Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[AuH20]

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.

But DeMint is much better than Flake. Jim voted against NDAA and SOPA I believe. DeMint isn't weak on illegal immigration like Flake. I don't understand the rationale for lowering the bar for someone like Flake. I hope he wins but I'm not overly excited.

 

[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.

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.

I don't consider shunning to be useful in most contexts. Diluting our brand would be bad, though, it permits co-option.

As for Ron, he will TALK to ANYONE. As angelatc said in a thread some time ago 'it isn't a flaw, it is a feature'.

 

[sailingaway]

But DeMint is much better than Flake. Jim voted against NDAA and SOPA I believe. DeMint isn't weak on illegal immigration like Flake. I don't understand lowering the bar for someone like Flake.

I agree De Mint is better than Flake. I disagree with DeMint primarily on managed trade and foreign policy, off of the top of my head, and trade and foreign policy are at least true functions of the federal govt under the Constitution. Indefinitely detaining citizens without trial is forbidden.

 

[gerryb]

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.

It's a paper tiger. We did not have a ground game. In my location, we had 25 people out working polls on election day. Good, right? We're one of the more active groups. The GOP had 400 people out on the same day. We had lots of rallies of students, who are not involved past attending a speech or two and posting on facebook.

Kurt Bills is our "pure" candidate for Senate, and he has raised a measly $80,000 against $7m. My friend hosted and I volunteered at an event that raised 1/8th of that for him...

If a candidate is 80% with us, they are worthy of support.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[cajuncocoa]

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.

I don't care what Rand does at this point. He lost me when he endorsed Mittens.

 

[Kluge]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

 

[sailingaway]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

I noticed that as well. I didn't do it, if you are wondering. I did CONSIDER putting 'controversial' in it, but didn't.

 

[pcosmar]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

It's you,, and the thread title was changed slightly.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

Why is this so hard to understand? Working with someone on an issue is different than calling them one of our own. Angelatc was right when she said that this is how the conservative movement was taken over by the neocons.

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.

Again, they are not liberty candidates. It doesn't however mean we cannot work with them on issues where we share agreement. We can build alliances on those issues.

 

[tbone717]

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.

According to this roll call, DeMint voted for the 2012 NDAA the same one Flake voted against (source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218). The 2013 NDAA has not been voted yet in the Senate according to this - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN03254:@@@R

According to this roll call, DeMint did vote for the 2006 re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00025

 

[sailingaway]

It's a paper tiger. We did not have a ground game. In my location, we had 25 people out working polls on election day. Good, right? We're one of the more active groups. The GOP had 400 people out on the same day. We had lots of rallies of students, who are not involved past attending a speech or two and posting on facebook.

Kurt Bills is our "pure" candidate for Senate, and he has raised a measly $80,000 against $7m. My friend hosted and I volunteered at an event that raised 1/8th of that for him...

If a candidate is 80% with us, they are worthy of support.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The ordinary in political circles is pretty bad, not good.

And Bills, unfortunately, for some reason isn't seen as pure and is avoiding lighting the fires Ron lights. I'm not following it that closely but I also think people were just broke from Ron's run by the time he came around, and his wasn't seen as a particularly winnable seat, in the context of seats out there. I absolutely think he needs more support and I am hoping he will get it in the upcoming money bomb (note my signature). However, what I say is NOT a paper tiger if you look at those who DO excite us. Ron made quite a bit, Amash made more than Bills in a single money bomb. Bills is up against a popular candidate in that part of the world, and is NOT rallying us, but trying to be under the radar. Those who AVOID speaking for us because they are frightened of backlash can't expect us to get as excited about them.

 

[tbone717]

Why is this so hard to understand? Working with someone on an issue is different than calling them one of our own. Angelatc was right when she said that this is how the conservative movement was taken over by the neocons.



Again, they are not liberty candidates. It doesn't however mean we cannot work with them on issues where we share agreement. We can build alliances on those issues.

But who is this "we" who is "our" -- is it RPF's definition? Yours? Sailings? That has been my point here all along. Your definition of what constitutes a liberty candidate may be different from mine, which may differ from Sailing's, which may differ from cajuncocoa's.

No one has any sort of exclusivity on the term. But I respect your opinion, and while I am not calling you out personally there are some in here that have no tolerance for anyone that differs with their mindset and agenda.

Basically what I see here is that there is a contingency that is essentially saying Flake, DeMint, Lee or whomever aren't liberty candidates and anyone who calls them as such is wrong.

My point all along, is that there are many people and organizations that are working towards the same goal of restoring liberty that will see things differently that others. Whether or not those views are tolerated or not will determine how large this segment of the movement grows, or how small it shrinks.

You "shun" enough people, as was suggested, and RPF is going to be ineffectual when it comes to promoting candidates down the road.

Eventually, folks like myself are going to tire of the constant attacks on our principles and just leave you all to yourselves.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

For the final NDAA, I know DeMint voted against it, but he did vote for the first one.

I think after going on Glenn Beck he found out about the indefinite detention, but I may be thinking about somebody else.

 

[gerryb]

But who is this "we" who is "our" -- is it RPF's definition? Yours? Sailings? That has been my point here all along. Your definition of what constitutes a liberty candidate may be different from mine, which may differ from Sailing's, which may differ from cajuncocoa's.

If we went by MY definition of a Liberty candidate, no one would be supporting Ron Paul -- he isn't pure enough. /Voluntarism

 

[tsai3904]

For the final NDAA, I know DeMint voted against it, but he did vote for the first one.

What tbone linked to was the Senate roll call vote for final passage of NDAA Fiscal Year 2012. DeMint voted for final passage.

Here's the vote again:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

 

[jmdrake]

It's a paper tiger. We did not have a ground game. In my location, we had 25 people out working polls on election day. Good, right? We're one of the more active groups. The GOP had 400 people out on the same day. We had lots of rallies of students, who are not involved past attending a speech or two and posting on facebook.

Kurt Bills is our "pure" candidate for Senate, and he has raised a measly $80,000 against $7m. My friend hosted and I volunteered at an event that raised 1/8th of that for him...

If a candidate is 80% with us, they are worthy of support.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The answer is fix the ground game. The answer isn't divert money away from the perfect to the crappy pretending to be good. And sure, this "Liberty PAC" is free to donate to whoever they want. I'm glad I didn't donate to them.

The ordinary in political circles is pretty bad, not good.

And Bills, unfortunately, for some reason isn't seen as pure. I'm not following it that closely but I think mostly people were just broke from Ron's run by the time he came around. It is NOT a paper tiger if you look at those who DO excite us. Ron made quite a bit, Amash made more than Bills in a single money bomb. Bills is up against a popular candidate in that part of the world, and is NOT rallying us, but trying to be under the radar. Those who AVOID speaking for us because they are frightened of backlash can't expect us to get as excited about them.

^This. Rand Paul benefited not only from being Ron's son but also running 2 years after the 2008 election when most folks had financially "reloaded".

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Is it me, or does this thread title keep changing slightly?

I thought it was a new thread.

 

[sailingaway]

According to this roll call, DeMint voted for the 2012 NDAA the same one Flake voted against (source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218). The 2013 NDAA has not been voted yet in the Senate according to this - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN03254:@@@R

According to this roll call, DeMint did vote for the 2006 re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00025

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.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But who is this "we" who is "our" -- is it RPF's definition? Yours? Sailings? That has been my point here all along. Your definition of what constitutes a liberty candidate may be different from mine, which may differ from Sailing's, which may differ from cajuncocoa's.

No one has any sort of exclusivity on the term. But I respect your opinion, and while I am not calling you out personally there are some in here that have no tolerance for anyone that differs with their mindset and agenda.

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.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

Yeah, we each have hot buttons and we each have areas where our requirements arent as strict, but the body of principles is pretty easy for US to understand, and some are just beyond the pale. Look at the Constitution as a first cut.