Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[KingNothing]

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

There definitely was, and he briefly thought about quitting because of it. It wasn't our proudest moment. Amash is as good as anyone in Congress. Ever. He's completely, 100-percent, on our side. And we almost forced him out for not being a "Liberty" candidate. Or something.

But Flake is not Amash. Flake is tolerable at best, and we cold tactically support him. Amash is an asset. He should ALWAYS have our support and financial backing. He's done more than prove himself worthy of that.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ok folks. Back to work.

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

Not at all surprised.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

I'm pretty sure Jones voted against it since and spoke out against it.

People don't 'achieve the same goals different ways' if they are voting FOR the horrible legislation we are trying to route out, however, and to say otherwise seems pretty disingenuous.

 

[sailingaway]

There definitely was, and he briefly thought about quitting because of it. It wasn't our proudest moment. Amash is as good as anyone in Congress. Ever. He's completely, 100-percent, on our side. And we almost forced him out for not being a "Liberty" candidate. Or something.

But Flake is not Amash. Flake is tolerable at best, and we cold tactically support him. Amash is an asset. He should ALWAYS have our support and financial backing. He's done more than prove himself worthy of that.

No, he isn't as good as Ron. However, he is the best in there when Ron leaves, and did NOT vote for either the Patriot Act or NDAA, note. Instead he led the most viable opposition AGAINST NDAA, which is the Smith Amash bill Flake OPPOSED. He is also a freshman and finding his feet, which Flake can't claim, Flake got WORSE when he decided to run for Senate, as if he had decided to 'play the game' imho.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

this particular pac was asking our opinion in posts here. I'm pretty sure they already know where the RLC stands, we are saying where WE stand.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Well, lets just recognize that Flake is somebody Paul, DeMint, and Lee can work with in the future. As I mentioned, he is flawed in many areas, but is right in some where just about nobody is.

He is on our side when it comes to:

Fiscal Issues(Great)
War on Drugs/Gambling
Sanctions
Foreign Aid
National sovereignty

He is mixed when it comes to war.

And while he has voted for bad civil liberties legislation, he has also added some good amendments to those bills.

Again, I will emphasize that nobody needs to give him money. He has the race locked up. Put in the future, just recognize that he will be helpful in the Senate.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm with you on that, Georgia.

 

[gerryb]

So who exactly are you all working for and supporting?

We don't have Liberty candidates because we are a non-factor in fund-raising and on the ground game.

Get active and then we will have "pure" liberty candidates. Until then, quit yer bitchin' and support the best we have available.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, lets just recognize that Flake is somebody Paul, DeMint, and Lee can work with in the future. As I mentioned, he is flawed in many areas, but is right in some where just about nobody is.

He is on our side when it comes to:

Fiscal Issues(Great)
War on Drugs/Gambling
Sanctions
Foreign Aid
National sovereignty

He is mixed when it comes to war.

And while he has voted for bad civil liberties legislation, he has also added some good amendments to those bills.

Again, I will emphasize that nobody needs to give him money. He has the race locked up. Put in the future, just recognize that he will be helpful in the Senate.

I think the surprise here is how much a PAC funded by a Ron Paul supporter is giving. I wonder if the donor knew his voting record.

I agree that Flake will be a sure vote on fiscal issues, at least where the military isn't involved. It is just that calling him a liberty candidate is like calling Boxer one because she DID stand against NDAA. One issue does not a liberty candidate make, and I really do see NDAA as such a blatant violation of their oath of office, they seem not to care about the Constitution when they voted for it.

 

[tbone717]

I'm pretty sure Jones voted against it since and spoke out against it.

People don't 'achieve the same goals different ways' if they are voting FOR the horrible legislation we are trying to route out, however, and to say otherwise seems pretty disingenuous.

Read my post 123 for the context of that statement.

To summarize I said there are two schools of thought here. One is the purists who have their personal litmus tests, and then there are those who are comfortable with building coalitions.

If I understand you correctly, you have your litmus tests as to who is and who is not worthy of support. I, on the other hand, recognize the value in building coalitions with folks like Flake.

Nothing I say is going to change your mind, and nothing you say is going to change mine. I will continue to support, volunteer for and vote for candidates that I believe share the same overall principles that I hold to, and recognize that there can be issues where I might depart from them. As I have said many times, I am happy with someone who will vote the way I would personally vote 90% of the time or more. Those folks get my money and my support. That doesn't mean that I am going to send a $2500 check to anyone who is the least bit conservative, but I do support a much broader field of candidates than you do.

I respect your viewpoint and your methodology and believe that you have every right to act in the way you choose to act. Whether or not you respect my viewpoint and those whom are similar to me - well, I'll leave that for you to comment on.

 

[sailingaway]

I disagree on your schools of thought as well. I think a basic minimum is not a 'purity test' it is having the term mean anything at all.

 

[jmdrake]

fiscally conservative isn't a liberty candidate in itself, and I see nothing else to recommend him.

It is each person's own decision, but I think where we NEED funding is where the arbitrary left/right paradigm misses, where you have candidates that are BOTH fiscally conservative AND oppose the police state, for example, giving them no 'lobbiest base'. Those people are speaking for me, at least. Not those wholly on the partisan right or the partisan left.

If we spend our resources on run of the mill Club for Growth candidates, we will lose the ability to get actual liberty candidates elected. And candidates will have little incentive to BE actual liberty candidates.

+rep! If we're going to start supporting folks just on the idea that they agree with us on some things, then why not have a Dennis Kucinich moneybomb?

 

[cajuncocoa]

So who exactly are you all working for and supporting?

We don't have Liberty candidates because we are a non-factor in fund-raising and on the ground game.

Get active and then we will have "pure" liberty candidates. Until then, quit yer bitchin' and support the best we have available.

If someone like Flake is "the best we have available", I won't. I don't have to support anyone, and I certainly won't support someone who gifted us with the Patriot Act. And when an RPF member tries to pass such a candidate off as a "friend of liberty", I'm going to keep "bitching".

 

[sailingaway]

So who exactly are you all working for and supporting?

We don't have Liberty candidates because we are a non-factor in fund-raising and on the ground game.

Get active and then we will have "pure" liberty candidates. Until then, quit yer bitchin' and support the best we have available.

I think we have fundraising and ground game when we have inspiring liberty candidates. We are KNOWN FOR our fundraising and ground game....

Look at Ron Paul.

If we work just as hard for people who are working for someone else's principles and voting against ours, they will think it is just fine to do that, imho.

 

[tbone717]

I disagree on your schools of thought as well. I think a basic minimum is not a 'purity test' it is having the term mean anything at all.

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Private organizations like this "Liberty PAC" have a right to support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney if they choose. And under the first amendment they have a right to call that person a "liberty candidate". And?

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

None of those issues represents nearly as bad of an assault on the U.S. constitution as does the NDAA. And yes that includes the Fed. As horrible as the Fed is, its existence isn't expressly precluded by the constitution. What it does is another matter altogether.

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.

If you want to donate to or campaign for someone who's gone against one of the most basic of all constitutional rights, that's on you.

 

[sailingaway]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

I do disagree with Rand on several things. Endorsing Romney while his father's delegates are still working to nominate his father at RNC is another.

But DeMint I believe voted AGAINST the Patriot Act the last time it was up. You keep raising votes of people who have proven they have changed their minds by votes in the other direction. I KNOW he voted against NDAA.

Also, while I think De MInt is better than most in the Senate, I'm not sure I'd call him one of us. We can work together on a lot of things, though.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

As far as the Liberty For All PAC money infusion, somebody mentioned that it may have been earmarked for Flake.

I just don't see the point of putting anymore money into the race. Flake will crush Cardon in the primary, and will assuredly win the general. Furthermore, there is already a lot of money in this race.

 

[jmdrake]

Well it doesn't seem that Rand holds to that, since he mentions his alliance with DeMint (who voted for the Patriot Act in 2006) in darn near every email communication he sends out.

Do you agree with cajuncocoa that we should "shun" these folks? Because both Ron Paul and Flake are members of the House Liberty Caucus and from the way I understand it that group regularly meets for lunch to discuss policy. That wouldn't constitute shunning in my mind.

Ron Paul has had alliances with Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank and others. He gave a joint third party endorsement to and Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader along with Chuck Baldwin. (He later exclusively endorsed Baldwin, but only because Bob Barr was being a jackass in demanding that Dr. Paul endorse a single candidate and hoping to bully Dr. Paul into endorsing him. The joke ended up on Barr.) I'm pretty sure you don't consider Kucinich, Frank, McKinney or Nader "liberty candidates"? Anyhow, Rand endorsed Romney, so an alliance with Rand does not a liberty politician make.

 

[jmdrake]

I think the surprise here is how much a PAC funded by a Ron Paul supporter is giving. I wonder if the donor knew his voting record.

Is the PAC in question the one funded in part by Peter Thiel?