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

I think he's just suggesting there are more important and winnable Senate primaries. Hill would be better, but Buck isn't bad. Just look up Buck's Campaign for Liberty survey. Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina are much stronger bets for us.

This is exactly my view. Money sent to Hill is better spent on someone like Brannon, especially when the candidate that is set to win the CO primary (Buck) is so closely aligned with us on a variety of issues.

Another Spoa link eh?

What's wrong with Spoa links? He seems to be doing a lot more for the cause of liberty than you are. I'm sure he will source the opinions he's expressed when he sees these posts.

Who are you working for compromise?

a95fab75689a487773ce0479c566330d.png

Please refrain from racism.
 
On Hill vs. Buck, in the past, we sometimes had two candidates in the same race listed. There might be a difference in rating or in endorsements.

Neither of the candidates are 5 star from what I've seen. Ron Paul endorsed Hill, so that is reflected by the green highlight. I'd put them both on the list.

Who is the front runner in this Primary? Is there a different, establishment candidate that might slip in?
 
On Hill vs. Buck, in the past, we sometimes had two candidates in the same race listed. There might be a difference in rating or in endorsements.

Neither of the candidates are 5 star from what I've seen. Ron Paul endorsed Hill, so that is reflected by the green highlight. I'd put them both on the list.

Who is the front runner in this Primary? Is there a different, establishment candidate that might slip in?

Buck is the front runner. The establishment candidate is Amy Stephens.

Q10 Given the choices of Mark Aspiri, Randy
Baumgardner, Ken Buck, Owen Hill, Jaime
McMillan, and Amy Stephens, who would you
most like to see as the Republican candidate
for Senate next year?
Mark Aspiri............................................ .......... 0%
Randy Baumgardner....................................... 8%
Ken Buck .................................................. ...... 45%
Owen Hill .................................................. ...... 2%
Jaime McMillan ............................................... 1%
Amy Stephens ................................................ 7%
Someone else/Not sure .................................. 37%
 
This is exactly my view. Money sent to Hill is better spent on someone like Brannon, especially when the candidate that is set to win the CO primary (Buck) is so closely aligned with us on a variety of issues.

Oh so now it's about Brannon, and not pushing Ken Buck over Owen Hill? Keep backtracking and moving the goal posts some more.

What's wrong with Spoa links? He seems to be doing a lot more for the cause of liberty than you are. I'm sure he will source the opinions he's expressed when he sees these posts.

Some random 2012 member that supports NDAA lovers like Jeff Sessions? Yeah that's supporting the cause of liberty if I've ever seen it.

a95fab75689a487773ce0479c566330d.png

Please refrain from racism.[/QUOTE]

Just callin it like I see it. You're a paid shill, posting here to push warmonger Israel lobby lackeys.

How about this, I'll cut you some slack if you post a screen shot of a donation you make to Owen Hill.
 
Oh so now it's about Brannon, and not pushing Ken Buck over Owen Hill? Keep backtracking and moving the goal posts some more.



Some random 2012 member that supports NDAA lovers like Jeff Sessions? Yeah that's supporting the cause of liberty if I've ever seen it.

Just callin it like I see it. You're a paid shill, posting here to push warmonger Israel lobby lackeys.

How about this, I'll cut you some slack if you post a screen shot of a donation you make to Owen Hill.

How exactly can someone who voted against the NDAA be an "NDAA lover"?

Where do you see these "hooked nose" guys?

I will not be donating to Owen Hill. I never said I would donate to Owen Hill. I said I have no problem with people supporting him now, but I will support Buck, the presumptive nominee, in the general election.
 
It's fairly clear that Buck is far better than the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Corker, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, etc on key issues like the economy, world government and civil liberties. He seems on par with Jim DeMint, whom many considered a liberty-minded candidate. I highly doubt the rest of the GOP Senators would have received 19/20 in the Campaign for Liberty survey.

Vocal hawk on Iran, yes. Remember, even Mike Lee is a hawk on Iran. More than half the people on this list are hawks on Iran. If Iran is a dealbreaker, then the only incumbents we should support are Amash, Rand, Massie, Jones, Sanford and Duncan (TN) and the only people who can be deemed liberty candidates are ideological acolytes of them. I don't consider that to be the case, most of those incumbents don't consider that to be the case and Ron Paul/CFL/YAL don't consider that to be the case either.

Ron Paul has endorsed all kinds of people, and as much as I admire him, I frankly ignore his endorsements entirely. I make my own decisions.

I agree that Mike Lee is a hawk on Iran, and I do not support him. Who cares if our taxes are a little lower if we're still murdering people overseas? I'd argue that Rand Paul is at least a question mark on Iran as well. He's coming off as more hawkish than Obama with regards to the sanction vote coming up. He still might vote against it, but he's "considering" voting for it, whereas Obama has stated in no uncertain terms that he will veto it.

We need better candidates, frankly. We need more Amash/Massie type candidates.

Yeah, its easy to oppose yesterday's war. It doesn't matter if you do the same dang thing again.
The drug war is mostly a non-issue at the federal level at the moment, there's usually at most 1-2 votes on it a year. Buck is right on so much and it would be unfortunate to oppose someone who agrees with us on so much because of a few minor disagreements.

Yeah, "minor" disagreements like thinking its OK to lock someone in a cage for smoking a leaf, and wanting to bomb a foreign country?

Ted Cruz certainly doesn't get the 10th amendment with regards to the former issue, does Buck?


Is there anyone I should even consider supporting in NYS in 2014?
 
I don't understand how anyone here could back Buck over Hill. Hill is exactly the type of candidate the liberty movement needs: He's young, well spoken, intelligent and a stone cold liberty guy, not to mention the fact that he would be a much stronger general election candidate then Ken Buck, especially in a libertarian leaning state like CO.

The Dems are praying for a Ken Buck victory because he is literally unelectable in the general election. While the PPP shows him close to Udall in the General, those numbers are probably his ceiling. Everyone in the state already knows him so its unlikely that he will ever be able to surpass his current numbers. In fact the second he becomes the nominee and the Dem machine starts attacking him for his past statements, his numbers will fall like a rock and this race will go from competitive to a Dem blowout.

I think it's fair to say that a candidate who lost in 2010 in an open seat race in the biggest GOP landslide in years has zero chance in 2014 in a potentially tougher political climate against an incumbent.

As far as the Primary goes, the numbers right now mean literally nothing. Buck is doing well because of name ID and Hill is doing bad because of his lack of name id. This can change really fast as all it will take is a super pac or two supporting Hill to raise his profile. If I recall correctly, I saw Preston Bates on Twitter not to long ago mention that he personally donated $1,000 to Hill so I wouldn't be surprised if Liberty for All got behind him at some point. If that happens then all bets are off and the primary becomes competitive for Hill.
 
If I recall correctly, I saw Preston Bates on Twitter not to long ago mention that he personally donated $1,000 to Hill so I wouldn't be surprised if Liberty for All got behind him at some point. If that happens then all bets are off and the primary becomes competitive for Hill.

Liberty For All is going to have an issue this cycle of deciding what races to expend their resources on. There are literally hundreds of liberty candidates, which is amazing. If only 10-15% of them win, that is still amazing. We are approaching a point where the majority of races could have a liberty candidate into the primary, but I don't want to get overly optimistic until we start to see victories at the polls. It is going to take work and $$.
 
Are you trying to find dirt or are you talking about polling numbers or what exactly?

His website is pretty good and he's already on the Senate list on pg1. Sounds like he wants to give Stockman a run for his money and has some grassroots behind him, handily winning a tx county straw poll.

http://texansforstovall.com/news.php#20140112

It would be good to know now if there is dirt. He looks good to me so far. He only has 3 Stars on the first page. Why the 2 Star deduction?
 
His stance on immigration is pretty good.

Always admit if you have hired an illegal. You have open borders types like Jeff Flake attacking Wil Cardon because he accidentally hired an illegal. When the irony is Jeff Flake voted to fund illegals from cradle to grave. Jeff Flake's wants illegals in massive numbers working in white and blue collar jobs.

http://www.texansforstovall.com/issues.php#amnesty
When I was a teenager entering the workforce, illegal aliens were not a recognized issue. They received no taxpayer-funded benefits, healthcare, or education. Over the years, Supreme Court rulings forced the States to provide benefits and recognized birthright citizenship. These granted benefits added to our national debt and the economic strife we endure today. This cycle hurts the State of Texas. We cannot allow illegal immigrants to instantly become legalized.
 
What are the negatives on Dwayne Stovall?

As far as issues, the only thing at all negative that I know of, is that I believe he has voiced support for a Constitutional Convention.
He has much more grassroots support than Stockman does. He has been running for over 7 months, but he made it official in late August. His people have been dominating John Cornyn's facebook pages. His only real problem, is lack of funding. But he is doing the best he can with what he has. Here is a recent facebook post on Dwayne's Facebook page, from Brett, his top guy:

"A friend of mine is occasionally asked to stand in for the pastor of his church. When he does, he gives the same sermon every time. He tells the story of a great and mighty army, championed by a giant who instilled fear in the hearts of everyone. All who saw this fearful enemy, right down to the king, grew discouraged at the sight. Surely they would lose.

A young teenager stood up and believed th...at he was on the right side of the conflict. He didn't need armor. He grabbed the weapon he knew and ran to greet the giant.

You know this story, but you've never heard anyone tell it with such passion and authority as my friend does.

A few years ago, a very popular blogger who goes by the moniker Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, wrote a book called "An Army of Davids." In it, he asserted that big corporate giants fall today before an army of Davids, who wield nothing more than cheap/free guerrilla marketing/productivity tools.

John Cornyn has started to unleash his mighty war chest. Ad after ad will be coming in the next several weeks. To which I say, "That's all he has." When you see these ads, remember that. If he were amazing and popular, he would receive Cruz-like welcomes at candidate fairs. But Cornyn doesn't show up at any candidate fairs because he's afraid he will be shown up.

David brought Goliath down because he believed, with all his heart, that he could not fail. He knew God was with him.

Do you believe in liberty? In your heart of hearts, do you believe giants can be beaten if you stand in faith on the right side of a conflict?

You are an army of Davids, and I don't care how tall John Cornyn looks, his support is cardboard-thin. Most of his ads are laughable because they gloss over the truth of performance in office, and Texans have a long memory.

Believe, voice your convictions, vote your principles, and laugh at the desperation of an enemy so threatened by little ol' you that he won't even meet you at events that invite him. That pebble in your hand will cause a lot of ripples across the great Lone Star State, and he knows it. You will take down someone who looks to some like a giant. But you know what they say... the bigger they are...

Let's win this for Texas. Dwayne Stovall is the right man to be Senator. You know it, and everyone needs to hear that.

Brett"

https://www.facebook.com/TexansForStovall
 
Cornyn is feeling the heat. He just introduced a national concealed carry reciprocity bill. Trying to appeal to the gun folks to keep his office I guess.
 
Ron Paul has endorsed all kinds of people, and as much as I admire him, I frankly ignore his endorsements entirely. I make my own decisions.

I agree that Mike Lee is a hawk on Iran, and I do not support him. Who cares if our taxes are a little lower if we're still murdering people overseas? I'd argue that Rand Paul is at least a question mark on Iran as well. He's coming off as more hawkish than Obama with regards to the sanction vote coming up. He still might vote against it, but he's "considering" voting for it, whereas Obama has stated in no uncertain terms that he will veto it.

We need better candidates, frankly. We need more Amash/Massie type candidates.


Yeah, its easy to oppose yesterday's war. It doesn't matter if you do the same dang thing again.

Yeah, "minor" disagreements like thinking its OK to lock someone in a cage for smoking a leaf, and wanting to bomb a foreign country?

Ted Cruz certainly doesn't get the 10th amendment with regards to the former issue, does Buck?


Is there anyone I should even consider supporting in NYS in 2014?
I agree, we do need more Massie/Amash candidates, but implying Rand isn't bothers me considering his voting record. He might sound more hawkish than Obama in this particular instance, but what foreign war or military action has Rand ever supported? Practically, except for wars of self-defense, I think Rand would always find a pragmatic reason not to support or vote for a foreign military action. In the end Rand is essentially a non-interventionist.
 
Back
Top