I would further assert that all laws prohibiting gun purchases are
unconstitutional. Thus the part about "lawfully purchased" is
repugnant to liberty. I can't support that.

Convicted felons and the "mentally insane" have just as much right to
protect themselves as anyone. If you don't support their right, how
can you expect anyone to support yours?

Mark your calendars…

The National Taxpayers Union’s  “National Taxpayers Conference 2009” has been scheduled for June 11-13, 2009 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in the Washington, DC area.  The RLC had a table there in 2007 and had excellent results—an unusually high proportion of the attendees ranked in the libertarian quadrant, and we can presume that those who attended were disproportionately well-healed and well-placed potential RLC members.  I hope we can assemble he volunteers to do it again.

Jeff Palmer

jap1@...

 

Have we considered a negative endorsement?

I had thought Ken Blackwell was acceptable having heard a very good
speech from him at the AFP conference in DC, but he just received the
endorsement of Eagle Forum, and IMO anyone they endorse we should openly
condemn as a matter of principle.

Dave

>>I was there also, and I thought he gave an excellent speech.  The
enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend; and the friend of my
enemy is not necessarily my enemy.  Although I would prefer someone who
will prefer our caucus, I think we should look for the person most open
to work with us.  Wasn't it you who wrote we should follow the 80% rule?<<

Could have been me.  I certainly agree with it.  I just particularly
dislike Eagle Forum.  I think they're extra creepy.
Here in Texas they launched a really nasty whispering campaign against
Joe Straus who just became our new
house speaker.  Then when he won overwhelmingly they acted like they
hadn't been the ones spreading inflammatory rumors about his voting
record and the synagogue he belongs to.

Dave

>>Dave, get serious. Eagle Forum is a conservative group that we agree
with on more than half of the serious issues we work on over time.
Because they are ignorant of economic issues accounts for the big
difference –they tend to be protectionist. To be so doctrinaire to be
apposed to a group 100% because you disagree on a particular issue is
counter-productive. We need to build coalitions on issues –one by one.
They will support us on certain issues –don’t blow them off. We’ll
continue to try and educate them on our principles. Ken Blackwell is
fine man and deserves our support even if some group you don’t like on
certain issues supports him. –Geo.<<

Sorry, George. I disagree with them on a lot more than just
protectionism. They're also nativists, homophobes, caesaropapalists,
drug warriors and book burners. Their positions on individual liberty
are absolutely abominable. I can't see how anyone who's vaguely
libertarian has much in common
with them.

Dave

Wasn't it more of a snub than an insult?

To be fair, there are a lot of libertarian Republicans who are not
pleased with Ron Paul and feel that he's been working to undermine their
efforts to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction.

Dave

Wasn't it more of a snub than an insult?
To be fair, there are a lot of libertarian Republicans who are not pleased with Ron Paul and feel that he's been working to undermine their efforts to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction.
Dave

DGHarrison wrote:
>
>
>> Wasn't it more of a snub than an insult?
>>
>> To be fair, there are a lot of libertarian Republicans who are not
>> pleased with Ron Paul and feel that he's been working to undermine their
>> efforts to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction.
>>
>> Dave
> I'd sure like to hear the justification for that charge.














It's not a charge, it's an obvious observation.  He's created a separate
organization
unaffiliated with the GOP which is working to raise money and produce
candidates
in competition with the Republican party, and is based on promoting a
perverted
variant of libertarianism in which the belief in many aspects of
individual liberty has
been replaced with nativism, conspiracy paranoia and fanaticism.

Dave
> .
>
>

DGHarrison wrote:

Wasn't it more of a snub than an insult?
To be fair, there are a lot of libertarian Republicans who are not pleased with Ron Paul and feel that he's been working to undermine their efforts to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction.
Dave

I'd sure like to hear the justification for that charge.

It's not a charge, it's an obvious observation. He's created a separate organization
unaffiliated with the GOP which is working to raise money and produce candidates
in competition with the Republican party, and is based on promoting a perverted
variant of libertarianism in which the belief in many aspects of individual liberty has
been replaced with nativism, conspiracy paranoia and fanaticism.
Dave

.

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:RLC-Action-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:RLC-Action-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
.

Mitch:

He's running for chairman of the RNC, not chairman of the LP, so
most of those flaws you mention might turn out to be more like assets
when it comes to actually winning the position.

Dave

John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> You missed the point, unless you think it's appropriate that an
> elected official use his
> office to advance the party agenda rather than the interests of the
> people, whether they voted for him or not.  That's precisely what
> George Washington advised against in his farwell address.
>
>











I would agree, were he running for President, but he's running for an office
within the party, and one where his primary job as Chairman will be to
advance
the party agenda and the party's interests above all else.  If George
Washington
had been listened to we wouldn't have a Republican party or party
officials at
all.

Dave

John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret wrote:

Dave,
You missed the point, unless you think it's appropriate that an elected official use his
office to advance the party agenda rather than the interests of the people, whether they voted for him or not. That's precisely what George Washington advised against in his farwell address.

I would agree, were he running for President, but he's running for an office
within the party, and one where his primary job as Chairman will be to advance
the party agenda and the party's interests above all else. If George Washington
had been listened to we wouldn't have a Republican party or party officials at
all.
Dave
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:RLC-Action-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:RLC-Action-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
.

Okay. We're getting way off track from "action" items here. I apologize for my part in it and will refrain from making any further references to Ron Paul -- though that is what prompted me to pose the question about the best option for RNC chairman vis a vis the RLC in the first place. Paul is over, and possibly along with him, the conservative revolution as well. I just want to know if the GOP is going to continue "business as usual" by electing discredited party elites, or if it is going to turn away from the precipice by accepting a true conservative at the helm. I am not convinced by what is slipping out from current RNC leadership discussions. The bottom line is that if they don't do something absolutely, undeniably clear about shunning past mistakes and the people responsible for them, then the party will not regain the support of solid conservatives. If that happens, the GOP will slip further into oblivion in 2010 and perhaps over the cliff in 2012. This is make or break time, folks. And we're sitting back waiting to see what happens?

John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret wrote:

Dave,
You missed the point, unless you think it's appropriate that an elected official use his
office to advance the party agenda rather than the interests of the people, whether they voted for him or not. That's precisely what George Washington advised against in his farwell address.

I would agree, were he running for President, but he's running for an office
within the party, and one where his primary job as Chairman will be to advance
the party agenda and the party's interests above all else. If George Washington
had been listened to we wouldn't have a Republican party or party officials at
all.
Dave
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:RLC-Action-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:RLC-Action-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
.

--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

> To sit back and wait for John Galt to offer himself as party chairman or
> any other post is to fall into the rut of the Libertarian Party.  We
> should endorse Ken Blackwell.  -Geo.

While we should not wait for the perfect chairman candidate to appear,
neither should we be endorsing someone just for the sake of endorsing
someone. While it is rare enough to find a conservative in the GOP, we
need to do better and save our endorsements for those who at least
resemble libertarians.

David