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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
      "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 2 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
        >"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 3 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
          My apologies. As you suggest, I didn't see your follow-up until after I'd sent my comment. I still think you're missing the point with this, though....

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


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

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

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

          --
          --Jon Henke--
          http://www.qando.net
        • Adam J Bernay
          From: Dave Nalle Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:36 AM ... Dave, for me, on something like this, the only rating I care about is our Liberty Index, and
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
            From: Dave Nalle
            Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:36 AM

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

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


            Adam

            "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to
            the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
            eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
            consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
            -- John Philpot Curran, "Election of Lord Mayor of Dublin," speech before
            the Privy Council, July 10, 1790
          • Chaosrider2004@aol.com
            Libertarians eat their young, philosophically. Purism and effective politics don t mix. TCS ============================= In a message dated 1/14/2006 2:03:54
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
              Libertarians eat their young, philosophically.
               
              Purism and effective politics don't mix.
               
              TCS
              =============================
               
              In a message dated 1/14/2006 2:03:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, jonhenke@... writes:
              My apologies.   As you suggest, I didn't see your follow-up until after I'd sent my comment.   I still think you're missing the point with this, though....

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


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

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

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

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





              Yahoo! Groups Links

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

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Dave Nalle
              ... If you ve been reading this list, you know I m not some ideological absolutist, but I found looking at Shadegg s record pretty distressing. I mean, just
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
                >---What is the point of the RLC, if not to encourage small steps in
                >better directions? If the goal is simply to stand on principle
                >and denounce everything insufficiently libertarian, why not just
                >join the Libertarian Party and be done with it?

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

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

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

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

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

                Dave
                --

                Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                http://www.elitistpig.com
              • Dave Nalle
                ... Averaging the ratings for the last 4 years Boehner averages 71.5, Blunt averages 71 and Shadegg averages 72.5. That s not exactly head and shoulders. Dave
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 14, 2006
                  >From: Dave Nalle
                  >Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:36 AM
                  >
                  >>> Of the candidates for House Majority Leader,
                  >>> which do you suggest is better?
                  >>
                  >> I guess you missed my followup. They all suck.
                  >> Numerically based on ratings from various interest
                  >> groups Shadegg is fractionally less awful. But
                  >> based on his stated positions on key issues he's
                  >> inherently unacceptable.
                  >
                  >Dave, for me, on something like this, the only rating I care about is our
                  >Liberty Index, and according to that, I believe Shadegg is head and
                  >shoulders above the other choices.

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

                  Dave
                  --

                  Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                  http://www.elitistpig.com
                • greenspj
                  He s not, I don t believe. He is a member of Ron Paul s Liberty Caucus, but not of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Anyway, he voted for CAFTA and the national
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 16, 2006
                    He's not, I don't believe. He is a member of Ron Paul's Liberty
                    Caucus, but not of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

                    Anyway, he voted for CAFTA and the national id.

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


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

                    > > And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to
                    > >balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it is
                    > >that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a
                    > >member of the RLC for Majority leader. That might just be the
                    > >most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've yet
                    > >to see.
                    >
                    > I wasn't aware until today that he's actually a RLC member. I'm
                    > surprised, and it does suggest that he's less run-of-the-mill than
                    > his record indicates. I guess it means we can at least hope for
                    > better things from him.
                    >
                    > Dave
                    > --
                    >
                    > Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                    > http://www.elitistpig.com
                    >
                  • Philip Blumel
                    Dave, I sympathize with your sentiments here. I am particularly distressed by his vocal stand on immigration, on which he opposes any reform and instead
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 18, 2006
                      Dave,

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

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

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

                      -- Philip Blumel www.rlcfl.org


                      --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, Dave Nalle <dave@n...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >---What is the point of the RLC, if not to encourage small steps
                      in
                      > >better directions? If the goal is simply to stand on principle
                      > >and denounce everything insufficiently libertarian, why not just
                      > >join the Libertarian Party and be done with it?
                      >
                      > If you've been reading this list, you know I'm not some
                      ideological
                      > absolutist, but I found looking at Shadegg's record pretty
                      > distressing. I mean, just about everyone in the GOP supports gun
                      > ownership and lower taxes, which are about the only issues he
                      meshes
                      > with the RLC on.
                      >
                      > > Shadegg is not a perfect candidate from almost anybody's
                      point
                      > >of view. But that's a pluralistic democracy. Nobody agrees
                      with
                      > >any candidate on everything. There's certainly a time and
                      place
                      > >for "none of the above" -- I voted that way in the last
                      Presidential
                      > >election -- but Shadegg is a clear step closer to our point of
                      view
                      > >than Boehner and Blunt. If we'd condemn the GOP taking
                      a "clear
                      > >step closer to our point of view", then what the hell is the
                      purpose
                      > >of the RLC?
                      >
                      > I don't see the clarity of that step at all.
                      >
                      > > And while I'm on the topic of the libertarian tendency to
                      > >balkinize over issues of purity, let me point out how amusing it
                      is
                      > >that RLC'rs are suggesting we condemn the GOP for considering a
                      > >member of the RLC for Majority leader. That might just be the
                      > >most ironically perfect example of libertarian factionalism I've
                      yet
                      > >to see.
                      >
                      > I wasn't aware until today that he's actually a RLC member. I'm
                      > surprised, and it does suggest that he's less run-of-the-mill than
                      > his record indicates. I guess it means we can at least hope for
                      > better things from him.
                      >
                      > Dave
                      > --
                      >
                      > Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                      > http://www.elitistpig.com
                      >
                    • Dave Nalle
                      ... I ve done more research on Shadegg now, and I agree he d be a step forward. The other two are really completely uninspiring. You can read my overall
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 18, 2006
                        >Dave,
                        >
                        >I sympathize with your sentiments here. I am particularly distressed
                        >by his vocal stand on immigration, on which he opposes any reform
                        >and instead embraces the destructive enforcement-only model.
                        >
                        >However, looking at the big picture, his Liberty Index rankings
                        >place him near the top in Congress from our point of view, as does
                        >his National Taxpayer Union ratings. Plus, he is also an explicit
                        >friend of the RLC.
                        >
                        >The Florida RLC is supportive of his candidacy for these reasons,
                        >recognizing that neither of the other two candidates for the job are
                        >Ron Paul or Jeff Flake.

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

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

                        Dave
                        --

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