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

Re: Romney

Expand Messages
  • Joe Liberty
    What lesser of evils? How are Mitt Romney s positions on gun rights and right to life superior to Ron Paul s? If you are talking to me, my comments were
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 5, 2007
      What lesser of evils?  How are Mitt Romney's positions on gun rights and right to life superior to Ron Paul's?  If you are talking to me, my comments were anti-Romney, so you've lost me.

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Sandy Harmon <heysandy@...>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:38:42 AM
      Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Romney

       
      So Joe, you overlook Mr. Romney's position on gun control and right-to-life?  Sounds like a compromise on beliefs in order to support the lesser of evils.
      Sandy Harmon

    • Joe Liberty
      Thanks, your comments are helpful to me in terms of clarification. I certainly do not forsee any problems with Ron Paul on those score. From what I can tell
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 6, 2007
        Thanks, your comments are helpful to me in terms of clarification.  I certainly do not forsee any problems with Ron Paul on those score.  From what I can tell he has been campaigning non-stop since he announced and he is at least as credible and viable as Steve Forbes was.  The fact that RLC endorsed his congressional campaigns indicates that there are no problems as far as issues are concerned.  By my reckoning Ron Paul is in agreement with all 17 of RLC's stated principles.

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Thomas Sewell <sharper@...>
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:26:32 PM
        Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

        In general, a candidate may be a perfect ideological match for the RLC, but will also be considered for viability and credibility.
         
        Viability: If a candidate isn't a "serious" contender for a nomination, it just hurts the RLC to be associated with them. For example, if a candidate plans to file for a primary race, but not actually spend time/money/etc. .. campaigning and has no chance of coming remotely close to placing well in the primary, they would definitely fail the viability test for me.
         
        Credibility: Personal attributes that a candidate has may make it so that the RLC might agree with them on issues, but still doesn't want to be associated with them. For example, a candidate that thinks the best way to campaign is in a clown suit, or who is a convicted murderer, or whatever personal attributes you can think of that would cause a candidate to not have a lot of credibility.
         
        Now, most of those above are more extreme examples in order to make the point obvious, but while issues stances are very important, they aren't the only consideration we have to take to decide if the RLC should endorse a candidate in a specific race.
         
        The other issue that Bill raises is that if we endorse a candidate that agrees with us 90% of the time, but is running his campaign as primarily being about an issue that is opposite our stance, or even something we are neutral on, we should also weigh how much we think the public will take our endorsement as also endorsing that primary campaign issue. For example, if we endorsed the leader of the Minuteman border group for an office, it would be foolish not to take into account that most people would also see that as an RLC endorsement of his immigration stance, since that's likely to be the main thrust of his campaign.
         
        Thomas
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:RLC- Action@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Joe Liberty
        Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:58 PM
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
        Cc: RonPaul2008@ yahoogroups. com; Ron Paul for President
        Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

        Can you explain in more detail what you mean by:
         
        "Each Director has to make up their own mind whether the endorsement is wise and useful for the RLC, which includes considerations of viability and credibility. There are also several issues which are important to our members, or where we have taken no position, which are major issues in the Paul campaign."
         
        What factors of viability and credibility would you consider as a director and how would such factors be wise or unwise, useful or useless to RLC?  You say in reference to RLC's endorsement of Forbes "we don't endorse in every [presidential] election unless we find a strong advocate of liberty with credibility and viability."  Would you agree that Ron Paul is at least as credible and viable an advocate of liberty as Steve Forbes?
         
        I do not understand the second sentence above much at all.  Can you give an example of some of the issues you are talking about? 

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: "westmiller@ aol.com" <westmiller@aol. com>
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
        Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:59:02 PM
        Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

        Posted by: "DGHarrison" DGHarrison@USFamily .net

        > ... members of a caucus that should be able to reach
        > a consensus on which candidate best represents the
        > ideals of our caucus. If we can't do that, what exactly
        > do we stand for?

        We stand for liberty, but endorsing candidates is only
        one of our objectives:

        "The Caucus is a political action organization dedicated to promoting the
        ideals of individual rights,
        limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party of the
        United States of America by:
        A. Promoting these ideals among Party officials and its various
        organizations;
        B. Identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with these ideals;
        C. Developing Caucus membership among Party registrants, officials, and
        officeholders. "
        - RLC Bylaws

        > ... I would have thought the consensus candidate
        would
        > be Ron Paul, considering his voting record in Congress.

        That determination is up to the executive committees
        of the various chartered states (including Minnesota),
        who need to "nominate" and notify national. So far, only
        Texas has completed a nominating ballot.
        Since Ron is a former Honorary Chairman of the RLC
        and has always been at the top of our Liberty Index,
        there's every reason to believe that we will endorse him,
        as soon as the process is completed.

        However, executive committees do no vote exclusively
        on issues. Each Director has to make up their own mind
        whether the endorsement is wise and useful for the RLC,
        which includes considerations of viability and credibility.
        There are also several issues which are important to our
        members, or where we have taken no position, which are
        major issues in the Paul campaign. Depending on how
        important a Director considers those issues, he/she may
        believe there are hazards in an endorsement. In any case,
        an endorsement is just a recommendation to members.
        We don't require any member to support any candidate,
        nor does the organization use any of its resources in
        direct support of any candidate.

        >... We do need a vetted list of attributes for candidate
        > comparison ...

        The RLC does rate federal candidates in our Liberty
        Index. You can look up most of their ratings at:
        http://www.republic anliberty. org/libdex/ li_look.asp
        ... however, we don't rate or review candidates who
        have never been in Congress (Giuliani, etc). Although
        I have reservations about their ratings system, one
        excellent resource for public positions on issues is:
        http://www.ontheiss ues.org

        > ... consumer report style list of the
        candidates'
        > attributes, along with a ranking of each candidate
        > on how well he comports with the positions taken
        > by the RLC.

        That would require responses from all of the
        candidates, indicating their positions on all RLC
        official Positions, which isn't likely. There's also a
        large degree of discretion involved in an independent
        evaluation of whether or not a candidate supports or
        opposes those positions. Every Director (and every
        member) has personal, subjective priorities on the
        issues, which may "color" their decisions.

        > ... We don't need a caucus if that's all we're going
        > to do. [endorse the GOP nominee]

        Of course, we don't do that, although we assume
        that nearly all members will favor the Republican over
        the Democrat in a general election. To date, the RLC
        has only endorsed once (Steve Forbes in his first run,
        but not his second) in a Presidential Election.
        Obviously, we don't endorse in every election unless
        we find a strong advocate of liberty with credibility and
        viability in an electoral contest:
        http://www.republic anliberty. org/candid/ c_look.asp

        > ... Still, a handy chart showing how the candidates
        > compare with one another would be useful.

        If you're volunteering to do that, work with our
        national RLC Endorsements Director, Dave Nalle:
        dave@...

        Bill

        .

        .


      • George Blumel
        Except maybe on free trade. ... From: Joe Liberty To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com Cc: dickmills@pdq.net Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:25 AM Subject:
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 6, 2007
          Except maybe on free trade.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:25 AM
          Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

          Thanks, your comments are helpful to me in terms of clarification.  I certainly do not forsee any problems with Ron Paul on those score.  From what I can tell he has been campaigning non-stop since he announced and he is at least as credible and viable as Steve Forbes was.  The fact that RLC endorsed his congressional campaigns indicates that there are no problems as far as issues are concerned.  By my reckoning Ron Paul is in agreement with all 17 of RLC's stated principles.

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Thomas Sewell <sharper@booksunderr eview.com>
          To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
          Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:26:32 PM
          Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

          In general, a candidate may be a perfect ideological match for the RLC, but will also be considered for viability and credibility.
           
          Viability: If a candidate isn't a "serious" contender for a nomination, it just hurts the RLC to be associated with them. For example, if a candidate plans to file for a primary race, but not actually spend time/money/etc. .. campaigning and has no chance of coming remotely close to placing well in the primary, they would definitely fail the viability test for me.
           
          Credibility: Personal attributes that a candidate has may make it so that the RLC might agree with them on issues, but still doesn't want to be associated with them. For example, a candidate that thinks the best way to campaign is in a clown suit, or who is a convicted murderer, or whatever personal attributes you can think of that would cause a candidate to not have a lot of credibility.
           
          Now, most of those above are more extreme examples in order to make the point obvious, but while issues stances are very important, they aren't the only consideration we have to take to decide if the RLC should endorse a candidate in a specific race.
           
          The other issue that Bill raises is that if we endorse a candidate that agrees with us 90% of the time, but is running his campaign as primarily being about an issue that is opposite our stance, or even something we are neutral on, we should also weigh how much we think the public will take our endorsement as also endorsing that primary campaign issue. For example, if we endorsed the leader of the Minuteman border group for an office, it would be foolish not to take into account that most people would also see that as an RLC endorsement of his immigration stance, since that's likely to be the main thrust of his campaign.
           
          Thomas
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:RLC- Action@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Joe Liberty
          Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:58 PM
          To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
          Cc: RonPaul2008@ yahoogroups. com; Ron Paul for President
          Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

          Can you explain in more detail what you mean by:
           
          "Each Director has to make up their own mind whether the endorsement is wise and useful for the RLC, which includes considerations of viability and credibility. There are also several issues which are important to our members, or where we have taken no position, which are major issues in the Paul campaign."
           
          What factors of viability and credibility would you consider as a director and how would such factors be wise or unwise, useful or useless to RLC?  You say in reference to RLC's endorsement of Forbes "we don't endorse in every [presidential] election unless we find a strong advocate of liberty with credibility and viability."  Would you agree that Ron Paul is at least as credible and viable an advocate of liberty as Steve Forbes?
           
          I do not understand the second sentence above much at all.  Can you give an example of some of the issues you are talking about? 

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: "westmiller@ aol.com" <westmiller@aol. com>
          To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
          Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:59:02 PM
          Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

          Posted by: "DGHarrison" DGHarrison@USFamily .net
          > ... members of a caucus that should be able to reach
          > a consensus on which candidate best represents the
          > ideals of our caucus. If we can't do that, what exactly
          > do we stand for?

          We stand for liberty, but endorsing candidates is only
          one of our objectives:

          "The Caucus is a political action organization dedicated to promoting the
          ideals of individual rights,
          limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party of the
          United States of America by:
          A. Promoting these ideals among Party officials and its various
          organizations;
          B. Identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with these ideals;
          C. Developing Caucus membership among Party registrants, officials, and
          officeholders. "
          - RLC Bylaws

          > ... I would have thought the consensus candidate would
          > be Ron Paul, considering his voting record in Congress.

          That determination is up to the executive committees
          of the various chartered states (including Minnesota),
          who need to "nominate" and notify national. So far, only
          Texas has completed a nominating ballot.
          Since Ron is a former Honorary Chairman of the RLC
          and has always been at the top of our Liberty Index,
          there's every reason to believe that we will endorse him,
          as soon as the process is completed.

          However, executive committees do no vote exclusively
          on issues. Each Director has to make up their own mind
          whether the endorsement is wise and useful for the RLC,
          which includes considerations of viability and credibility.
          There are also several issues which are important to our
          members, or where we have taken no position, which are
          major issues in the Paul campaign. Depending on how
          important a Director considers those issues, he/she may
          believe there are hazards in an endorsement. In any case,
          an endorsement is just a recommendation to members.
          We don't require any member to support any candidate,
          nor does the organization use any of its resources in
          direct support of any candidate.

          >... We do need a vetted list of attributes for candidate
          > comparison ...

          The RLC does rate federal candidates in our Liberty
          Index. You can look up most of their ratings at:
          http://www.republic anliberty. org/libdex/ li_look.asp
          ... however, we don't rate or review candidates who
          have never been in Congress (Giuliani, etc). Although
          I have reservations about their ratings system, one
          excellent resource for public positions on issues is:
          http://www.ontheiss ues.org

          > ... consumer report style list of the candidates'
          > attributes, along with a ranking of each candidate
          > on how well he comports with the positions taken
          > by the RLC.

          That would require responses from all of the
          candidates, indicating their positions on all RLC
          official Positions, which isn't likely. There's also a
          large degree of discretion involved in an independent
          evaluation of whether or not a candidate supports or
          opposes those positions. Every Director (and every
          member) has personal, subjective priorities on the
          issues, which may "color" their decisions.

          > ... We don't need a caucus if that's all we're going
          > to do. [endorse the GOP nominee]

          Of course, we don't do that, although we assume
          that nearly all members will favor the Republican over
          the Democrat in a general election. To date, the RLC
          has only endorsed once (Steve Forbes in his first run,
          but not his second) in a Presidential Election.
          Obviously, we don't endorse in every election unless
          we find a strong advocate of liberty with credibility and
          viability in an electoral contest:
          http://www.republic anliberty. org/candid/ c_look.asp

          > ... Still, a handy chart showing how the candidates
          > compare with one another would be useful.

          If you're volunteering to do that, work with our
          national RLC Endorsements Director, Dave Nalle:
          dave@...

          Bill

          .

          .


        • Joe Liberty
          Paul was rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. ... From: George Blumel To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com Sent:
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 6, 2007
            Paul was rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.

            ----- Original Message ----
            From: George Blumel <gblumel@...>
            To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, April 6, 2007 11:29:26 AM
            Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

            Except maybe on free trade.
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:25 AM
            Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet

            Thanks, your comments are helpful to me in terms of clarification.  I certainly do not forsee any problems with Ron Paul on those score.  From what I can tell he has been campaigning non-stop since he announced and he is at least as credible and viable as Steve Forbes was.  The fact that RLC endorsed his congressional campaigns indicates that there are no problems as far as issues are concerned.  By my reckoning Ron Paul is in agreement with all 17 of RLC's stated principles.

            .


          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.