Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[LibertyEagle]

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.

Tbone, there are plenty of us who are willing to work with other factions on those issues we share in common. Just please do not try to sell them to us as "liberty candidates", when they simply are not. Or, that designation will soon be as worthless as all the others.

 

[tbone717]

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.

I give Amash a pass on the legislative aspect of this. He was new for one, and he allied himself with a far left Congressman in Smith on this amendment. Perhaps, he had the right intentions but was not skilled enough in the legislative workings of the House to build a coalition large enough to pass the amendment. Perhaps next year he will propose a different amendment that can garner the support of those who opposed the 2012 NDAA.

 

[angelatc]

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.

The GOP allowed Democrats to co opt the conservative movement using the same logic, I think.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I give Amash a pass on the legislative aspect of this. He was new for one, and he allied himself with a far left Congressman in Smith on this amendment. Perhaps, he had the right intentions but was not skilled enough in the legislative workings of the House to build a coalition large enough to pass the amendment. Perhaps next year he will propose a different amendment that can garner the support of those who opposed the 2012 NADA.

I wasn't blaming him. I was explaining why I think some people, who otherwise would have voted for the amendment, did not.

 

[tbone717]

Tbone, there are plenty of us who are willing to work with other factions on those issues we share in common. Just please do not try to sell them to us as "liberty candidates", when they simply are not. Or, that designation will soon be as worthless as all the others.

It's not only my tag line, others use it as well in regards to many of these candidates. No one has exclusive right to determine who is and who isn't a liberty candidate other than their own personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide what constitutes a "liberty candidate".

If RPF wants to come up with a committee that can have a means test and candidate survey to determine who is a "liberty candidate" and who is not, then the site is free to do so.

 

[angelatc]

It's not only my tag line, others use it as well in regards to many of these candidates. No one has exclusive right to determine who is and who isn't a liberty candidate other than their own personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide what constitutes a "liberty candidate".

If RPF wants to come up with a committee that can have a means test and candidate survey to determine who is a "liberty candidate" and who is not, then the site is free to do so.

u mad?

I thought we all agreed that the constitution gave us the list of issues we screen with. Indefinite detention isn't constitutional.

 

[tbone717]

I wasn't blaming him. I was explaining why I think some people, who otherwise would have voted for the amendment, did not.

Oh i know, I was continuing the thought. The quoting here sometimes suggests otherwise.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's not only my tag line, others use it as well in regards to many of these candidates. No one has exclusive right to determine who is and who isn't a liberty candidate other than their own personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide what constitutes a "liberty candidate".

Here is a hint. If they voted for NDAA or the Patriot Act, and have not denounced their actions, they are NOT a liberty candidate. They do not pass GO and there is no reason to continue to further issues....

That doesn't mean that we can't work with them on other issues where we have agreement. But, they aren't a liberty candidate.

If RPF wants to come up with a committee that can have a means test and candidate survey to determine who is a "liberty candidate" and who is not, then the site is free to do so.

 

[tbone717]

u mad?

I thought we all agreed that the constitution gave us the list of issues we screen with. Indefinite detention isn't constitutional.

Not mad at all. If I got mad over a web forum, I would have some serious issues and need to get out of the house more LOL

Earlier I posted some info on the NDAA votes by Flake, and as I see it his vote for the 2013 bill was not a bill to establish indefinite detention as it was already law by its 2012 passage. Perhaps he felt the Goebert (sp?) amendment was sufficient in what it added to the bill. I don't know you'd have to ask him, I can only speculate.

 

[tbone717]

Here is a hint. If they voted for NDAA or the Patriot Act, and have not denounced their actions, they are NOT a liberty candidate. They do not pass GO and there is no reason to continue to further issues....

That doesn't mean that we can't work with them on other issues where we have agreement. But, they aren't a liberty candidate.

Got it.

As I said earlier, you can have your definition and others will have theirs. I support the right of organizations like this Liberty PAC to deem support for whomever they choose to support and determine that on their own. Just as I support your right to do the same.

So what about the War on Drugs? Immigration issues? The Fed Audit?

There was someone on here that stated that unless someone supported ending the fed and competing currencies and made that their top priority, they were not a liberty candidate.

We can go down this road all day long, and I am sure at the end of the day you will have a dozen or two different opinions on what the various litmus tests are.

 

[KingNothing]

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.

That's a good post!

Flake is better than almost everyone in the Senate. And that is more a critique of the Senate than a compliment to Flake. If Flake were the WORST guy in Washington, things would be looking pretty good... no? I think we should definitely back Purist, Hardcore-Libertarians when we can. In congressional elections where that is not possible, if we can elect someone who is with us far more often than his opponent, why shouldn't we do that?

 

[angelatc]

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.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What are we really talking about here? What does "adding him to the team" mean? Is the intent for us to call Flake a liberty candidate or is it to encourage us to vote for him if we live in Arizona?

Why is it so important that we call him a liberty-candidate?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Got it.

As I said earlier, you can have your definition and others will have theirs.

Then I guess anyone can arbitrarily define liberty.

 

[LibertyEagle]

edited the title ...

lol. But, isn't that too strong, Casey? He's not a liberty candidate, but he did vote on most things the same way that a liberty candidate would have. He, as opposed to most others, will oftentimes vote along with us on legislation our guys put forward.

So, I do think he will be someone that will be helpful at times.

 

[tbone717]

What are we really talking about here? What does "adding him to the team" mean? Is the intent for us to call Flake a liberty candidate or is it to encourage us to vote for him if we live in Arizona?

Why is it so important that we call him a liberty-candidate?

Frankly I don't care what people call him. My point for the majority of the thread here is that people need to be aware that there are groups out there that share the same end goals as most here do, but may go about achieving those goals in a different manner. It's Flake now, and down the road there will likely be others. So in 2014 if some group tosses some money towards Walter Jones, I am sure you will see some have a conniption over that as well since even though he was one of the few in the House to endorse Paul, he committed the unforgivable sin of voting for the Patriot Act in 2001.

 

[tbone717]

Then I guess anyone can arbitrarily define liberty.

Theoretically they can. That is why it is up to each individual to choose whom they will support financially, volunteer for, vote for, etc. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that people working for the same goal may have differences of opinions on candidates.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Perhaps, but I think he has since changed his mind about it, Tbone. That's important. At least to me.

 

[tbone717]

Perhaps, but I think he has since changed his mind about it, Tbone. That's important. At least to me.

As it is to me. But there could very well be others that see that differently.

I forget what the vote was, but a while back there were a few here calling for Amash's head IIRC.

 

[tbone717]

Ok folks. Back to work.

I think I'll write big fat check to Flake today LOL.