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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 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?

          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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 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.

                          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.