Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

The only masses that really matter are voters. Voters vote for Jeff Flake. They don't vote for Ron Paul.

Hooray for mediocrity!

 

[NoOneButPaul]

None of the others excite that interest because they DON'T have Paul's record. I don't see how what you say refutes anything I said. People heard him and looked at his record and were energized. Others without that record can mouth the words and it is meaningless.

Yea just like Obama... oh wait...

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Hooray for mediocrity!

Justin Amash voted for unlimited foreign aid to Israel, guess that means he doesn't meet the standard?

Ron has endorsed (even in this year) some incredibly questionable people so clearly he doesn't hold the same ridiculously insane standard that the elites here on 1 internet forum do...

Seriously, Flake BEAT OUT Ron Paul in the 2010 Liberty Index but he's not GOOD ENOUGH?

Who the hell is GOOD ENOUGH? Amash and his unlimited foreign aid?

Let me tell you... when the Massies, Bentivolios, and Karens of the world win they are going to do 1-2 things people don't like. The idea we'll kick them all to the curb becasue of it is fucking stupid. It's no different now with Flake.

The idea we'd just sit aside and let his opponent win because Flake isn't Ron Paul reincarnated is just so fucking short sighted and stupid I can't even begin to describe... it's like arguing with brick walls. No matter what we say no one is good enough for you people.

You'd all be better off just leaving politics all together and stop wasting your time because these types of ridiculous standards will not even allow this movement to get off of the ground so no matter how much work you think you're putting in it's all going to nothing.

This type of purity is simply madness and should only be rearing it's head when we have 300Reps and 50 Senators, not 5Reps and 2 Senators. This insane standard, set by a handful of keyboard warriors on 1 forum with 42k in members and only about 1k in active members doesn't have the right to dictate who is pure and who isn't. This forum isn't even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the movement itself. The idea they can sit behind their keyboards, be so picky, and dictate to the entire movement who is good and bad is just fucking abhorrent to me.

This movement started decades before a lot of us were born, you and I didn't start it and we certainly aren't doing any good here typing away. The real leaders of this are out actually doing something and don't need the internet nonsense coming from the good lot of you about how we can't allow anyone who isn't Ron Paul to be in office.

When we control the GOP, House, Senate, and POTUS we can hold the world to such a standard, until then can we really have no right to be holding anyone to these bullshit standards when these people are already treated like terrorists by all their fellow colleagues.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Seriously, Flake BEAT OUT Ron Paul in the 2010 Liberty Index but he's not GOOD ENOUGH?

Flake supporters keep mentioning this even though it has repeatedly been stated that the Liberty Index does not include civil liberties. So no, not good enough.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What masses are we talking about exactly? The only masses that really matter are voters. Voters vote for Jeff Flake. They don't vote for Ron Paul.

They also vote for Obama.

Your point?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Seriously, Flake BEAT OUT Ron Paul in the 2010 Liberty Index but he's not GOOD ENOUGH?

Would you please provide a link to this "Liberty Index"? I would like to see for myself the criteria used to bring the result that you claim here.

 

[cajuncocoa]

This type of purity is simply madness and should only be rearing it's head when we have 300Reps and 50 Senators, not 5Reps and 2 Senators. This insane standard, set by a handful of keyboard warriors on 1 forum with 42k in members and only about 1k in active members doesn't have the right to dictate who is pure and who isn't. This forum isn't even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the movement itself. The idea they can sit behind their keyboards, be so picky, and dictate to the entire movement who is good and bad is just fucking abhorrent to me.

You're damned right I'm picky. I'm very picky when it comes to standing for the Constitution and our ever-dwindling civil liberties. You know what's abhorrent to me? Expecting Liberty activists to support a man who voted for the PATRIOT Act and NDAA. That's insane to me.

I'm not "dictating" anything to anyone, but I will certainly speak my mind when I see this Liberty movement going off the rails. If you don't want to listen, put me on ignore because I'm not going to stop saying it.

I hope you're right when you say this board is only a fraction of the movement, and I sure as hell hope it's not representative of the whole movement, because lately there are some here who sound more like members of Free Republic than members of the Ron Paul Forum.

 

[AJ Antimony]

They also vote for Obama.

Your point?

The discussion was about "exciting the masses" and that someone like Flake doesn't have the voting record to "excite the masses." It seems like this person I was replying to defined "masses" as "strictly Ron Paul supporters." So I translated his statement as "Flake will never have the record to excite Ron Paul supporters."

So my point is that excited Ron Paul supporters don't seem to win elections. Typical voters win elections. So we need candidates who particularly excite typical voters. That doesn't mean we need typical candidates. We can have 100% pure candidates, but they can't exist to please Ron Paul supporters. They need to exist to please actual voters.

 

[KingNothing]

because insulting is always good?

No, because this turned into an emo-music whinefest.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The discussion was about "exciting the masses" and that someone like Flake doesn't have the voting record to "excite the masses." It seems like this person I was replying to defined "masses" as "strictly Ron Paul supporters." So I translated his statement as "Flake will never have the record to excite Ron Paul supporters."

So my point is that excited Ron Paul supporters don't seem to win elections. Typical voters win elections. So we need candidates who particularly excite typical voters. That doesn't mean we need typical candidates. We can have 100% pure candidates, but they can't exist to please Ron Paul supporters. They need to exist to please actual voters.

I agree that our candidates have to appeal to the voting public, or we will not be successful at winning elections. But, I think that has more to do with framing the message in terms that resonate with them and knowing the best issues to lead with for the audience you are addressing. That is very different though, than satisficing for a candidate that is so very inherently wrong on the most basic of constitutional principles. Because if we win doing that, what have we really won?

Keep in mind that I am not a purist and I more than likely would have voted for Flake if I lived in his state. But, I will not promote him as a liberty candidate, because of his stance on NDAA and the Patriot Act. How on earth can anyone in their right mind refer to someone as a "liberty candidate" when that person believes it is alright for Americans to be eavesdropped on, and/or arrested and thrown in a prison camp without no due process whatsoever?

 

[KingNothing]

So Flake is exponentially better than his opponent, and much worse than Ron Paul. 356 posts later, that's the consensus opinion. Right?

The action seems pretty clear here -- vote for him if you have the chance. Send money to him if you've got it and have done your duty in sending it to our "perfect" candidates first, cross your fingers and hope that Flake comes to Jesus and becomes a Libertarian rather than a Conservative.

We're very clearly better off with Flake holding that seat than we are with most other electable politicians, particularly Wil Cardon. We're not working to anoint him Pope, or The Next Ron Paul, we're just making the best out of an imperfect situation. So... why the hand-wringing?

 

[tbone717]

Keep in mind that I am not a purist and I more than likely would have voted for Flake if I lived in his state. But, I will not promote him as a liberty candidate, because of his stance on NDAA and the Patriot Act. How on earth can anyone in their right mind refer to someone as a "liberty candidate" when that person believes it is alright for Americans to be eavesdropped on, and/or arrested and thrown in a prison camp without no due process whatsoever?

Back to Flake...(I am not clarifying for you, but for the thread as a whole)

On NDAA: He did not vote for the NDAA 2012. He did vote for NDAA 2013, but also voted for the Gohmert Amendment which "clarifies that the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not deny the writ of habeas corpus or deny any Constitutional rights for persons detained in the United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.". So the 2013 bill does not allow for American citizens to be arrested and thrown in a prison camp with no due process whatsoever.

On the Patriot Act: Yes he voted for it in 2001. Every Republican did with the exception of Ron Paul, Bob Ney and Butch Otter (neither Ney or Otter are currently in the House). But in 2005, Flake chaired the Patriot Act Reform Caucus. The other members of this caucus included Tom Udall, Bernie Sanders, Jerrold Nadler, and (wait for it) Ron Paul. Hardly a neo-con think tank with that group. Two Republicans are on a caucus to address the Patriot Act - Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. In 2005 Flake proposed four amendments to the Patriot Act. "Two of his amendments were signed into law and they subjected any National Security Letter and its gag order to a judicial challenge by the recipient, and narrowed the scope of "Sneak and Peek" warrants to have definite time limits on their duration and extensions before they need to notify the target of the investigation" (wikipedia). Flake voted for the 2005 Patriot Act bill. Coincidentally so did Bob Ney. Perhaps both felth the amendments added to the bill addressed an of the specific issues they felt needed to be reformed. I don't know, you'd have to ask them. Of course Bob Ney is in jail, but I digress.

I think sometimes, we get caught up in the spin & rhetoric that comes from our side. People automatically think NDAA is bad. I saw someone (I think in here) state that we shouldn't even have an NDAA bill. Obviously they had no idea that we have one every year because it is the defense budget. Sure the 2012 bill was bad, and Flake & Paul voted against it, among others. The 2013 Bill (which still has yet to be voted in the Senate) was improved, and had the "habeus corpus" provisions in there that were necessary. What would be telling is if the final conference report removes that language would Flake vote for the conference report? And regarding the Patriot Act, while I think we need to get rid of the whole thing, there are many intelligent reasoned people that think some of the arguments that our side makes (ie. Americans are going to be spied on, they are looking at your library cards, etc) are baseless. Here is what Flake had to say about the Patriot Act in 2005:

"Some of the most contentious fights in Congress come when the federal government must balance two responsibilities that can conflict each other, such as preserving civil liberties and effectively fighting domestic terrorism. The process that has created this bill exemplifies the way Congress ought to work. Debate was thorough and the process was fair, and I believe that it has created a bill that makes the country safer while protecting civil liberties.”

So while some might disagree with his vote, I believe that he has demonstrated a concern for civil liberties based on his words and actions. Is he perfect? No. Is he the next libertarian hero? No. But when you look at the entirety of his career, and the particular concern he has had concerning both the NDAA and the Patriot Act. I think that he will be a fine addition to the Senate and will without a doubt in my mind be an asset for the Liberty Movement as a whole.

 

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Better get Kurt Bills elected when it comes to the Senate than anyone else. We should focus our efforts precisely on that.

 

[tbone717]

Better get Kurt Bills elected when it comes to the Senate than anyone else. We should focus our efforts precisely on that.

I like Bills a lot. But have you looked at the money aspects of that race?

It might be a good idea, if a few of us put our heads together, took a look at some races across the country and assessed the financial needs along with the chances of winning the race.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I think sometimes, we get caught up in the spin & rhetoric that comes from our side. People automatically think NDAA is bad.

Wow. Just .... wow.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Let's remember how the neocons really took over the GOP. Realizing the affinity Evangelical Christians have for Israel, they knew they could get this voting bloc under their tent by stirring up trouble in the Middle East and putting Israel ahead of even our own country's best interests.


But Evangelical Christians had certain principles on which they would not compromise, and they would not give their vote to any candidate who didn't meet the criteria. One of those principles was their strong and unwavering pro-life stance. Any politician who wanted their vote had to declare his or her determination to overturn Roe V. Wade. Naturally, they promised it, but of course they didn't mean it. And in spite of over 25-30 years of neocon insurgence in the GOP, Roe v. Wade is still the law.

After 9/11, the paradigm shifted from a pro-life priority to a national security priority.


It could be said that neocons used Evangelical Christians to further their warmongering instincts.

Let's not let that happen to us.


There must be some issues upon which we will not compromise. Do we want the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, and ObamaCare "reformed" or do we want them GONE? Do we want our candidates to pledge they will strictly follow the Constitution, and will we vow to campaign against them and vote them out the minute they waver? Do we want them to only endorse other candidates that meet these same criteria (Rick Santorum was defeated in 2006 due to his endorsement of Arlen Specter, an endorsement his base considered a betrayal).

Standing for principles upon which we will not compromise ...THAT'S how we get the next Ron Paul.

 

[tbone717]

Wow. Just .... wow.

Would be nice if you put the entire context. How many in here knew that there were two NDAA bills in question? How many knew that Flake voted against the 2012 bill before it was brought up here? Hell, I even noted in that post that someone posted that we shouldn't even have an NDAA bill until it was pointed out that we have one every year because it is the Defense Dept spending bill.

The big issue our side has with the recent NDAA bills is the indefinite detention of US citizens. The Gohmert Amendment insures that nothing in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) or the 2012 NDAA would any longer allow a President, executive branch agent or the judiciary to treat a person lawfully in the United States with any less than all of his or her rights possessed before the 2001 AUMF and the NDAA that amended it.

How many of you have even taken the time to read either the Gohmert or the Smith Amendments?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Would be nice if you put the entire context. How many in here knew that there were two NDAA bills in question? How many knew that Flake voted against the 2012 bill before it was brought up here? Hell, I even noted in that post that someone posted that we shouldn't even have an NDAA bill until it was pointed out that we have one every year because it is the Defense Dept spending bill.

The big issue our side has with the recent NDAA bills is the indefinite detention of US citizens. The Gohmert Amendment insures that nothing in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) or the 2012 NDAA would any longer allow a President, executive branch agent or the judiciary to treat a person lawfully in the United States with any less than all of his or her rights possessed before the 2001 AUMF and the NDAA that amended it.

How many of you have even taken the time to read either the Gohmert or the Smith Amendments?

Why are you still making excuses for this? Why?

 

[tbone717]

Do we want the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, and ObamaCare "reformed" or do we want them GONE?

Look I respect your opnions, but here is where you show that you are making no sense. NDAA is a spending bill, it is put up every year because NDAA dictates the defense department spending. There is a 2013 NDAA currently moving through the House, there was a 2012 NDAA, there was a 1999 NDAA. We don't want NDAA gone - that makes no sense whatsoever. What we had issue was, was with the 2012 NDAA which gave the federal govt the ability to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial. That language was fixed in the 2013 bill, and done so without granting foreign soldiers additional rights that they previously did not have - and when I say previously I mean long before 9/11.

 

[tbone717]

Why are you still making excuses for this? Why?

Because I read, I think, and I base my opinions on the information that I gather. I was opposed to the 2012 NDAA not because I read on some web forum that I should oppose it - I opposed it because I read the summary of the bill, and when I found an issue in it that I did not agree with, I went further and read the full text of the section where I took issue.

I am not making excuses, I am reading the bills and amendments and basing my opinions on the information that is gathered.

If your issue with the NDAA bill was the indefinite detention of American citizens, then read the Goehmert Amendment and see if it addresses that issue

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:16:./temp/~bdiUdu::|/bss/|