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

[Nathan Hale]

can we make this sticky, please?

 

[Canderson]

Kwiatkowski said she would run again. Can we get her up there?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Liberty-minded? What does that mean? How many "tea party" candidates like Rubio will we have? If I'm a warmonger neo-con sheep who believes in getting the government out of marriage entirely, I'm I liberty minded? Should we have catigories for candidates.

If a candidate has no prior political experience, than all we're talking about is some sort of unprovable liberty rhetoric.

Everyone on this forum who can should run for some sort of local position, like city council. We need candidates for higher and higher office with voting records.

For further explanation see my blog.

 

[sailingaway]

The ranking doesn't include civil liberties, every one could have voted for indefinite detention and the patriot act. For me, that makes this list unusable, and it isn't an official liberty list for here, it is just one Bastiat likes.

Everyone should evaluate the candidates themselves, imho.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The ranking doesn't include civil liberties, every one could have voted for indefinite detention and the patriot act. For me, that makes this list unusable, and it isn't an official liberty list for here, it is just one Bastiat likes.

Everyone should evaluate the candidates themselves, imho.

I like the star rating system. I do take civil liberties into consideration.

 

[sailingaway]

How has it changed from when it didn't?

But still it is one ranking, not one selected by the forum as a group or anything.

That is what I was clarifying.

How do you factor in civil liberties?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

How has it changed from when it didn't?

But still it is one ranking, not one selected by the forum as a group or anything.

That is what I was clarifying.

How do you factor in civil liberties?

You have me confused with someone that cares about the "official" rating system. I do like the concept of a rating system because things aren't always black and white. Supporters need to have an honest conversation about these matters. Are we willing to support a candidate that will move the liberty ball only a few yards or inches compared to others? That's the value in this system. It also parses expectations. We generally know what we're getting with these candidates.

As for civil liberties you read about their views on the matter, statements they made, previous legislation they supported or voted against. We're pretty good at putting candidates through the ringer on here and other sites. That's where this forum is valuable because some posters are closer to these candidates than others. Take Gunny's support for Greg Brannon. Gunny is a well-respected member here so his opinion carries a great deal of weight to me. Everything I've seen, read, and heard from people on the ground point to Brannon being a potential Green Five Star liberty candidate ★★★★★ Now we just need the Pauls to give their stamp of approval. I think the rating process is much more organic than you think, at least it is for me.

 

[sailingaway]

If someone voted for NDAA what does that do to their stars?

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

If someone voted for NDAA what does that do to their stars?

You have to take into consideration what their votes were on the Smith-Amash and Gohmert amendments.

NDAA does not mean indefinite detention, it is a several hundred page military spending bill.

 

[BSU kid]

Is there anyway to make a less subjective liberty candidate list, so we can have a sticky? That way I know who to support and who is running without having to dig through all the threads in this sub forum.

 

[Spoa]

I've always said that I like Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). If he continues voting like he has, I suggest we put him on the list.

Here are some of his major votes so far:
Voted against Sandy Funding
Voted against raising the debt ceiling
Voted against the motion to proceed on VAWA
Voted against VAWA
Voted for Senator Paul's amendment to stop sending F-16s to Egypt
Voted against changing the rules of the senate

He hasn't had one bad vote yet in the senate.

 

[Smart3]

I've always said that I like Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). If he continues voting like he has, I suggest we put him on the list.

Here are some of his major votes so far:
Voted against Sandy Funding
Voted against raising the debt ceiling
Voted against the motion to proceed on VAWA
Voted against VAWA
Voted for Senator Paul's amendment to stop sending F-16s to Egypt
Voted against changing the rules of the senate

He hasn't had one bad vote yet in the senate.

If he votes for the Audit again and votes against any new SOPA/CISPA then I will add him as a two-star. He's still "new" in the sense of being in Congress for only 2 years. We seem to have higher standards for Senators than for Reps.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I've always said that I like Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). If he continues voting like he has, I suggest we put him on the list.

Here are some of his major votes so far:
Voted against Sandy Funding
Voted against raising the debt ceiling
Voted against the motion to proceed on VAWA
Voted against VAWA
Voted for Senator Paul's amendment to stop sending F-16s to Egypt
Voted against changing the rules of the senate

He hasn't had one bad vote yet in the senate.

How can someone who voted to extend the PATRIOT Act be considered a Liberty candidate? Isn't anyone here concerned about the loss of civil liberties anymore?

I realize that no one is going to be a "perfect" candidate, but there are things that should automatically disqualify someone from wearing the label of "Liberty Candidate"...voting to diminish civil liberties should definitely be at the top of the list of disqualifiers. In my opinion.

 

[Smart3]

How can someone who voted to extend the PATRIOT Act be considered a Liberty candidate? Isn't anyone here concerned about the loss of civil liberties anymore?

I realize that no one is going to be a "perfect" candidate, but there are things that should automatically disqualify someone from wearing the label of "Liberty Candidate"...voting to diminish civil liberties should definitely be at the top of the list of disqualifiers. In my opinion.

That is precisely why he is not on the list now and won't be. Do remember Spoa has very very low standards for candidates. He's not a libertarian, more of a traditional conservative.

 

[Spoa]

How can someone who voted to extend the PATRIOT Act be considered a Liberty candidate? Isn't anyone here concerned about the loss of civil liberties anymore?

I realize that no one is going to be a "perfect" candidate, but there are things that should automatically disqualify someone from wearing the label of "Liberty Candidate"...voting to diminish civil liberties should definitely be at the top of the list of disqualifiers. In my opinion.

Of course I (and others like me) care about civil liberties. I include that in the scorecard that I have. But I would disagree on it being a disqualifier because I do not see people that disagree with me 20% of the time as an enemy, instead I see them as 80% friend. It should be noted that in an entire session of congress, there are less votes on civil liberties than there are on fiscal responsibility bills. And Senator Tim Scott has generally been good with fiscal responsibility.

I would not fight to have him as a 5-star. He definitely doesn't deserve higher than a 3-star. But the point I am making is that his votes have largely helped the Liberty movement (especially in our goal and hope to defeat Graham). Imagine in a primary debate, one of Graham's opponents could ask him something like, "Why did you vote to send F-16s to Egypt especially when Senator Scott voted against sending F-16s to Egypt?"

Also, I should add that Senator Scott voted with Senator Paul against the nomination of Kayatta for Judge (even Senators Cruz/Lee voted in favor of this judge). http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00020

So I agree that we should wait and see, but I just wanted to open up a suggestion that Senator Scott should be looked at for a possible addition to the list (I am so far leaning to supporting his re-election for senate)...and I hope a good primary challenger comes up to challenge RINO Graham!

(Thanks to Smart3 and cajuncocoa for having a polite debate with me.)

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Personally I think you at least have to be strong in either civil liberties or foreign policy to qualify. If they have neither I wouldn't list them.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Of course I (and others like me) care about civil liberties. I include that in the scorecard that I have. But I would disagree on it being a disqualifier because I do not see people that disagree with me 20% of the time as an enemy, instead I see them as 80% friend. It should be noted that in an entire session of congress, there are less votes on civil liberties than there are on fiscal responsibility bills. And Senator Tim Scott has generally been good with fiscal responsibility.

(Thanks to Smart3 and cajuncocoa for having a polite debate with me.)

Thanks for the rep, and back to you. I do believe we need to have polite debates when we disagree on issues!

As for the 20%/80% thing, my problem with assessing it that way is that some issues are much more important than others. While it may break down to disagreeing with him only 20% of the time, what is included in that 20% could be a deal breaker. For me, a vote for the PATRIOT Act is such a deal breaker....even for someone with whom I may agree the other 80% of the time.

 

[Spoa]

Personally I think you at least have to be strong in either civil liberties or foreign policy to qualify. If they have neither I wouldn't list them.

I'd state that Senator Scott is pretty strong in foreign policy (though not 100% with us). The fact that he had the guts to vote against his senior senator (Graham) on the issue of F-16s is quite good. He's also voted against foreign aid in the past.

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I don't have a scorecard per say, but I do look at very valuable ones like the JBS voting index for Constitutional issues and the FreedomWorks index for fiscal issues.

I also look at individual positions/votes on things like civil liberties. If somebody wants to reform/abolish the TSA, has voted against the PATRIOT Act, and has voted for the Smith-Amash and Gohmert indefinite detention amendments, they are definitely worth adding to the list because it is clear they believe in upholding the Bill of Rights.

I think some things carry more weight than others. For example, wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve can make up for deficiencies in other areas when it comes to the ranking, because a position like that is so important to the movement. Same thing for speaking out against occupational wars.

I am going to go through the list (only of the incumbents because they have a record) and create my own rankings which will probably be pretty similar to the OP's. That way we can compare and contrast. edit-I might do it later when things are more conclusive

 

[Spoa]

Thanks for the rep, and back to you. I do believe we need to have polite debates when we disagree on issues!

As for the 20%/80% thing, my problem with assessing it that way is that some issues are much more important than others. While it may break down to disagreeing with him only 20% of the time, what is included in that 20% could be a deal breaker. For me, a vote for the PATRIOT Act is such a deal breaker....even for someone with whom I may agree the other 80% of the time.

Fair enough. That's why I think each individual has to decide who to support/not support. All of us will likely agree on many candidates, but we may just have to agree to disagree on others (that doesn't mean we can't keep fighting for our own candidates). That is why I believe it is important for everyone to do their own research (the list is just a helpful tool...each person should make an effort to research on his/her own).