Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[tsai3904]

Wow, then I was wrong about De Mint and I revise my opinion accordingly. I considered him a Constitutionalist of a more national security sort, and vague on sovereignty issues in trade. I am very sorry to learn I was wrong about the NDAA vote. I will have to look into that. I saw somewhere that he had voted against it.

Hold on...

The link that tbone and I shared was for final passage of the Senate bill for NDAA FY12. The Senate bill did not become law.

It went into conference and DeMint voted against the Conference Report, which was the very last act before the bill became law.

Here's the roll call vote on the Conference Report:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

No wonder so many people don't follow politics...it's so hard to follow exactly what goes on.

So DeMint voted for final passage of the Senate version of NDAA but voted against the Conference Report.

 

[sailingaway]

Hold on...

The link that tbone and I shared was for final passage of the Senate bill for NDAA FY12. The Senate bill did not become law.

It went into conference and DeMint voted against the Conference Report, which was the very last act before the bill became law.

Here's the roll call vote on the Conference Report:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

No wonder so many people don't follow politics...it's so hard to follow exactly what goes on.

So DeMint voted for final passage of the Senate version of NDAA but voted against the Conference Report.

Yea!

I will look at it for when NDAA was added etc, but if he voted against the Conference report, he voted against it before it became law.

My feeling about De Mint is that he tries to do the right thing, by his lights. I would be very sorry to think otherwise.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Wow, then I was wrong about De Mint and I revise my opinion accordingly. I considered him a Constitutionalist of a more national security sort, and vague on sovereignty issues in trade. I am very sorry to learn I was wrong about the NDAA vote. I will have to look into that. I saw somewhere that he had voted against it. Of maybe he voted for Rand's amendment to remove the one section first and then when it failed voted for it. I have to look into it, but I absolutely believe what I said, that no one who voted for that (or in Flake's case, against the amendment by Smith-Amash which would have removed it) can say they are true to their oath of office.

See? I do change my mind when I get new facts. You haven't changed my mind on Flake, but you have given me more serious doubts about De Mint.

--
edit, however, as I said to begin with, I did NOT consider De Mint a liberty candidate, I just considered him better on several issues than most.

DeMint voted against the final version: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...fm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230#position

I strongly support DeMint. He recently worked to halt two U.N. treaties.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...lities-treaty-as-home-school-opposition-grows
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/16/demint-says-law-sea-treaty-now-dead/

 

[tbone717]

I see what you are saying, Tbone, and that is true. However, there is a basic line that most of us here can agree that no one on the left of it, can in any way shape or form, call themselves a liberty candidate. I think it is fair to say that line is the Patriot Act and the NDDA. With the exception that they might be somewhat excused if they have since denounced it. Beyond that, yes, there will be disagreement. But, I don't understand how you can stand there claiming that someone is a liberty candidate who doesn't at least pass this most basic of constitutional tests.

But I am not the sole person calling someone a liberty candidate, friend of liberty, liberty republican or whatever adjective you want to give to someone. It is a myriad of other organizations, PACs, etc that are identifying candidates as liberty candidates. If RPF wants to have their own definition then that is fine as well.

And BTW, I don't think I ever referred to Flake as being a liberty candidate, but that other groups do consider him one and I am fine with that. It's been a lot of typing today, and I am doing this in between sales calls, so I cannot recall everything that was posted.

But yes, I consider Flake to be a libertarian-conservative. Is he right on every issue? No. But, I don't have anyone I agree with 100%. 90% is good enough for me, provided the embrace the same overall principles that I hold to. And I don't fault someone for votes they have made along the way because I realize in some cases they can give a sound reason for their vote.

Like DeMint, why did he vote for the NDAA 2012 Senate bill, but they against the conference report? I don't know, nor do I have the time to research it all. But I am not going to cast him aside because of it. His record throughout his career is good enough for me to know that he is one of the good guys, and if he ran for the nomination I would be happy to back him (provided there wasn't someone else in the race that I preferred)

 

[tbone717]

Yea!

I will look at it for when NDAA was added etc, but if he voted against the Conference report, he voted against it before it became law.

My feeling about De Mint is that he tries to do the right thing, by his lights. I would be very sorry to think otherwise.

It's hard to find all of it after the session expires. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[AJ Antimony]

I think it's all about building coalitions. But I am afraid ( and I hope I am wrong ) that the new power brokers are using us (Rand, Liberty PAC, etc) to build their movement instead of us using them for that purpose.

What are you talking about? What power brokers? Arizona Republicans are running a US Senate candidate, Jeff Flake. Arizona Ron Paul Republicans aren't even running a Senate candidate! Why would they waste their time 'using us' when we can't even run our own candidates?

 

[sailingaway]

But I am not the sole person calling someone a liberty candidate, friend of liberty, liberty republican or whatever adjective you want to give to someone. It is a myriad of other organizations, PACs, etc that are identifying candidates as liberty candidates. If RPF wants to have their own definition then that is fine as well.

Yeah, but our folks shouldn't think when RLC says someone is a liberty candidate that they mean the same thing we do, then. I do wonder if this PAC would have given this money, given that they specifically sought our input, if we had posted this when they asked about candidates. I just didn't see Flake raised at that time, and admittedly did not track their site.

I can't imagine a 21 year old Texas College student Ron Paul supporter getting excited about someone who voted against removing indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, and FOR making the Patriot Act provisions permanent.

That RLC and others may have much looser requirements for what they term a 'liberty candidate' than most Ron Paul supporters (to the point that some chapters of RLC even endorsed other candidates OVER Ron Paul) is just something our people need to keep in mind. It is why 'liberty candidate' might not be a useful term without a specific list of key votes, including the Smith Amash amendment and Patriot Act.

 

[tbone717]

Yeah, but our folks shouldn't think when RLC says someone is a liberty candidate that they mean the same thing we do, then. I do wonder if this PAC would have given this money, given that they specifically sought our input, if we had posted this when they asked about candidates. I just didn't see Flake raised at that time, and admittedly did not track their site.

I can't imagine a 21 year old Texas College student Ron Paul supporter getting excited about someone who voted against removing indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, and FOR making the Patriot Act provisions permanent.

That RLC and others may have much looser requirements for what they term a 'liberty candidate' than most Ron Paul supporters (to the point that some chapters of RLC even endorsed other candidates OVER Ron Paul) is just something our people need to keep in mind. It is why 'liberty candidate' might not be a useful term without a specific list of key votes, including the Smith Amash amendment and Patriot Act.

As I understand the process, candidates approach the RLC for their endorsement - not the other way around. So Karen K, Kerry B, Massie, Rand, Amash, Cruz, Bills, Gunny, etc all went to the RLC, filled out their candidate questionnaire and submitted it for approval. And if I understand it correctly, they all open up their checkbook and pay the membership dues as well. So obviously all these folks that RPF have supported see some value in the organization, otherwise why would they spend the time and money to affiliate with it?

BTW here is the survey the federal candidates complete

http://www.rlc.org/rlc-federal-candidate-survey/

 

[AJ Antimony]

Then I guess anyone can arbitrarily define liberty.

They can on an internet message board that encourages free thought and debate..

 

[KingNothing]

What are you talking about? What power brokers? Arizona Republicans are running a US Senate candidate, Jeff Flake. Arizona Ron Paul Republicans aren't even running a Senate candidate! Why would they waste their time 'using us' when we can't even run our own candidates?

Excellent post, my friend!

 

[sailingaway]

As I understand the process, candidates approach the RLC for their endorsement - not the other way around. So Karen K, Kerry B, Massie, Rand, Amash, Cruz, Bills, Gunny, etc all went to the RLC, filled out their candidate questionnaire and submitted it for approval. And if I understand it correctly, they all open up their checkbook and pay the membership dues as well. So obviously all these folks that RPF have supported see some value in the organization, otherwise why would they spend the time and money to affiliate with it?

BTW here is the survey the federal candidates complete

http://www.rlc.org/rlc-federal-candidate-survey/

We want our candidates endorsed by groups, generally. We would like them endorsed by Club for Growth, so long as they don't change their principles to get it. That doesn't make the OTHER candidates endorsed by those organizations the same as ours.

We were glad when Palin endorsed Rand. That doesn't mean we were planning to vote for Fiorini. (Although, actually, I guess I may have, in voting AGAINST Feinstein. But I never considered her a liberty candidate.)

Others who endorse, including RLC may overlap with us without being us or having our concerns as their criterion.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-cruz-would-bring-conservative-muscle-to-senate/article/2503393

Despite some of his questionable votes, I'm starting to think that a Flake victory would be very helpful to our movement. Flake is far from perfect, but it seems like he will consistently vote with the Rand block if elected. Also, Flake's opponent Wil Cardon does not seem friendly to Liberty in any way, shape, or form.

I'm starting to understand why the Liberty For All PAC is helping him out with that massive ad buy. We could potentially have a friendly ally in the senate for the next 20-30 years.

Thoughts?

There is only one movement with that being the American Movement. All other movements, whether friend or foe, are false. The one true American Movement can never be altered from returning the American people to the revering of our Founding Fathers, to the independence they declared seperating us from tyranny, and to the Civil-Purpose they established for us with it being based on a sound natural law.

 

[KingNothing]

I think Flake's race is a bit different than a standard Presidential race. In a presidential race, it literally does not matter who you vote for. No matter who wins, we'll be saddled with someone who will increase the national debt, support the expansion of government, have a hostile foreign policy, shred civil liberties, and endorse the Federal Reserve. Flake isn't perfect, sure. But is his opponent? One of those two will win. Will either work to end the Fed? Will either support a repeal of the Patriot Act & NDAA? Will either be an anti-war crusader? No on all accounts, correct? At the very least, Flake will try to lessen the debt. Given the choice between that, and someone who is wrong on all fronts, why not take that?


Further, it would certainly be better to have Republicans control the Senate if Obama is in the White House (which he almost certainly will be.) At least then we can hope to have partisan bickering slow down the growth of the state.

 

[tbone717]

We want our candidates endorsed by groups, generally. We would like them endorsed by Club for Growth, so long as they don't change their principles to get it. That doesn't make the OTHER candidates endorsed by those organizations the same as ours.

We were glad when Palin endorsed Rand. That doesn't mean we were planning to vote for Fiorini. (Although, actually, I guess I may have, in voting AGAINST Feinstein. But I never considered her a liberty candidate.)

Others who endorse, including RLC may overlap with us without being us or having our concerns as their criterion.

Ok I get that, but who is this "we", "us" and "our". This is a forum not a PAC or organization. If you want a closed forum, with strict criteria on who is endorsed and who is not then you can do that - but if you want an open forum for discussion and debate you are going to have varying opinions.

 

[sailingaway]

I think Flake's race is a bit different than a standard Presidential race. In a presidential race, it literally does not matter who you vote for. No matter who wins, we'll be saddled with someone who will increase the national debt, support the expansion of government, have a hostile foreign policy, shred civil liberties, and endorse the Federal Reserve. Flake isn't perfect, sure. But is his opponent? One of those two will win. Will either work to end the Fed? Will either support a repeal of the Patriot Act & NDAA? Will either be an anti-war crusader? No on all accounts, correct? At the very least, Flake will try to lessen the debt. Given the choice between that, and someone who is wrong on all fronts, why not take that?


Further, it would certainly be better to have Republicans control the Senate if Obama is in the White House (which he almost certainly will be.) At least then we can hope to have partisan bickering slow down the growth of the state.

I think most are saying Flake is better than his opponent for voting purposes, it was the 'liberty candidate/ liberty movement' tag that was being disavowed.

 

[sailingaway]

Ok I get that, but who is this "we", "us" and "our". This is a forum not a PAC or organization. If you want a closed forum, with strict criteria on who is endorsed and who is not then you can do that - but if you want an open forum for discussion and debate you are going to have varying opinions.

Yes, and we should make it clear which candidates would /did support NDAA etc so people can know what definitions we are using. 'Liberty candidate' is clearly too vague.

 

[tsai3904]

I think most are saying Flake is better than his opponent for voting purposes, it was the 'liberty candidate/ liberty movement' tag that was being disavowed.

Yea, this whole discussion boils down to defining the term "liberty candidate/movement".

 

[cajuncocoa]

Instead of worrying about who makes the perfect liberty candidate, maybe we should focus solely on getting liberty ISSUES passed (and, of course, oppose anti-liberty issues). That way, it doesn't matter whether a candidate is 5% with us or 95% with us. What matters is whether the legislation gets passed or not.

 

[sailingaway]

Instead of worrying about who makes the perfect liberty candidate, maybe we should go us solely on getting liberty ISSUES passed (and, of course, oppose anti-liberty issues). That way, it doesn't matter whether a candidate is 5% with us or 95% with us. What matters is whether the legislation gets passed or not.

that is a different branch of the tree, and something we absolutely need to focus on, as with Audit the Fed. But when it comes to asking for funding for CANDIDATES as liberty candidates, it would be useful to either have a definition we agree on, or at least a set of issues where we specify their position and reason we have for believing they are sincere.

 

[tbone717]

Yes, and we should make it clear which candidates would /did support NDAA etc so people can know what definitions we are using. 'Liberty candidate' is clearly too vague.

And again with Flake regarding NDAA he did vote against the 2012 bill that established indefinite detention. It was the 2013 bill (after indefinite detention was already signed into law) that he voted for. And while he did vote against the Smith Amash Amendement, there were provisions in that amendment that went over and above the mere reversal of the indefinite detention clauses.