Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You'd be happy to know that nobody in this thread, or probably ever on these forums, has ever called Flake a "champion of liberty." This isn't Jeff Flake Forums, this is Ron Paul Forums, every registered user knows who the actual champion is.

Then why is there a thread titled, "A Jeff Flake Victory will help the Liberty Movement"?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Oh, he thinks he will vote for some of our causes. And he may.

 

[tbone717]

Then why is there a thread titled, "A Jeff Flake Victory will help the Liberty Movement"?

Because if Rand was somehow able to propose 100 pieces of legislation in the Senate over a period of time, Flake would be supportive of the large majority of them. Look at Ron Paul's main issues: abortion, healthcare, the economy, national defense, the fed, taxes, 2nd amendment, worker's rights, immigration, homeschooling and energy. On the overwhelming majority of those issues Flake takes the same or a similar position to Paul based on his track record. Conversely, there are a lot of establishment Republican candidates that would oppose a lot of the positions that the libertarian-conservative wing would propose.

As a House member, Flake has a pretty damn good record. Was it perfect? No, and neither was Ron Paul's in my mind. No one is perfect. And as AJ stated, it is up to everyone individually to decide who they are going to send some cash to. My point was that the people here at RPF should not be surprised when other pro-liberty groups will send some cash to a guy like Flake. Some of you in here have acted like they sent 300 grand to Orrin Hatch.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Some of Flake's good votes:

Some of Flake's bad votes:

For PATRIOT Act
For creating TSA
For Iraq War
Against Smith-Amash amendment

he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

^^^THIS^^^ is all I need to know about the guy. Whatever good votes he may have under his belt, the bad ones outweigh.

 

[tbone717]

I'm done in here for today. Far too much work to do to keep going over this subject, but I will say this. If you look around these forums, you can very easily find people questioning the "purity" of Rand, Amash, Cruz and damn near every other major candidate that is up for election this year. RPF is quickly becoming the virtual version of a LP meeting with 5 guys sitting around the table at Denny's talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If folks here want to see this site grow and continue to have some influence, people are going to need to come to grips with the fact that there are tons of people out there that share the same vision and goals as you do, but do have some differences of opinion. You can either welcome them, or you can continue to denigrate them.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Some of Flake's good votes:

Against No Child Left Behind (34 Rs voted no)
Against Sarbanes-Oxley (only R besides Ron to vote no)
Against creating Dept of Homeland Security (10 Rs voted no)
Against Medicare Part D (19 Rs voted no)
Against making online poker illegal (17 Rs voted no)
Against raising minimum wage
Against Bush's stimulus (28 Rs voted no)
Against extending unemployment insurance (28 Rs voted no)
Against funding Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan (12 Rs voted no)
For repeal of DADT (15 Rs voted yes)
Against reauthorizing Export-Import Bank

Some of Flake's bad votes:

For PATRIOT Act
For creating TSA
For Iraq War
Against Smith-Amash amendment

he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

I'm done in here for today. Far too much work to do to keep going over this subject, but I will say this. If you look around these forums, you can very easily find people questioning the "purity" of Rand, Amash, Cruz and damn near every other major candidate that is up for election this year. RPF is quickly becoming the virtual version of a LP meeting with 5 guys sitting around the table at Denny's talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If folks here want to see this site grow and continue to have some influence, people are going to need to come to grips with the fact that there are tons of people out there that share the same vision and goals as you do, but do have some differences of opinion. You can either welcome them, or you can continue to denigrate them.

You can get your shorts in a knot over this if you want, but I won't support a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the NDAA, and created TSA. For me, those are deal-breakers for any candidate, and I won't back down.

 

[tbone717]

You can get your shorts in a knot over this if you want, but I won't support a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the NDAA, and created TSA. For me, those are deal-breakers for any candidate, and I won't back down.

Ugh, this thread is sucking the life out of me.

No one is asking you to open up your purse strings and send money to Flake. You are in LA, and you can't vote for him, so it is a moot point in that regard.

The overall discussion in here has been that Flake will be a net positive for the Liberty Movement based on his record, and that because of this we should not be in shock when a liberty PAC spends their own money to support him, or a candidate similar to him.

OK it's 8am, time to make some money.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ugh, this thread is sucking the life out of me.

No one is asking you to open up your purse strings and send money to Flake. You are in LA, and you can't vote for him, so it is a moot point in that regard.

The overall discussion in here has been that Flake will be a net positive for the Liberty Movement based on his record, and that because of this we should not be in shock when a liberty PAC spends their own money to support him, or a candidate similar to him.

OK it's 8am, time to make some money.

Bye!

I think this thread is sucking the life out of the liberty revolution.

The Patriot Act, NDAA, and the creation of the TSA are all major assaults on our civil liberties. Any candidate who voted for all 3 should be shunned by true Liberty activists.

 

[KingNothing]

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?

I think that Flake is on our side more than he isn't, and that once it is even more politically favorable to side with us he will do so with increased frequency.

At this point he might not be the cure, but he isn't as much of a problem as many others in Washington.

 

[KingNothing]

he voted for NDAA and against the Smith/Amash amendment to remove indefinite detention and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. He may be fiscally more conservative than some but he is no liberty candidate imho.

He may be better than the other guy, but not to the point of 'supporting' him.

I imagine that he's more Standard Republican than Liberty Movement. To that end, if we can drum up more support for our causes and force the Republican Establishment to adopt our philosophy to stay relevant, Flake will be on our side. As Ron always says, politicians don't typically have much in the way of principles. When the voters demand something, and the politician's job is on the line, the politician listens and acts accordingly.

 

[tbone717]

Ok I have a few minutes here, so I wanted to give a little timeline and clarification on Flake's NDAA votes.

Flake voted "nay" on the 2012 NDAA which was the one that established indefinite detention. Paul also voted against that bill.

The 2013 bill is where clarification is needed. Indefinite detention provisions were already law at this point. The Smith-Amash Amendment that was offered did two things: 1) It removed the indefinite provisions from the bill that were already signed into law thus overturning that law. 2) it granted foreign enemy combatants the right to a jury trial if captured on US soil. Flake voted against the amendment. @LibertyEagle - I saw the thread on here during the vote for that. You stated at that time, that the amendment could very well have passed if the language in the bill applied to US citizens only. That is where I see the reasoning for the failure of the bill, as it granted new rights to foreign combatants. Essentially, if foreign soldiers are captured on foreign land, it's business as usual (ie the way things have been for 100 years), but if they were captured on US soil they have full Constitutional protections. In that sense, many felt the amendment went too far.

Continuing with the 2013 bill, Flake voted "yay" on the Goebert amendment which reinstated the "habeus corpus" language into NDAA. Also that year Flake and Bartlett cosponsored an amendment that "prohibits federal agencies from mandating anti-competitive and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) and using PLA preferences on federal construction contracts authorized by the NDAA". That amendment passed (Paul voted for that amendment).

As we know Flake voted for the 2013 NDAA. But the indefinite detention aspect of the bill was already law, so in that sense he did not vote to institute it (as the 2012 bill did).

Sure he could have voted against 2013 NDAA, but with the Goebert Amendment and his own, I can understand why he supported it.

In all honesty, saying that Flake voted for indefinite detention because he voted for the 2013 bill is like saying he voted for the establishment of the federal withholding tax, because he voted for a budget plan.

Again, he is not perfect, but maybe this little bit of history will clarify his reasoning for the votes.

 

[AuH20]

I'm done in here for today. Far too much work to do to keep going over this subject, but I will say this. If you look around these forums, you can very easily find people questioning the "purity" of Rand, Amash, Cruz and damn near every other major candidate that is up for election this year. RPF is quickly becoming the virtual version of a LP meeting with 5 guys sitting around the table at Denny's talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If folks here want to see this site grow and continue to have some influence, people are going to need to come to grips with the fact that there are tons of people out there that share the same vision and goals as you do, but do have some differences of opinion. You can either welcome them, or you can continue to denigrate them.

The Dennys contingent is usually prone to hyperbole & rigid standards, but in this case they have a valid point. Flake has a few very questionable votes. He's easily a tier or two below DeMint, Rand and Lee in terms of constitutional integrity.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The Dennys contingent is usually prone to hyperbole & rigid standards, but in this case they have a valid point. Flake has a few very questionable votes. He's easily a tier or two below DeMint, Rand and Lee in terms of constitutional integrity.

"Dennys contingent"...nice.

Yeah, I'm "prone to...rigid standards" when it comes to upholding the Constitution and civil liberties. In the words of the man whose name you symbolize in your own username "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

If I had my way, each and everyone of the turncoats who voted for the damned Patriot Act would have been thrown out of Congress in November 2002. It's a travesty that there is an attempt to get Liberty activists to support one of those traitors.

 

[JorgeStevenson]

I love these libertarian pissing contests.

Look, adding Flake to the team RIGHT TODAY makes our bullpen stronger. We'd have a strong ally on fiscal conservative issues. That doesn't mean we can't dump him when a better all-around player comes along, but right today he makes our roster stronger.

His flaws are glaring. They are a huge turnoff. But they are flaws that any realistic replacement right today would also have. If my option is to add a guy that is poor on fiscal conservatism AND civil liberties, or to add a guy that is only poor on civil liberties, I will choose to add the second guy while continuing to look for a guy who is poor on neither.

We aren't retiring the guy's jersey. We're just adding him to the team for a season or two until we can find somebody better. In that sense, he's an asset.

 

[cajuncocoa]

You can't really call it a "libertarian pissing contest" when there is only one libertarian involved.

But whatever, go ahead and support the PATRIOT Act-voting moron if that's what you want to do. Seriously, at some point, y'all are going to have to consider merging this board with Free Republic.

 

[sailingaway]

Ugh, this thread is sucking the life out of me.

No one is asking you to open up your purse strings and send money to Flake. You are in LA, and you can't vote for him, so it is a moot point in that regard.

The overall discussion in here has been that Flake will be a net positive for the Liberty Movement based on his record, and that because of this we should not be in shock when a liberty PAC spends their own money to support him, or a candidate similar to him.

OK it's 8am, time to make some money.

and I think a lot think that those votes are so evil, your argument fails.

 

[sailingaway]

Ok I have a few minutes here, so I wanted to give a little timeline and clarification on Flake's NDAA votes.

Flake voted "nay" on the 2012 NDAA which was the one that established indefinite detention. Paul also voted against that bill.

The 2013 bill is where clarification is needed. Indefinite detention provisions were already law at this point. The Smith-Amash Amendment that was offered did two things: 1) It removed the indefinite provisions from the bill that were already signed into law thus overturning that law. 2) it granted foreign enemy combatants the right to a jury trial if captured on US soil. Flake voted against the amendment. @LibertyEagle - I saw the thread on here during the vote for that. You stated at that time, that the amendment could very well have passed if the language in the bill applied to US citizens only. That is where I see the reasoning for the failure of the bill, as it granted new rights to foreign combatants. Essentially, if foreign soldiers are captured on foreign land, it's business as usual (ie the way things have been for 100 years), but if they were captured on US soil they have full Constitutional protections. In that sense, many felt the amendment went too far.

Continuing with the 2013 bill, Flake voted "yay" on the Goebert amendment which reinstated the "habeus corpus" language into NDAA. Also that year Flake and Bartlett cosponsored an amendment that "prohibits federal agencies from mandating anti-competitive and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) and using PLA preferences on federal construction contracts authorized by the NDAA". That amendment passed (Paul voted for that amendment).

As we know Flake voted for the 2013 NDAA. But the indefinite detention aspect of the bill was already law, so in that sense he did not vote to institute it (as the 2012 bill did).

Sure he could have voted against 2013 NDAA, but with the Goebert Amendment and his own, I can understand why he supported it.

In all honesty, saying that Flake voted for indefinite detention because he voted for the 2013 bill is like saying he voted for the establishment of the federal withholding tax, because he voted for a budget plan.

Again, he is not perfect, but maybe this little bit of history will clarify his reasoning for the votes.

He voted against Smith Amash -- keeping indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, and voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. On the scale of malum prohibitum v. malum in se, those votes are definitely malum in se, imho.

http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/2012/03/malum-in-se-malum-prohibitum.html

And my definition of a 'liberty movement candidate' would never include one who COULD vote that way. That is simply foul.

And Flake KNEW it was foul, but for whatever 'pragmatic reason' did it to the country, anyhow.

I agree with someone else that if the title of the thread had been 'Flake would be a better Senator than the other guy', this argument wouldn't have arisen so sharply, however, NDAA is possibly THE worst, most anti-Constitutional vote since allowing Japanese Americans (and German Americans) to be interred in WWII. In fact, it essentially WOULD allow that. Think about what they were saying about Japanese (and Germans), at the time.

 

[pcosmar]

and I think a lot think that those votes are so evil, your argument fails.

I signed on this board because of Ron Paul and I support him because of his long held positions and principles.

It seems that some are ready to call any "R" that gives limited lip service to some aspect,, a "liberty Candidate".

I do NOT. They are just another "R" politician till PROVEN otherwise.

And that is just more of the same as I have seen for 40 years.

 

[tbone717]

All in all when I read through this thread and others here on the site I see people who share the same ultimate goal of the restoration of liberty and a return to our founding principles, but I see two schools of though on how that can be achieved.

One group will have their own personal litmus tests for candidates, and support only those candidates that can meet their standards. For lack of a better term, I'll call them the purists. The other believes that the best method to achieving the ultimate goal is to build coalitions of like-minded officials who can work together to advance the cause. For lack of a better term I'll call them the 90% crowd.

Now being one who is of the 90% crowd, I accept that those who are purists have the right to believe what they believe. While I disagree with the path you have chosen, I accept the fact that you have a right to operate the way you do and am tolerant of your viewpoint. I get the feeling though that the purists are not tolerant of the counter view (but maybe I am incorrect in that assumption).

Nonetheless, each of us will continue down our chosen path. Time will tell which one of the two viewpoints is ultimately successful at achieving the ultimate goal.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He voted against Smith Amash -- keeping indefinite detention of American citizens without trial,

I fully understand why he did it and he was right in proposing it, but the Amendment, as I recall, also included non-citizens. That is why it sounded like a number of them dissented.

Back at the time, I remember remarking that I wish Justin would have split this into 2 separate amendments. Because I think at least the part pertaining to American citizens would have stood a far better chance of passing.