Nevada Republican Liberty Candidates

[BKom]

As always, Brian, thanks for your input.

As you may or may not know, our organization supported Frances Allen in her first race. Many of us now believe that given the choice between Ms. Allen or someone else, we'd be better with someone else. Unfortunately, I don't think Andrew Brownson took the time to complete the candidate questionaire.

While Richard McArthur may not be with us 100%, he is the most qualified candidate and clearly the best choice. Yes, he's a retired FBI agent, but Bob Barr is a retired federal prosecutor. Does that mean Bob Barr isn't really "libertarian leaning" either?

In CD-1, Chris Dyer had the endorsement of the RLC. When it was brought to his attention that the music video he released satirizing Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden reflected poorly on our organization, Mr. Dyer responded with a series of angry emails. In his last message he stated, "(R)ight now the word 'Republican' is poison to a campaign. If I win the primary on the 12th you would be doing me a favor by pulling your endorsement."

Your guy put us in a tough spot, Brian.

In CD-2, I understand why you might like James Smack. However, far from the RINO you describe, a number of groups, (including ours,) consider Dean Heller a conservative Republican.

Congressman Heller has been vocal about the Republican Party's abandoning its roots, receiving national attention when he told a reporter the party needs to "clean house."

"They've got to stand for smaller government, they've got to stand for less taxation, they've got to stand for less regulation and less litigation," he said. "That's what the Republican Party has to stand for, and I think that's what was missing the last six to eight years."

I'm sure you and I would both agree with that statement. Although James Smack may be very enthusiastic about running for U.S. Congress, in the race for Nevada Congressional District 2, Dean Heller is the right choice.

In CD-3, I would have liked to see a solid libertarian Republican as an alternative to Jon Porter. In respect to our commitment to a market economy, limited government, and a strong national defense, Congressman Porter scores about an 80%. After looking at the others running in the primary and the Democratic challenger, however, Jon Porter gets our vote.

First, Chris Dyer is not "my guy." You endorsed him, not I. While I had hoped he would run a good campaign, he has not. So, he's "your guy" as far as I can tell.

Second, Dean Heller can SAY anything he'd like to. Just like you SAY anything, such as using the word "liberty" in your name. However, it's what one does that matters and he is just another RINO. Conservative? What the heck does that mean anymore? I would like to conserve constitutional, limited government principles. But that is not what "conservative" is used for by my party anymore. And apparently not by you, either.

Third, of course Bob Barr is not libertarian leaning or any kind of libertarian. How can you even ask. In fact, if you believe he is, then I suppose your organization would be endorsing him for president, since Senator McCain is in no way libertarian leaning. Barr needs to be judged on his actions, not what he says, much like Dean Heller and John Porter and John McCain. And in that respect, he falls completely short of any definition of libertarian or libertarian leaning. But since you seem to believe differently, I await your Barr endorsement.

Fourth, Richard McArthur isn't with "us" at all. He appears to be with "you." I'd be curious to know how long he's been involved in local politics. You know, mundane stuff like being a member of the central committee or being a precinct leader. Poll worker? Anything? I only ask because I didn't know that being part of the FBI gave one experience at being a state legislator. Sure, it's life experience. But I have to tell you, there is all kinds of life experience. You seem impressed by the secret squirrel stuff. Me, not so much. In fact, Mr. McArthur may be a perfectly nice fellow and a great candidate. But I've not seen that great candidate part.

What I've seen from Andrew is a smart, hard working candidate. And knowing he didn't fill out your questionnaire makes me like him just a touch more.

Your pal, Brian

 

[Mike Davis]

Thanks for the update, Brian.

The RLC is not a “libertarian certification service.” We do not claim that endorsed candidates pass the World’s Smallest Political Quiz or any other test. The RLC can (and does) endorse candidates of other parties, but only when there is no official GOP candidate.

As an organization, we do not take positions opposing official GOP candidates.

While I appreciate your suggestion that we endorse Bob Barr, Mr. Barr is the Libertarian candidate for President. The Republican Party has a candidate in the race, so, in accordance with our charter from the RNC, we will not be endorsing Bob Barr.

May I respectfully point out, if you have issues with whether Mr. Barr is any kind of Libertarian, you may want to take those concerns to the LP.

Apologies on Chris Dyer. I thought that since he's one of the Freedom Slate '08 candidates that he was one of yours. Sorry for the error. We didn't put him up to it, so he's not one of ours.

Hey, on Andrew Brownson, I wish him only the best. Within in a few days we'll see if all his hard work has paid off.

Thanks again for your feedback, Brian.

On a side note, to the poster commenting on "pimping pro-war candidates," the RLC has always been pro-defense.

 

[BKom]

Thanks for the update, Brian.

The RLC is not a “libertarian certification service.” We do not claim that endorsed candidates pass the World’s Smallest Political Quiz or any other test. The RLC can (and does) endorse candidates of other parties, but only when there is no official GOP candidate.

As an organization, we do not take positions opposing official GOP candidates.

While I appreciate your suggestion that we endorse Bob Barr, Mr. Barr is the Libertarian candidate for President. The Republican Party has a candidate in the race, so, in accordance with our charter from the RNC, we will not be endorsing Bob Barr.

May I respectfully point out, if you have issues with whether Mr. Barr is any kind of Libertarian, you may want to take those concerns to the LP.

Apologies on Chris Dyer. I thought that since he's one of the Freedom Slate '08 candidates that he was one of yours. Sorry for the error. We didn't put him up to it, so he's not one of ours.

Hey, on Andrew Brownson, I wish him only the best. Within in a few days we'll see if all his hard work has paid off.

Thanks again for your feedback, Brian.

On a side note, to the poster commenting on "pimping pro-war candidates," the RLC has always been pro-defense. We don't consider a candidate's position on Iraq a litmus test for our endorsement.

You brought up Bob Barr's qualifications and his supposed new philosophy, and whether the two were at odds. That's why I figured you might be interested in him. I don't support him or have any interest in supporting him. And frankly, I didn't like him any better when he was a Republican.

As for being "pro-defense," that is a pretty nebulous term. While I can understand all variety of opinion about whether we should stay in Iraq or not and for how long and at what troop strength, since we are there now, I would think that a "liberty caucus" would have a strong opinion about whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place.

I would think that position would be a strong basis for anyone evaluating participation or membership in your caucus. But I'm a little troubled. Since you're willing to sign off on a candidate like Senator McCain, who got the nomination in large part due to independents and Democrats crossing over in open primary states, with a strong push from the more Democratic elements in the media, I suppose there is essentially no Republican candidate you will not support as long as he or she is the supposed lesser of two evils.

So, since you aren't a "libertarian certification service," then what exactly is the philosophical basis of your endorsements. Your name includes "liberty caucus." Again, a rather nebulous term. Are you the official Nevada chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus? Or is your organization actually a "conservative" organization of some kind.

P.S. I didn't know such a thing as "Freedom Slate '08 existed." And, I went to your link "pro-defense" and it is a "libertarian" blog. It cites Dennis Miller as some sort of libertarian. I'd say he's a late convert to "conservatism" but "libertarian?" Hey, I'd love to see my party dragged back to the smallest government, Constitution loving party on the planet. But in what way is Dennis Miller anything other than a garden variety conservative? Didn't that same blog decide that Rudy Giuliani, known best for asset forfeiture, was a "libertarian Republican?"

Political cross-dressing is a habit I'd like to see broken. Even the term "Republican" is now fungible when applied to someone like Senator McCain. I guess I'm just saying I'm not a big fan of Newspeak.

Brian Kominsky

 

[Mike Davis]

I didn't know such a thing as "Freedom Slate '08 existed." And, I went to your link "pro-defense" and it is a "libertarian" blog... I guess I'm just saying I'm not a big fan of Newspeak.

That's surprising, actually. I would think that as the RP campaign coordinator here in Clark County, you would be familiar with the candidates who jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon and their astroturfing efforts.



Maybe "Campaign for Liberty" would have been the appropriate term. My apologies.

The "Libertarian Republican" blog linked above belongs to Eric Dondero. Eric, like Ron Paul, is a former member of the Libertarian Party. On his blog he makes the case that you can be a small "l" libertarian and still believe the founders supported a strong national defense.

I'm no big fan of Newspeak either, Brian. To your point about "I suppose there is essentially no Republican candidate you will not support," that's not entirely true.

Political cross-dressers that call themselves "Republicans" but but whose only interests are playing games and bad-mouthing the party probably shouldn't count on my support.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

If I were Sharron Angle or any other truly outstanding candidate running for office, I think i might ask to have my name removed from that rogues gallery of candidates you've endorsed. Actually, we'd be a lot better off if Sharron had defeated Heller last go around.

"Rogue's gallery" I love that expression.

Hey, just for my own edification, is it Sharron Angle or Sharon Angle?

 

[Mike Davis]

"Rogue's gallery" I love that expression.

Hey, just for my own edification, is it Sharron Angle or Sharon Angle?

It's Sharron Angle.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It's Sharron Angle.

Thanks

Second, Dean Heller can SAY anything he'd like to. Just like you SAY anything, such as using the word "liberty" in your name. However, it's what one does that matters and he is just another RINO. Conservative? What the heck does that mean anymore? I would like to conserve constitutional, limited government principles. But that is not what "conservative" is used for by my party anymore. And apparently not by you, either.

Third, of course Bob Barr is not libertarian leaning or any kind of libertarian. How can you even ask. In fact, if you believe he is, then I suppose your organization would be endorsing him for president, since Senator McCain is in no way libertarian leaning. Barr needs to be judged on his actions, not what he says, much like Dean Heller and John Porter and John McCain. And in that respect, he falls completely short of any definition of libertarian or libertarian leaning. But since you seem to believe differently, I await your Barr endorsement.

Interesting. Everywhere I look, Sharron Angle is labeled a Christian social conservative. To use your own words, not libertarian or libertarian leaning.

Her positions come right out of the Nevada Concerned Citizens talking points. You remember them right? The rabid right-wing bible-thumpers who pushed the same-sex marriage ban? It no surprise there's a very prominent endorsement from Richard Ziser on her site.

And what's this Nevada Republican Assembly that's backing her? Hmmm... When people told me Ron Paul was a theocratic John Bircher I cringed. When I think of theocratic John Birchers, I think of the NVRA... And now, here's Sharron Angle at the head of the pack.

Sharron Angle is no libertarian. Shame on Mike for that endorsement.

But what really gets me, and I just gotta know, Brian -- Is your support of ultra right-wing Christian conservative Sharron Angle based on principle, or just because she showed up at the June 28 meetup in Reno and told you what you wanted to hear?

I'm really looking forward to your reply.

 

[BKom]

Thanks



Interesting. Everywhere I look, Sharron Angle is labeled a Christian social conservative. To use your own words, not libertarian or libertarian leaning.

Her positions come right out of the Nevada Concerned Citizens talking points. You remember them right? The rabid right-wing bible-thumpers who pushed the same-sex marriage ban? It no surprise there's a very prominent endorsement from Richard Ziser on her site.

And what's this Nevada Republican Assembly that's backing her? Hmmm... When people told me Ron Paul was a theocratic John Bircher I cringed. When I think of theocratic John Birchers, I think of the NVRA... And now, here's Sharron Angle at the head of the pack.

Sharron Angle is no libertarian. Shame on Mike for that endorsement.

But what really gets me, and I just gotta know, Brian -- Is your support of ultra right-wing Christian conservative Sharron Angle based on principle, or just because she showed up at the June 28 meetup in Reno and told you what you wanted to hear?

I'm really looking forward to your reply.

Sharron Angle represents the Republican point of view in this state much more closely than Dean Heller. And although I do not support any governmental involvement in marriage, if I wait to support someone who thinks 100 percent like I do, I suppose I'll be waiting for a very long time. And the voters overwhelmingly passed that ban. It was not left up to legislators at any level.

She showed up at the June 28th reconvene? News to me. So, I guess the answer is no. Actually, I had an opportunity to speak with Sharron at an NPRI luncheon back during the presidential caucus season. She was busy spearheading a property tax limitation petition, which I support as well.

I guess you don't know me, but I don't play team sports. I don't support people for office because they're my friends, and I don't support them because they may be the lesser of two evils. I don't support someone just because they have an R next to their name. And I surely don't support them just because they supported Ron or any other candidate I may like. Otherwise, I'd be a lot busier this campaign season. While I would like to see Heller and Porter replaced, I really don't see it happening this time around, so I have chosen to support an excellent candidate in the race for state assembly and spend my time helping him.

 

[BKom]

That's surprising, actually. I would think that as the RP campaign coordinator here in Clark County, you would be familiar with the candidates who jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon and their astroturfing efforts.



Maybe "Campaign for Liberty" would have been the appropriate term. My apologies.

The "Libertarian Republican" blog linked above belongs to Eric Dondero. Eric, like Ron Paul, is a former member of the Libertarian Party. On his blog he makes the case that you can be a small "l" libertarian and still believe the founders supported a strong national defense.

I'm no big fan of Newspeak either, Brian. To your point about "I suppose there is essentially no Republican candidate you will not support," that's not entirely true.

Political cross-dressers that call themselves "Republicans" but but whose only interests are playing games and bad-mouthing the party probably shouldn't count on my support.

Yeah, I'm a little familiar with the hysterical Mr. Dondero. Although I'm not sure which meaning of hysterical fits better. But I did get a chuckle when he tried to convince everyone that Rudy G. was a libertarian-Republican.

I don't think many would quibble with a strong national defense. However, it's the offense I would quibble over. Actually attacking the country or base of operations of those who attack us would seem a minimum requirement for we Republicans to support the offensive. Apologists for the administration and its enablers can hem and haw all they want to. But in the end, we went to war with a country that was never a threat to us, and by doing so, we stirred up a hornet's nest that will be difficult to extract ourselves from. Because of this misfire, we are truly left with no good options.

And yeah, I get it. You continue to call everyone Paultards and when not using the word yourself, you link to those who do. Of course, during the campaign I met some people who were a bit loony, interestingly, many of them not Ron Paul supporters. But unlike you, I seem to have met a lot of Paul supporters and others with whom I'd be proud to be associated. And I hope those people will continue in the party and become its backbone and its conscience.

Also, I understand you won't support just anyone who calls himself a Republican. You don't like Chris Dyer, James Smack and Carl Bunce. I get it. But I would point out that since you were a Ron Paul supporter, you must think he's a fair congressman. If someone who has no experience gets elected, this would be a great time to have that person learn from Ron. We could do a lot worse than having someone merely copy his congressional votes. But that would take some courage and a strong desire not to make a career of politics.

Addendum: About the Freedom Slate '08. I was asked by the Paul campaign to become Clark County Coordinator. My job was to get Dr. Paul votes and then delegates. Any other activity was not in my job description. I have no relationship with the Campaign For Liberty or FreedomSlate'08. In fact, I didn't know FreedomSlate existed until you pointed it out. You may be aware that I'm not a political junkie. I am ideological and not about elections in general. So I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine I wouldn't be up on all the latest news in the Ron Paul firmament.

Brian

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sharron Angle represents the Republican point of view in this state much more closely than Dean Heller.

Sharron Angle represents the AIP/Republican point of view more closely than Dean Heller... That particular flavor is big in cow country, but you get down south and a lot of it don't fly.

if I wait to support someone who thinks 100 percent like I do, I suppose I'll be waiting for a very long time.

I think that's the point others have been making.

And the voters overwhelmingly passed that ban. It was not left up to legislators at any level.

Brian, you know Sharron was part of the group circulating the Question 2 petition. The decision to jump on board with Richard Ziser and the rest of the gay bashers was entirely hers to make.

She showed up at the June 28th reconvene? News to me.

I only suspected she may have been present because Sharron Angle is listed as an alternate to the national convention by the folks who hosted the June 28 get together.

I guess you don't know me, but I don't play team sports. ... I have chosen to support an excellent candidate in the race for state assembly and spend my time helping him.

Well, I can see that.

Andrew Brownson will make a great Assemblyman. From where I'm sitting, he's probably the single best candidate the Campaign for Liberty has in Nevada.

Just some random thoughts. Don't take anything personally.

 

[BKom]

I agree that Andrew is exactly the kind of motivated, intelligent young man the Republican Party needs a lot more of.

Sharron goes over in "cow country?" Well, I was raised in "horse country." But if you look at CD 2 it is overwhelmingly rural, if that's what you meant. I am not one for government imposed morals, so I am uncomfortable with any of that going on in my party. And as you know, a lot of it goes on. But I do like her tax limitation, limited government stance in general. She appears somewhat less malleable than our two current Republican congressman.

And if you take a look at what our national platform is going to say this year (or even what it looked like four years ago) I think you'll find her positions on issues are almost word for word from it. Not that I buy the legislation of morals. But she certainly seems pretty mainstream if you look at the platform.

About being elected a delegate or alternate. There is nothing in convention rules in Nevada that require attendance to become a delegate. I believe the original CD 1 election had John Ensign elected a delegate even though he was not present.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sharron goes over in "cow country?" Well, I was raised in "horse country." But if you look at CD 2 it is overwhelmingly rural, if that's what you meant.

Ha ha. That's exactly what I meant.

But I do like her tax limitation, limited government stance in general. She appears somewhat less malleable than our two current Republican congressman.

The word ideologue comes to mind... but if only looking at fiscal conservatism and limited government, she's definitely better than the incumbent state senator.

About being elected a delegate or alternate. There is nothing in convention rules in Nevada that require attendance to become a delegate. I believe the original CD 1 election had John Ensign elected a delegate even though he was not present.

Fair enough. Now that you've explained the reasoning, Brian, you've won me over.

 

[Mike Davis]

Apologists for the administration and its enablers can hem and haw all they want to. But in the end, we went to war with a country that was never a threat to us, and by doing so, we stirred up a hornet's nest that will be difficult to extract ourselves from. Because of this misfire, we are truly left with no good options.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine I wouldn't be up on all the latest news in the Ron Paul firmament.

If we really want to judge President Bush's stewardship, we should take a look at the record. In the end, we went to war with a country for violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. Because of that decision, we now have a democratic ally in the Middle East, instead of genocidal despot sitting on 500 tons of uranium.

To your second point, I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters too. I'm cool with 99.9% of them. The truth is, there are only about 6 here in Nevada who seem to be causing all the unnecessary brain damage. These 6 are not at all representative of the Ron Paul movement, they certainly are not the "real" Nevada GOP, and they have no right to point the finger at anyone.

It's actually rather annoying to me to have to come here and point out how a handful of ninnies have destroyed the hard work of thousands of RPers, not just in Nevada, but nationwide.

Thankfully, when the polls close on Tuesday, this whole ugly mess will be behind us.

 

[BKom]

If we really want to judge President Bush's stewardship, we should take a look at the record. In the end, we went to war with a country for violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. Because of that decision, we now have a democratic ally in the Middle East, instead of genocidal despot sitting on 500 tons of uranium.

To your second point, I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters too. I'm cool with 99.9% of them. The truth is, there are only about 6 here in Nevada who seem to be causing all the unnecessary brain damage. These 6 are not at all representative of the Ron Paul movement, they certainly are not the "real" Nevada GOP, and they have no right to point the finger at anyone.

It's actually rather annoying to me to have to come here and point out how a handful of ninnies have destroyed the hard work of thousands of RPers, not just in Nevada, but nationwide.

Thankfully, when the polls close on Tuesday, this whole ugly mess will be behind us.

Well, I'm certainly glad you signed up to go overseas and enforce UN resolutions. And I'm very glad you know what the final form of government in Iraq will be and that it will be an ally. I have no desire to go myself or send my son on such a mission. And I have no crystal ball telling me the future of Iraq and the Middle East. My guess is that you'll be very disappointed in our "ally" within a very short time. But enabling is what it is: an art form.

Yeah, I could "look at the record" but I've been underwhelmed with your links so far, so I think I'll sit this one out. The "record" is that GWB has been an abomination as president. He tried to scuttle the Heller decision, and succeeded in giving Scalia the rope to destroy our gun rights through regulation. He has spent like a drunken sailor on both domestic and foreign adventures, and to pay for it all by inflation. That has led to his shock SHOCK at high gas prices fueled by a declining dollar. He has pushed Patriot Act One and Two to destroy our civil liberties. He has appointed supreme court justices who value our individual liberty less than my dog does. He has now embraced the boogey man of global warming. And I'm sure if I sat and cogitated about such things, I could come up with about another dozen areas of disappointment. But I don't and I won't.

After all, I'm sure the Democrats would have done worse. And . . . no, hey wait. I'm not sure of that at all. In fact, other than the supreme court justices, I'm pretty sure they would have done a lot of the same things.

Look, if you want to be an apologist for George W. and his crew, please do. We certainly don't have enough Hannitys and Limbaughs. And Fox News needs a friend. Just have the decency to remove the "Liberty" from your name before you take it any further.

I have never felt more threatened and more vulnerable in my lifetime, and I think that's true of most Americans. We have been economically raped and shed of our rights to a great degree. We have been sunk into never ending war. But hey, GWB is a Republican, so we must make allowances for his better intentions than those other guys.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm sure the Democrats would have done worse. And . . . no, hey wait. I'm not sure of that at all. In fact, other than the supreme court justices, I'm pretty sure they would have done a lot of the same things.

Look, if you want to be an apologist for George W. and his crew, please do...

Hmmm... lemme think.

I don't, but I'd like to jump in here.

As upsetting as it may be to you, there are a number of small "l" libertarians who have no trouble connecting the dots on Iraq.

Libertarians and the War: Ron Paul Doesn't Speak for All of Us

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul's debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him--even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty--to the war.

This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no." ...continued

Don't be hatin' Just sharing what others are saying.

 

[Mike Davis]

As upsetting as it may be to you, there are a number of small "l" libertarians who have no trouble connecting the dots on Iraq.

Some might say that anyone who doesn't subscribe to Dr. Paul's philosophy cannot possibly be a "small 'l' libertarian."

Brian, great discussion. I'd love to pick it up again with you over a beer. Maybe you'd like to come out and join us at Stoney's.

Please Join

the

Nevada Republican Party



For a



Primary Election Night Reception



August 12, 2008

6:00 to 9:00 pm


Stoney's Rockin Country
9151 South Las Vegas Blvd #300
Las Vegas, NV 89123

This event is free to the public. 21 and over only​

 

[BKom]

Some might say that anyone who doesn't subscribe to Dr. Paul's philosophy cannot possibly be a "small 'l' libertarian."

Brian, great discussion. I'd love to pick it up again with you over a beer. Maybe you'd like to come out and join us at Stoney's.

That would be nice, but I have a family obligation that evening.

There are certainly reasons to either stay in Iraq and "finish the job" as nebulous as that may be, or to simply leave Iraq. However, there is no reason for the political, half-assed strategy this administration has followed. Even the surge was not much of a surge, largely because we are fighting more wars and stationing troops in more places than our military can reasonably withstand.

I do not believe that all small L libertarians or libertarian-Republicans must march in lockstep with a complete anti-war mentality. And I am a big personal supporter of Israel and its concerns in the Middle East.

But if you're going to be a president who fights wars, then you either have to fight them or not fight them. This war-like no man's land is a bad compromise.

 

[maxxoccupancy]

Free State Project - New Hampshire

One of the big things we're doing with the Free State Project in New Hampshire is recruiting proliberty folks, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and others to the state to help promote liberty here.

Since there have been so many folks migrating to Nevada (especially to escape the high taxes in neighboring states), is there some similar effort going on to bring new liberty activists in to the Silver State and get them into the RLC? Is there a group that scorecards the entire State Legislature? Are you folks also recruiting new folks and getting them to run for local office?

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

One of the big things we're doing with the Free State Project in New Hampshire is recruiting proliberty folks, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and others to the state to help promote liberty here.

Since there have been so many folks migrating to Nevada (especially to escape the high taxes in neighboring states), is there some similar effort going on to bring new liberty activists in to the Silver State and get them into the RLC? Is there a group that scorecards the entire State Legislature? Are you folks also recruiting new folks and getting them to run for local office?

Join the RonPaul Meetup groups for RENO, CC, and LV... there are very experience supporters and delegates that can give you detailed information on Nevadan politicians.

The GOP has their "INNER CIRCLE" ringers, like Sue Lowden, who have done everything possible to keep out Ron Paul, Liberty/Libertarian candidates out of the Nevada's GOP party. Lowden and her conniving gang even smoked Huckabee... that's how NEOCON controlling they are in the dirty flithy Nevadan politics.

here's some links:

Forrnerly RON PAUL 2008 presidential group
http://www.meetup.com/NevadaSonsOfLiberty/

http://www.meetup.com/lpnevada/

http://republican.meetup.com/614/