Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [RLC-Action] Re: [RLC-National] Shadegg for Majority Leader

Expand Messages
  • jonhenke@comcast.net
    My apologies. As you suggest, I didn t see your follow-up until after I d sent my comment. I still think you re missing the point with this, though.... We
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
      My apologies. As you suggest, I didn't see your follow-up until after I'd sent my comment. I still think you're missing the point with this, though....

      "We shouldn't be pulling for him, we should be issuing a statement denouncing all three candidates as unacceptable. I'm all for the lesser evil when it's necessary, but this is a time when it does us no good and we could be making a point that's of some value."


      ---What is the point of the RLC, if not to encourage small steps in better directions? If the goal is simply to stand on principle and denounce everything insufficiently libertarian, why not just join the Libertarian Party and be done with it?

      Shadegg is not a perfect candidate from almost anybody's point of view. But that's a pluralistic democracy. Nobody agrees with any candidate on everything. There's certainly a time and place for "none of the above" -- I voted that way in the last Presidential election -- but Shadegg is a clear step closer to our point of view than Boehner and Blunt. If we'd condemn the GOP taking a "clear step closer to our point of view", then what the hell is the purpose of the RLC?

      And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it is that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a member of the RLC for Majority leader. That might just be the most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've yet to see.

      --
      --Jon Henke--
      http://www.qando.net
    • Adam J Bernay
      From: Dave Nalle Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:36 AM ... Dave, for me, on something like this, the only rating I care about is our Liberty Index, and
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
        From: Dave Nalle
        Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:36 AM

        >> Of the candidates for House Majority Leader,
        >> which do you suggest is better?
        >
        > I guess you missed my followup. They all suck.
        > Numerically based on ratings from various interest
        > groups Shadegg is fractionally less awful. But
        > based on his stated positions on key issues he's
        > inherently unacceptable.

        Dave, for me, on something like this, the only rating I care about is our
        Liberty Index, and according to that, I believe Shadegg is head and
        shoulders above the other choices.


        Adam

        "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to
        the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
        eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
        consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
        -- John Philpot Curran, "Election of Lord Mayor of Dublin," speech before
        the Privy Council, July 10, 1790
      • Chaosrider2004@aol.com
        Libertarians eat their young, philosophically. Purism and effective politics don t mix. TCS ============================= In a message dated 1/14/2006 2:03:54
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
          Libertarians eat their young, philosophically.
           
          Purism and effective politics don't mix.
           
          TCS
          =============================
           
          In a message dated 1/14/2006 2:03:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, jonhenke@... writes:
          My apologies.   As you suggest, I didn't see your follow-up until after I'd sent my comment.   I still think you're missing the point with this, though....

          "We shouldn't be pulling for him, we should be issuing a statement denouncing all three candidates as unacceptable. I'm all for the lesser evil when it's necessary, but this is a time  when it does us no good and we could be making a point that's of some value."


          ---What is the point of the RLC, if not to encourage small steps in better directions?    If the goal is simply to stand on principle and denounce everything insufficiently libertarian, why not just join the Libertarian Party and be done with it? 

               Shadegg is not a perfect candidate from almost anybody's point of view.   But that's a pluralistic democracy.    Nobody agrees with any candidate on everything.    There's certainly a time and place for "none of the above" -- I voted that way in the last Presidential election -- but Shadegg is a clear step closer to our point of view than Boehner and Blunt.    If we'd condemn the GOP taking a "clear step closer to our point of view", then what the hell is the purpose of the RLC?

               And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it is that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a member of the RLC for Majority leader.    That might just be the most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've yet to see.

          --
          --Jon Henke--
          http://www.qando.net





          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/

          <*> 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/
        • Dave Nalle
          ... If you ve been reading this list, you know I m not some ideological absolutist, but I found looking at Shadegg s record pretty distressing. I mean, just
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
            >---What is the point of the RLC, if not to encourage small steps in
            >better directions? If the goal is simply to stand on principle
            >and denounce everything insufficiently libertarian, why not just
            >join the Libertarian Party and be done with it?

            If you've been reading this list, you know I'm not some ideological
            absolutist, but I found looking at Shadegg's record pretty
            distressing. I mean, just about everyone in the GOP supports gun
            ownership and lower taxes, which are about the only issues he meshes
            with the RLC on.

            > Shadegg is not a perfect candidate from almost anybody's point
            >of view. But that's a pluralistic democracy. Nobody agrees with
            >any candidate on everything. There's certainly a time and place
            >for "none of the above" -- I voted that way in the last Presidential
            >election -- but Shadegg is a clear step closer to our point of view
            >than Boehner and Blunt. If we'd condemn the GOP taking a "clear
            >step closer to our point of view", then what the hell is the purpose
            >of the RLC?

            I don't see the clarity of that step at all.

            > And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to
            >balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it is
            >that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a
            >member of the RLC for Majority leader. That might just be the
            >most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've yet
            >to see.

            I wasn't aware until today that he's actually a RLC member. I'm
            surprised, and it does suggest that he's less run-of-the-mill than
            his record indicates. I guess it means we can at least hope for
            better things from him.

            Dave
            --

            Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
            http://www.elitistpig.com
          • Dave Nalle
            ... Averaging the ratings for the last 4 years Boehner averages 71.5, Blunt averages 71 and Shadegg averages 72.5. That s not exactly head and shoulders. Dave
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
              >From: Dave Nalle
              >Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:36 AM
              >
              >>> Of the candidates for House Majority Leader,
              >>> which do you suggest is better?
              >>
              >> I guess you missed my followup. They all suck.
              >> Numerically based on ratings from various interest
              >> groups Shadegg is fractionally less awful. But
              >> based on his stated positions on key issues he's
              >> inherently unacceptable.
              >
              >Dave, for me, on something like this, the only rating I care about is our
              >Liberty Index, and according to that, I believe Shadegg is head and
              >shoulders above the other choices.

              Averaging the ratings for the last 4 years Boehner averages 71.5, Blunt
              averages 71 and Shadegg averages 72.5. That's not exactly head and shoulders.

              Dave
              --

              Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
              http://www.elitistpig.com
            • greenspj
              He s not, I don t believe. He is a member of Ron Paul s Liberty Caucus, but not of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Anyway, he voted for CAFTA and the national
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 16, 2006
                He's not, I don't believe. He is a member of Ron Paul's Liberty
                Caucus, but not of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

                Anyway, he voted for CAFTA and the national id.

                Those are hardly "ideologically pure" disqualifiers. They are run of
                the mill basic ones.


                --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, Dave Nalle <dave@n...> wrote:
                >

                > > And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to
                > >balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it is
                > >that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a
                > >member of the RLC for Majority leader. That might just be the
                > >most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've yet
                > >to see.
                >
                > I wasn't aware until today that he's actually a RLC member. I'm
                > surprised, and it does suggest that he's less run-of-the-mill than
                > his record indicates. I guess it means we can at least hope for
                > better things from him.
                >
                > Dave
                > --
                >
                > Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                > http://www.elitistpig.com
                >
              • Philip Blumel
                Dave, I sympathize with your sentiments here. I am particularly distressed by his vocal stand on immigration, on which he opposes any reform and instead
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 18, 2006
                  Dave,

                  I sympathize with your sentiments here. I am particularly distressed
                  by his vocal stand on immigration, on which he opposes any reform
                  and instead embraces the destructive enforcement-only model.

                  However, looking at the big picture, his Liberty Index rankings
                  place him near the top in Congress from our point of view, as does
                  his National Taxpayer Union ratings. Plus, he is also an explicit
                  friend of the RLC.

                  The Florida RLC is supportive of his candidacy for these reasons,
                  recognizing that neither of the other two candidates for the job are
                  Ron Paul or Jeff Flake.

                  -- Philip Blumel www.rlcfl.org


                  --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, Dave Nalle <dave@n...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >---What is the point of the RLC, if not to encourage small steps
                  in
                  > >better directions? If the goal is simply to stand on principle
                  > >and denounce everything insufficiently libertarian, why not just
                  > >join the Libertarian Party and be done with it?
                  >
                  > If you've been reading this list, you know I'm not some
                  ideological
                  > absolutist, but I found looking at Shadegg's record pretty
                  > distressing. I mean, just about everyone in the GOP supports gun
                  > ownership and lower taxes, which are about the only issues he
                  meshes
                  > with the RLC on.
                  >
                  > > Shadegg is not a perfect candidate from almost anybody's
                  point
                  > >of view. But that's a pluralistic democracy. Nobody agrees
                  with
                  > >any candidate on everything. There's certainly a time and
                  place
                  > >for "none of the above" -- I voted that way in the last
                  Presidential
                  > >election -- but Shadegg is a clear step closer to our point of
                  view
                  > >than Boehner and Blunt. If we'd condemn the GOP taking
                  a "clear
                  > >step closer to our point of view", then what the hell is the
                  purpose
                  > >of the RLC?
                  >
                  > I don't see the clarity of that step at all.
                  >
                  > > And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to
                  > >balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it
                  is
                  > >that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a
                  > >member of the RLC for Majority leader. That might just be the
                  > >most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've
                  yet
                  > >to see.
                  >
                  > I wasn't aware until today that he's actually a RLC member. I'm
                  > surprised, and it does suggest that he's less run-of-the-mill than
                  > his record indicates. I guess it means we can at least hope for
                  > better things from him.
                  >
                  > Dave
                  > --
                  >
                  > Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                  > http://www.elitistpig.com
                  >
                • Dave Nalle
                  ... I ve done more research on Shadegg now, and I agree he d be a step forward. The other two are really completely uninspiring. You can read my overall
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 18, 2006
                    >Dave,
                    >
                    >I sympathize with your sentiments here. I am particularly distressed
                    >by his vocal stand on immigration, on which he opposes any reform
                    >and instead embraces the destructive enforcement-only model.
                    >
                    >However, looking at the big picture, his Liberty Index rankings
                    >place him near the top in Congress from our point of view, as does
                    >his National Taxpayer Union ratings. Plus, he is also an explicit
                    >friend of the RLC.
                    >
                    >The Florida RLC is supportive of his candidacy for these reasons,
                    >recognizing that neither of the other two candidates for the job are
                    >Ron Paul or Jeff Flake.

                    I've done more research on Shadegg now, and I agree he'd be a step
                    forward. The other two are really completely uninspiring. You can
                    read my overall assessment of the candidates at http://www.diablog.us

                    Shadegg is at the very least talking a good game as far as reform
                    and his objectives.

                    Dave
                    --

                    Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                    http://www.elitistpig.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.