• http://freedomdemocrats.org/ FreedomDemocrats

    The RLC needs to refine their strategy a bit. Endorsements of George Allen? Conrad Burns? James Talent? Hopefully they’ll take advantage of the energy of the Ron Paul movement to back more libertarian leaning candidates, and not just conservatives.

  • Craig

    The problem with the Republican Party is that they have shown themselves to be openly hostile to the ideas of liberty and smaller government, mocking and shunning Ron Paul, even though he has been bringing hundreds of thousands of young people to the Party, raising millions of dollars, and has a record more closely aligned with the Party’s stated platform and principles than anyone else running.

    I understand that many Republicans disagree with Ron Paul on Iraq, but very few have left it at that and said they like him otherwise — consider RedState.com, which banned conservatives from talking about a very conservative candidate, or Patrick Ruffini, who is leading the charge to remove a ten-term very conservative candidate from Congress, simply because he takes a more traditionally Republican stance on avoiding unnecessary wars.

  • Michael Costello

    Would appreciate: Your reasoning for pointing out the lack of some portion of the candidates perfection. (Primarily it would be educational for me, having not had any reason thrust in my face to dislike the list of candidates) As well, should their selection be used to advocate cessation of any involvement encouragement or other forms of support?

    The party is only as hostile as it’s controlling factions, that being primarily Neocons currently is going to change thanks to the efforts of RLC.

    RedState is filled with the kinds of Republicans that “piss in the pool” to protect their own (not really conservative, warmongering mean jockish gestalt) litmus levels, but the GOP is the place to be to take back the GOP, at least for me.

  • oilnwater

    the older generations, en masse, will always oppose a Ron Paul agenda in the end. at least on a national scale, i would never expect even a senator like Ron Paul to be elected. the answer is quite simple: all the invested older generation (invested on any level of 401(k), private portfolios, or combinations)are directly or indirectly invested in defense companies that rely on our long term course in nation building as well as arms exports.

    most any older generation investor is also directly or indirectly invested in the energy sector’s desire for profit as well. the energy sector stopped obeying traditional supply and demand economics when the relative inelasticity of petroleum price/demand became apparent decades ago.

    most any older generation investor is also directly or indirectly invested in other multinational companies, whose generalized long term strategy can only support further wage/salary deflation that is affecting the domestic workforce. these are the same companies and parent companies who get free re-capitalizing when the FedReserve “inject liquidity.”

    do younger people invest? doi. but younger people have, if nothing else, a “moral option.” unlike the older people who’ve been working on retirement financed by a system of corrupt corporate entities that use the federal government as a proboscis to suck public funding and incite some military actions, younger people could shift the cultural attitude climate that disfavors, over a long period of time, the government/business/cultural climate such the one we currently have.

  • Michael Costello

    oilnwater: My counter argument to this rests on (go figure) the fact that Ron’s agenda (check me on facts please) his stated campaign position in fact does not eliminate either defense contracts or the state of the funding for the industry itself. My talking point “Hey GE, Ron will still buy your Turbofan Engine as would McCain. Ron will just have your turbofan engine purchased for a base in the states.” The difference is really a matter of drastic alteration of personell and asset deployment rather than wholesale cuts.

    Really all it does is repurpose and resite the existing defense infrastructure, and more accurately makes it into a defense infrastructure rather than a foreign interventionists tool for world domination. (With all the rancor that should inspire, because it does.)

    Of the aged that I know, some espouse your position initially, some hold to it, but most about a 60 percent figure, do not. They find this political age and it’s leadership to be corrupt, they are sorrowful of it and want to make up for what they see as their mistake in delivering it to us. Sadly

    Admittedly I have a case of selection bias, or perhaps my relatives just tell me what they think I want to hear and do the opposite. But hey, anecdotally, I’ve seen things to be the opposite.

  • oilnwater

    well i meant that older people and their investments guarantees tacit approval of the status quo. whether by conscious decision, by ignorance of issues altogether, by peer pressure (“oh, that guy’s plan will have the whole country in a state of madness!”), or by a combination. even those that explicitly support a dramatic reduction in fed. govt., will likely be reluctant to pull the lever after the neighbors laugh at them or whatever about the retirement home in cost rica.

    about Ron not willing to reduce or significantly change defense contracts, wow didn’t know that, doesn’t seem like it would be true but who knows. one argument these days is: since our fed. govt. and major corporate umbrellas have devised this new economy and vital infrastructure for us to stay in, should we forget national history and just go along to get along?

  • http://freedomdemocrats.org/ FreedomDemocrats


    For several years (roughly four now, if not more, my memory is hazy) the RLC has served as little more than an apologist organization for the Republican Party.

    They’ve formulated scorecards which were crafted to boost the appearance of “libertarian Republicans.” Their strategy included taking the anti-Ron Paul position on several votes, but then giving Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt because it was “obvious” he voted “wrong” for the “right reasons.” Thank God they stopped the scorecards after 2005.

    Where do you want to start with the candidates I named? Conrad Burns, a complete and totally corrupt incumbent who’s major tactic was to scare people into believing that his Democratic opponent was going to weaken the Patriot Act and make us vulnerable to terrorism? Thankfully, Jon Tester set Burns straight. He didn’t want to simply weaken the Patriot Act, he wanted to repeal it.

    As for Senator Talent-less, can you name anything significant the Junior Senior for Missouri EVER did? He was a consistent supporter of the Bush Administration, but kept his head down low and avoided any of the high profile fights that a Senator Rick Santorum got into. That’s not good enough to be a libertarian Republican in my book.

    As I said: “Hopefully they’ll take advantage of the energy of the Ron Paul movement to back more libertarian leaning candidates, and not just conservatives.”

    Ron Paul’s candidacy has attracted a lot of energy and excitement to the libertarian movement, and a lot of it is manifesting itself through libertarians running for office as Republicans. To advance the libertarian movement, the RLC should focus on these true libertarian Republicans, and stop operating as apologists for the same old conservatives in Washington.