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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 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?

            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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 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.

                            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.