelDavis]

Remove Shane Osborn, drop him down to 2 stars or move him to under review, there's little evidence he's a liberty candidate.

Steve Forbes endorsed Shane Osborn.

http://journalstar.com/news/state-a...cle_8737b33c-d2c8-5a43-aaf2-15d6d3df64d5.html

 

[devil21]

Steve Forbes endorsed Shane Osborn.

http://journalstar.com/news/state-a...cle_8737b33c-d2c8-5a43-aaf2-15d6d3df64d5.html

Interventionist and NDAA fan. No thanks.

http://shaneosborn.com/release-osborn-has-grave-concerns-with-iranian-nuclear-agreement/

WATERLOO, NE. – Today, Shane Osborn, Republican Candidate for the United States Senate, issued the following statement in response to the agreement finalized last evening between Iran, the United States and the P-5 Plus 1 Group on Iran’s nuclear program:

“I have deep reservation about the agreement reached in Geneva late last evening. While the specifics of the agreement are beginning to be made public, a key requirement appears to be missing. That requirement is for Iran to stop, not delay, its nuclear enrichment capacity.

“The United States is further alienating our remaining allies in the region and failing to adequately stand with Israel. I must side with Israel’s assessment of the situation. Iran does not seek to acquire nuclear capacity for peaceful means. They seek to further destabilize the region and the world by developing a nuclear weapon.

“Easing the current sanctions in place has thrown Tehran an economic lifeline when we should actually be tightening the noose to starve their nuclear program. We cannot wait until December to reevaluate the sanctions on the Iranians. We should be increasing the multilateral sanctions to ensure that Iran is complying with all current United Nations Treaty Obligations. Just this morning in international markets, Iran’s currency the Rial rose three percent against the dollar. The Iranians are already benefiting from our failed diplomacy.”

“I urge the United State Senate to increase sanctions against Iran. Current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act would be the appropriate mechanism. Senate Majority Leader Reid must allow for full debate and the Minority to offer amendments to this critical piece of national security legislation.”

 

[MichaelDavis]

Interventionist and NDAA fan. No thanks.

http://shaneosborn.com/release-osborn-has-grave-concerns-with-iranian-nuclear-agreement/

I cannot take you seriously when you only mention one issue. I know you REALLY hate Israel, but I have much more important priorities. If you can suggest why Sasse is a better candidate overall, I'll listen.

 

[devil21]

I cannot take you seriously when you only mention one issue. I know you REALLY hate Israel, but I have much more important priorities. If you can suggest why Sasse is a better candidate overall, I'll listen.

I mention lots of issues in other threads. You found a bunch of them to neg rep and cuss me out on last night.

This is a thread about Liberty candidates, not lesser of evils candidates. No one that calls NDAA a "critical piece of legislation" is a Liberty-minded candidate. Sasse is a hawk too, so the answer is neither are Liberty minded candidates and shouldn't be on this thread. All 4 Senate GOP candidates for NE wouldn't qualify in my book.

 

[MichaelDavis]

I mention lots of issues in other threads. You found a bunch of them to neg rep and cuss me out on last night.

This is a thread about Liberty candidates, not lesser of evils candidates. No one that calls NDAA a "critical piece of legislation" is a Liberty-minded candidate. Sasse is a hawk too, so the answer is neither are Liberty minded candidates and shouldn't be on this thread. All 4 Senate GOP candidates for NE wouldn't qualify in my book.

"Current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act would be the appropriate mechanism. Senate Majority Leader Reid must allow for full debate and the Minority to offer amendments to this critical piece of national security legislation.”

In that comment, Osborn is simply advocating for debate. I don't see him taking any policy stance. Critical doesn't mean good or appropriate. Critical means it's of extreme significance. For example, Obamacare is a critical piece of legislation because it completely changed our healthcare system (for the worse).

 

[jurgs01]

Interventionist and NDAA fan. No thanks.

To be fair, the NDAA is a huge bill that is a normal part of the appropriations and authorization process in Congress. It is only certain sections that erode civil liberties. Referring to the "NDAA" as bad cheapens the focus that we should be placing on our arguments.

 

[compromise]

Andre Barnett, who ran on the Reform ticket for President in 2012, is running as a Republican for NY-18. He is probably around a 1-2 star candidate.

 

[devil21]

To be fair, the NDAA is a huge bill that is a normal part of the appropriations and authorization process in Congress. It is only certain sections that erode civil liberties. Referring to the "NDAA" as bad cheapens the focus that we should be placing on our arguments.

Fair enough but that doesn't change that he's an interventionist and stated he wants harsher sanctions on Iran put into the bill that also provides for locking up American citizens without charge, counsel, or trial. NDAA is generally a "bad bill" for those reasons and that it's just more warfare spending. Nothing good comes out of NDAA.

I cannot take you seriously when you only mention one issue. I know you REALLY hate Israel, but I have much more important priorities. If you can suggest why Sasse is a better candidate overall, I'll listen.

Btw, I don't hate "Israel" so that's a strawman. I do hate people attempting to use other country's governments for their own selfish purposes though. I hate their mouthpieces even more.

 

[TaftFan]

Andre Barnett, who ran on the Reform ticket for President in 2012, is running as a Republican for NY-18. He is probably around a 1-2 star candidate.

I think we should cut off 1-2 stars and just start it at 3.

 

[compromise]

I think we should cut off 1-2 stars and just start it at 3.

I don't really agree with your purity standards, I think we should maintain 1-2 stars to prevent this list being dominated by devil21-approved 4-5* candidates.
Barnett is unelectable anyway so he doesn't matter so much so he can be left off if anyone wants to dispute his liberty bona fides.

2-star Gowdy, Huelskamp, Posey and Rohrabacher are all fairly good, libertarian-leaning Congressmen whom I would support.

 

[TaftFan]

I don't really agree with your purity standards, I think we should maintain 1-2 stars to prevent this list being dominated by devil21-approved 4-5* candidates.
Barnett is unelectable anyway so he doesn't matter so much so he can be left off if anyone wants to dispute his liberty bona fides.

2-star Gowdy, Huelskamp, Posey and Rohrabacher are all fairly good, libertarian-leaning Congressmen whom I would support.

I'd probably go ahead and make them 3 stars, although I am less familiar with Posey.

 

[TaftFan]

Add former Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire. He is probably a 4-star at least.

 

[devil21]

Add former Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire. He is probably a 4-star at least.

4 stars? Why? He's running to return to the Senate. His issues statements are run-of-the-mill GOP fare. He has a section about the Constitution but also reveals himself to be in very tight with the MIC.
http://bobsmithforussenate.com/sen-bob-smith-on-national-security/

His voting record in his previous term isn't anything special. What's your rationale for calling him a liberty minded candidate?? He's the definition of a one-star liberty minded candidate, if such a thing really exists and that's only because he gives some lip service to the Constitution on his website.

 

[devil21]

I don't really agree with your purity standards, I think we should maintain 1-2 stars to prevent this list being dominated by devil21-approved 4-5* candidates.

This is a thread for Liberty-minded candidates, not status-quo candidates and incumbents that have been and continue to be part of the problem.

2-star Gowdy, Huelskamp, Posey and Rohrabacher are all fairly good, libertarian-leaning Congressmen whom I would support.

Ho hum. More AIPAC lackeys, warmongers, and MIC puppets.....

 

[TaftFan]

4 stars? Why? He's running to return to the Senate. His issues statements are run-of-the-mill GOP fare. He has a section about the Constitution but also reveals himself to be in very tight with the MIC.
http://bobsmithforussenate.com/sen-bob-smith-on-national-security/

His voting record in his previous term isn't anything special. What's your rationale for calling him a liberty minded candidate?? He's the definition of a one-star liberty minded candidate, if such a thing really exists and that's only because he gives some lip service to the Constitution on his website.

Some research I did: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434725-Former-Sen-Robert-Smith-(NH)-is-running-again

He was excellent in the 90s and appears to be even better now. I would not agree with him completely on foreign policy but he is very well thought out, which I think would be helpful in a Senate where most just listen to what John McCain or Robert Menendez say. He supports more of a Reagan doctrine than the Bush doctrine. Maybe 3 stars is more appropriate than 4, after further review.

 

[devil21]

Some research I did: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434725-Former-Sen-Robert-Smith-(NH)-is-running-again

He was excellent in the 90s and appears to be even better now. I would not agree with him completely on foreign policy but he is very well thought out, which I think would be helpful in a Senate where most just listen to what John McCain or Robert Menendez say. He supports more of a Reagan doctrine than the Bush doctrine. Maybe 3 stars is more appropriate than 4, after further review.

Rubens is a much better Liberty candidate for NH than a retread Senator from the 90's and Rubens only has two stars.

 

[T.hill]

David Gerson MN - 2 Lost the republican nomination

 

[William Tell]

Bob Smith has long said that only congress can declare war:


He is a principle over party guy, he was involved with the Taxpayer/Constitution Party (s) for a while.

 

[compromise]

David Gerson MN - 2 Lost the republican nomination

Sucks, he was one of the better candidates.

Rubens is a much better Liberty candidate for NH than a retread Senator from the 90's and Rubens only has two stars.

An "AIPAC lackey" whom I suggested. Regardless, neither of the two will win the primary with Brown in the race.

 

[devil21]

Sucks, he was one of the better candidates

Gerson lost the "recommendation" of his local convention, not the nomination. I don't support him but get your facts straight.