Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republican Liberty Caucus as a virtual third party
October 1, 2005 | Albert Abramson

Posted on 10/01/2005 1:18:41 PM PDT by maxxoccupancy

I have been talking to people about the Republican Liberty Caucus, but I have been having a hard time explaining the issue to people. Our statements of principle have always centered around smaller government and proptecting our rights. A surprisingly small majority of Americans support these two principles, but it's enough to form a political movement.

The RLC has its own statement of principles, and its own conventions. Members are not expected to tow the party line, especially for RINO's. I believe that we should sell the RLC as a separate political group that supports libertarians, constitutionalists, reform party members, and independents, as long as they support our core constitutional principles.

The idea behind the RLC was to form a political group that runs candidates (with an R after their name on the ballot) without the third party ballot access problems. There is a strong need for a large, big tent political movement that can get outsiders in. The few RLC members we have serving in state legislatures are good.

I believe we need a stronger base of support, and I think we need to approach the voters with a broad based alternative to the "two party" system. I believe that we need to tell voters that we are different form the GOP, that we have our own group, and the RLC candidates will stick to their core principles.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: asshatmaxx; ballotaccess; bigtent; byebye; firstpost; gotzot; itszottingtime; justsignedup; parties; slimyrepublicans; thirdparty; troll; vikingkitties; zot; zotbait; zotme; zotmeagain; zotmebaby; zotmedaily; zotmefrombehind; zotmehard; zotmeharder; zotmeintonextweek; zotmetillipuke; zotsfortots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: Manwich
Because Bush decided to get prescription drugs to seniors.

In the long run I don't think that is a go.

But, the first thing Clinton did was GAYS IN THE MILITARY and then his wife tried to take 1/7th of the economy and take it into the government as socialized medicine.

So, Clintons were no great thing.
Especially didn't like Clinton handing China technology to make their rockets fly and their nuclear bombs guidance ability to hit any city for the first time in the USA.
Plus he refused Bin Laden and also never responded to terror which helped us get attacked on 9/11.
61 posted on 12/29/2005 5:36:31 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Manwich
I vote Democrat if the Republican is particularly offensive.

We get Libertarians boasting of that all the times, especially if the Democrat backs legalizing drugs.

62 posted on 12/29/2005 5:38:10 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Yes, Bush decided to give prescription drugs to Seniors. A very un-libertarian thing to do. Why am I supposed to be happy about this? I'm glad that I supported Badnarik over this Big Government Republican.

Clinton didn't put Gays in the Military. He made a half step towards ending their desrcimination there.

The Clinton's suck

You're doing the same thing that Republicans always do. "Sure we suck, but what about the Democrats!" Listen all I've been trying to say is that; Sometimes Republicans sucks too, I'll grant they suck less than Democrats, but that isn't saying much. Voting your conscience is not weasel-ish and say so is irresponsible talk.

If every one voted for the small government candidate then thats who will win. So I'll vote for the small government candidate, thanks.

I wish that you would reconsider your stance on this, because it dissuades people from voting for the best candidate.
63 posted on 12/31/2005 6:47:37 PM PST by Manwich (Listen to Freedom Radio at FreeTalkLive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy

What does everyone think? Should we be a division of the Republican Party, or a separate caucus with its own platform, candidates, and conventions?




I think the RLC and the economic conservative base of the Republican party is essential to a long-term goal of shrinking the government. It also forces dems to assimilate to moderate views in economics (in most cases). Dems are splitting up, while Repubs seem to hold strong.

Particular parts of the RLC have to be emphasized. The RLC seems to pursue a relatively friendly 'social' position for most conservatives, with a more libertarian-like view of government size.

It has been very potent in gathering small 'l' libertarians in to the Republican party. Since libertarians vary widely in social views, it garners those on the fence. People such as myself whom could be most aptly indentified as 'moderate libertarian conservatives', are essential to the rebirth of our more affluent history. Prior to socialism birth in America, our country was dominated by a libertarian and conservative arguement. I do think the RLC should remain connect to the Republican party, and we should support each other on values that see us fit. Hopefully within time we could make the extreme left just a thing of the past.


64 posted on 01/15/2006 11:35:44 AM PST by Rick_Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rick_Michael
I agree. Again this year we looking at the spectre of a big government RINO at the top of the ticket in Oregon , and our share in the state legislature who, with control since 1994, have increased state spending more than the Democrats ever did.

Republicans like that we don't need. Plus I identify more with with the libertarian type than the authoritarian (which I guess would be your classic Republican). So I'm all for a big tent that embraces more libertarian ideas. I think it would be good for the party, and for freedom.
65 posted on 01/15/2006 7:54:10 PM PST by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy
separate political group that supports libertarians, constitutionalists, reform party members, and independents

Yeah, split your minority group into an even smaller group so you can go from being marginally influential to complete political irrelevance. Where DO you nut jobs come up with this crap? This is so utterly wonderfully stupid an idea you MUST be a Democrat.

66 posted on 01/28/2006 6:15:49 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Is there a satire god who created Al Gore for the sole purpose of making us laugh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manwich
/"l vote my conscience against my Authoritarian Republicans and be a weasel"

No you will be a political incompetent wasting your vote on a 2%er fringe thus insuring someone who will give you 100% of what you CLAIM to loath the political power over you. Amazing how utterly stupid the political finger is. Then they sit around and whine that no one takes them seriously! Politics is about compromise. So split off into your fringe group. Then some of you get pissed at the leadership for doing B instead of A and you then split off into your own splinter group, which then fracture about Issue D. NO ONE gets 100% of what they want. Anyone who demands perfection in politics is either a mental incompetent or a childish fool
67 posted on 01/28/2006 6:21:19 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Is there a satire god who created Al Gore for the sole purpose of making us laugh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy

There is too much apathy among the voters to see a value of a third party. The RLC is and will be a much more effective force if it maintains itself as a coalition within the Republican Party.
The Democrat Party has leaped to left that once was considered "off the wall" and not given any credence. As people realize this they will need to consider the other party.
The "third parties" have no power and if to effect change to promote their agenda they will have to work within one of the bigger parties. Many of the fringe left organizations have learned this and work for the democrats.
The two party system is here to stay for some time yet.
- Roger W Hancock - www.PoetPatriot.com


68 posted on 02/01/2006 6:13:38 AM PST by PoetPatriot ("We, conservatives do not stand alone for we stand with the founding fathers." - RW Hancock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

As much as I wish this was true, what I think we are going to see is the Republicans replacing the Democrats, and the Libertarians replacing the Republicans on economic issues as the Classical Liberals they are. But I could be dreaming. At least recent Gallup Polls show that 20% of Americans consider themselves Libertarians, that doesn't count hardcore RLC believers who probably voted Republican as well as DFC supporters who are essentially free market democrats (libertarians).

Bush's new budget is increased 700 billion dollars, this is purely ludicrous for a conservative! Especially because he ran on the Reagan II kind of campaign convincing most voters including myself that he was pro free market, pro small government, pro economic liberty, yet he has increased the burden of the federal level of state on the individual's life through increased "Homeland Security" crap that was supposed to replace unconstitutional FBI and CIA agencies yet did nothing but lay another extensive beauracracy on top of them that inteferes with our right to travel and burns excessive tax dollars.

The few reforms he has done have been merely inneffectual lip services to pretend to be fiscally conservative, very small amounts compared to where he increased spending. Perhaps this can be blaimed on the senate with all of its pork barrell politickin' socialists. Who knows.


69 posted on 02/27/2006 2:52:55 AM PST by joelberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

You may have it right except for the federalist part. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were staunch federalists, Hamilton even said he wanted a "leviathan state with so much power that it would have no reason to try to gain any more". He even convinced George Washington to enforce marshall law with 13,000 soldiers over Whisky Tax rebels in Pennsylvania. Nobody in any state ever paid the Whisky Tax or were brought to court for it, so much widespread dissent led to the eventual removal of the troops and Thomas Jefferson the Anti-Federalist repealed the entire excise tax program in the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800. Thomas Jefferson is the model statesman and was essentially kept abroad in France while the Constitution was written, luckily he got much of his beliefs injected through James Madison a Federalist and good friend of Jefferson. He later joined Jefferson in his Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republican) campaign against Washington's spending and taxing and marshall law on the populace. Not to mention a number of other things he did to improve the State of the Union.

I cannot assure you however that the Republican Party is that interested anymore in helping the Libertarian cause that was once at its core of voter representation. But did you know that during the Dole v. Clinton election that the LP got 7% pop vote for their candidate? Truthfully, it may be easier to get a Ron Paul style Republican to run for President than to get a staunch Free Market LP'er. I think the Republicans are probably the only party however that can figure out how to fight the war in the middle east properly which may be pretty sad lol.


70 posted on 02/27/2006 3:01:15 AM PST by joelberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Oh god they're trying to get a puppet into office. Great! That will only ensure their demise and allow the Libs to replace them against the Socialistic Republicans.


71 posted on 02/27/2006 3:03:43 AM PST by joelberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PhilCollins

The two party system is so overrated.


72 posted on 02/27/2006 3:06:10 AM PST by joelberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: john330

I wonder if the DFC would be willing to vote with the RLC on bills...


73 posted on 02/27/2006 3:07:38 AM PST by joelberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Manwich

The LP draws from both parties as they believe in maximum social and economic liberty from the state. Republicans tend to boast their interest in economic liberty (which I believe is the only thing that can allow alleged "social liberty") while Dems will tell you they support maximum "social liberty" like legalizing property rights to all firearms and illicit substances and deregulating marriage by eliminating mandatory marriage taxes and license fees and by shifting the police force to private security companies who are less likely to violate constitutional rights of their customers.


74 posted on 02/27/2006 3:14:10 AM PST by joelberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy

Each candidate should be judged on his or her merit without regard for party.

The RLC seems to be offering a good option.


75 posted on 02/27/2006 3:21:25 AM PST by WhiteGuy ("Every Generation needs a new revolution" - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy

one more for our side. By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?


76 posted on 03/03/2006 7:13:31 AM PST by boycottmovies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy

Without reading through all of this, I'd say trying to opt out of the Republican party is a huge mistake. I would guess the LP and The Constitution Party already cover most of what the base of the RLC is in third party form. I would think that there are way more advantages to sticking within the party. I always thought of third parties as being more about activism than actual results.


77 posted on 04/11/2006 2:12:41 PM PDT by SeanGrebey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeanGrebey

I think that the Constitution Party candidate for governor of Illinois will produce resutls this year. The current governor is a first-term Democrat who received 52% of the vote in 2002. The republican nominee, State Treasurer Judy Topinka, is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. She's marched in a few gay pride parades. About 2/3 of Republicans I know won't vote for her. Many of them will vote for Randy Stufflebeam, of the Constitution Party. I don't think that he'll win, but he'll probably cause future republican statewide candidates to become more conservative.


78 posted on 04/12/2006 11:05:58 AM PDT by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: maxxoccupancy

Not an authority, but sounds great to me. I just joined and never lurked in this thread before. I think we need a third party Republican primarily but one that is forth right, sticks to its promises and tells you up front what they stand for.


79 posted on 05/24/2006 5:47:18 PM PDT by Sam Ketcham (Amnesty means vote dilution, more poverty aid and we will be bankrupt! Or are we already?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson