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

Re: [RLC-National] Shadegg for Majority Leader

Expand Messages
  • westmiller@aol.com
    ... That s the best, and most likely effective, approach. Let s post to the various state and national eGroups with that suggestion. I m also hoping to get
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      LisaBRLCFL@... writes:
      > ... We should encourage our members to contact their
      > local GOP congressmen and encourge them to vote for
      > Shadegg in the leadership election.

      That's the best, and most likely effective, approach.
      Let's post to the various state and national eGroups
      with that suggestion.
      I'm also hoping to get another 'Liberty Watch' eNews
      message done by the end of the week. However, the
      House election is Feb. 2nd, so we shouldn't wait.

      Bill
    • Dave Nalle
      Are you people who are supporting Shadegg for leader aware of his position on issues of concern to the RLC? I find it hard to believe that we can t find a
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Are you people who are supporting Shadegg for leader aware of his
        position on issues of concern to the RLC? I find it hard to believe
        that we can't find a better candidate to support. He's got awful
        stances on a wide variety of issues. Here are just a few examples:

        Advocates the INVASION of North Korea.
        Supports random wiretaps and email surveillance of ALL citizens.
        Wants to expand the war on drugs.
        Supports mandatory drug sentencing.
        Opposes medical marijuana.
        Opposes gay marriage AND civil unions.

        Yes, he does have some reasonable positions on cutting taxes and
        school vouchers. He's certainly not the worst guy in the House. But
        surely we can do better.

        For details on his issue positions go to
        http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP8155#0

        Dave
        --

        Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
        http://www.elitistpig.com
      • Dave Nalle
        Never mind. I just went over the records of Blunt and Boehner. They re as bad or possibly worse as far as how they ve voted on major issues. Is this REALLY
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Never mind. I just went over the records of Blunt and Boehner. They're
          as bad or possibly worse as far as how they've voted on major issues.

          Is this REALLY the best the GOP has to offer? Good grief.

          And yeah, Shadegg's the best of them by a whisker, but is that good
          enough for an endorsement?

          Dave

          >Are you people who are supporting Shadegg for leader aware of his
          >position on issues of concern to the RLC? I find it hard to believe
          >that we can't find a better candidate to support. He's got awful
          >stances on a wide variety of issues. Here are just a few examples:
          >
          >Advocates the INVASION of North Korea.
          >Supports random wiretaps and email surveillance of ALL citizens.
          >Wants to expand the war on drugs.
          >Supports mandatory drug sentencing.
          >Opposes medical marijuana.
          >Opposes gay marriage AND civil unions.
          >
          >Yes, he does have some reasonable positions on cutting taxes and
          >school vouchers. He's certainly not the worst guy in the House. But
          >surely we can do better.
          >
          >For details on his issue positions go to
          >http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP8155#0
          >
          >Dave
          >--
          >
          >Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
          >http://www.elitistpig.com
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >


          --

          Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
          http://www.elitistpig.com
        • jonhenke@comcast.net
          He s certainly not the worst guy in the House. But surely we can do better. ... -- --Jon Henke-- http://www.qando.net ... From: Dave Nalle
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            "He's certainly not the worst guy in the House. But surely we can do better."


            ----Of the candidates for House Majority Leader, which do you suggest is better?

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


            -------------- Original message ----------------------
            From: Dave Nalle <dave@...>
            > Are you people who are supporting Shadegg for leader aware of his
            > position on issues of concern to the RLC? I find it hard to believe
            > that we can't find a better candidate to support. He's got awful
            > stances on a wide variety of issues. Here are just a few examples:
            >
            > Advocates the INVASION of North Korea.
            > Supports random wiretaps and email surveillance of ALL citizens.
            > Wants to expand the war on drugs.
            > Supports mandatory drug sentencing.
            > Opposes medical marijuana.
            > Opposes gay marriage AND civil unions.
            >
            > Yes, he does have some reasonable positions on cutting taxes and
            > school vouchers. He's certainly not the worst guy in the House. But
            > surely we can do better.
            >
            > For details on his issue positions go to
            > http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP8155#0
            >
            > Dave
            > --
            >
            > Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
            > http://www.elitistpig.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Dave Nalle
            ... I guess you missed my followup. They all suck. Numerically based on ratings from various interest groups Shadegg is fractionally less awful. But based
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              >"He's certainly not the worst guy in the House. But surely we can
              >do better."
              >
              >----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.

              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.

              Dave
              --

              Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
              http://www.elitistpig.com
            • 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 6 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >---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 10 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >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 11 of 13 , Jan 16, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 13 , Jan 18, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 13 , Jan 18, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >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.