Posted on 07/20/2002 2:11:31 PM PDT by forest
By: Douglas Lorenz, RLC National Chairman (1)
There have recently been a number of significant changes in the national Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC). Among the more obvious changes, the National Committee picked a new chairman. Of course, most people haven't heard about this recent change yet, and that is largely because, over time, the national RLC has lost contact with some of its state and local activists. Starting now, that is changing.
The most important function of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to build an organization that helps Liberty-minded Republicans get active in politics. Our goal is to encourage Liberty minded folks to band together within their communities and their states to form RLC chapters. Which means, of course, that we need to make tools available to help people build an organization, recruit members, and get involved in their local campaigns. Towards that end, we plan to establish a communication network that will allow RLC members and chapters to discuss their successes and failures so that we can reach a future where success is commonplace.
The National Board of Directors of the Republican Liberty Caucus recognizes that the real work is done at the state and local levels. It is at the state and local levels where individuals work closely with campaigns, getting votes, influencing policy, and getting Liberty minded Republicans elected to office. Our members need to be involved closely and actively with current campaigns, and we will be encouraging some members to run for office themselves whenever possible. From our point of view, all elected political offices are significant because all elected offices can impact on our Liberty. A lot can be accomplished running for a school board or a city council seat. And, let's face it, today's local leaders are often tomorrow's state and national legislators.
Therefore, we must also be actively involved in Republican Party activities at the state and local level. Republican Party policy needs to be influenced by individuals who hold the real Reagan beliefs that "Government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem". In some states we actually have individuals who claim to be Republican who are fighting to implement state income taxes and other anti-Liberty laws. We have some of these "Republicans in Name Only" or "RINO's" who see nothing wrong in curtailing the very freedoms that make America great. Simply put, the Republican Liberty Caucus does not think that these individuals should be the standard bearers for the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
Simply by making it possible for Liberty minded people to get involved, the Republican Liberty Caucus can and should become the standard bearer of the Republican Party. And, that is where the organization of the national Republican Liberty Caucus becomes important.
While the state organizations are best at battling in the trenches and winning individual campaigns, the national organization can sometimes be better at getting recognition for our efforts. The national Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus can reach out to the media in ways that state chapters often cannot. And the national organization can connect with other Republican groups, issue groups and think tanks in ways that would be inefficient for 50 individual state organizations. With such recognition, other groups and individuals will see our quest to have Liberty minded candidates elected to office as a winning cause, and they will be willing to help us at the state level.
The primary goal of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to help Liberty minded candidates -- those who will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- get elected to office. Our secondary goal is to provide a viable organization that will help Liberty minded Republicans join together to succeed in our primary goal.
Douglas Lorenz is the National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which was formed in 1990 to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty within the Republican Party. He can be reached by e-mail at Doug@Lorenz.Net.
NOTE: The RLC is active in a few States. Most notably are Texas(2), California(3) and Kentucky(4).
According to Scott Jordan, the newly proposed California State Chairman, their chapter is quite active:
"In this election cycle, for example, California's Reagan-style Bill Simon was the come-from-behind landslide winner against the establishment-supported mainstream RINO favorite. This was no surprise to the RLC, which was the first national organization to endorse Simon's campaign -- about a year before the primary! And the RLC worked hard to ensure Simon's nomination, including telephone-bank efforts mounted in the Bay Area(3), which Simon amazingly carried, despite the region's well-known liberalism.
"Under its new leadership, the RLC is coming out swinging to ensure that Liberty principles and Constitutional fidelity prevail in this and future elections. These are the most exciting days yet for the RLC -- check it out."
Texas, of course, has the RLC's first Chairman, Rep. Ron Paul, and other office holders. They already have a slate of candidates ready for this election cycle.
Kentucky RLC helped six out of seven RLC candidates get elected in the last election cycle and is already working on a very impressive slate for this and the next cycle.
4. Mike Moreland at: mrm.bluegill1@insightbb.com
So we have a choice: Republican or Democrat, and within that proper choice: Help the RLC or not.
there are lots of pro life libertarians, just because the LP stance isn't. However even the LP is more pro life than most elected RP members, they'd appoint judges in a heartbeat and go to war trying to overturn Roe Vs Wade.
So . . . who are these people? Well, first they are human, not robots. Second, all can and do think for themselves. Third, we do not have a "group think" in the RLC. Fourth, we don't have a "cookie-cutter" approach to picking candidates. And fifth, our goal is to select those candidates for support who tend to be Constitutionalists.
Unfortunately, many Republicans really believe it is acceptable to use government force to inflect their will and belief on others. I, for one, do not class them as acceptable RLC candidates. Rather, I would class them as a target for replacement!
Furthermore, there are a lot of so called moderate Republicans (RINOs) who are no more then Social-Democrats in the wrong party. Those must also be removed from office.
Rep. Ron Paul was the founding Chairman of the RLC. Dr. Paul is the closest person to a Constitutionalist we have in Congress today. One major goal of the RLC is to get Dr. Paul some like-minded back-up in Congress. Anyone finding fault with that goal is probably just not a good candidate for membership in the RLC.
The basic tenet of the Republican Liberty Caucus is, of course, support of Liberty. We call for that Constitutional form of government set down by the Founding Fathers. I most certainly do not think of the RLC as a "conservative" group. Rather, I think of the RLC as the center in the political spectrum -- supporters of the Constitution -- with the far right and left wingers in both political parties as being the targets we want to replace soonest.
And yes, it's true. That will be a very big job. The right and left wings of both parties are very well entrenched in government. But, short of a revolution and some hangings, this is the only way those changes can be made.
Now, go back to that photo posted above. Those gentlemen are among the leadership in the Kentucky Republican Party. They are also part of the leadership in a Republican controlled State Senate. The second gentleman from the left is the Senate President Pro Tem. The third gentleman from the left is running for governor next year -- and stands a good chance of winning.
Here's yet another little point you nay-sayers might want to consider: A Republican will probably win the governor's seat in Kentucky next year. Two of the three popular Republican candidates running for governor are rather good Constitutionalists -- and RLC members. This means that Kentucky stands a very good chance of leading all other States is paring down the bureaucracy, cutting taxes and recouping some of the personal liberties legislated away by the Socialist Democrats over the years. And, Kentucky will also be in fine shape to "just say no" to the foolishness unconstitutionally imposed on States by the federal bureaucracy. Is there something not to like here?
Yes, Republican Liberty Caucus members tend to have libertarian tendencies. But, they are Republicans first! All we want is to support Liberty. And, let's face it, the best way to support liberty is to support the "Original Intent" of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
And, we are making a difference -- one step at a time. As mentioned in post 20 above, RLC efforts are making a significant difference. Talk with the RINOs running scared in the Kentucky Republican Party, the RLC can make a huge difference in just a very few years. . . .
So, how about we quit bickering about particulars we cannot change until we grow to be very strong and just work together to send Rep. Ron Paul forty or fifty liberty minded legislators in 2004 to help out on Capitol hill?
If anyone is serious about that, now would be the time to get started. After all, you would want to be well placed in the primary elections in order to get to the general. That's how it works. Start early and get your candidates known -- long before "they" know our candidate is intending to run. Opportunity knocks.
Unlike the Libertarians, we are not going to talk the problems to death. We want action.
JC said not to bother putting new wine into old skins. The old skin can't take the stress and you just waste your wine.
However, the LP seems to attract and promote wierdos who revel in majoring in minor issues and rejecting common sense.
Is the RLC just a vehicle for libertarians who won't run under the LP to gain office?
In practice, the line is drawn at partial birth abortion. It is not practical for several reasons to ban early abortions. I count myself as pro-life since I would favor a law that would define partial birth abortion as homocide.
On the main issue, I think that it is clear that the Libertarians on this thread simply do not trust the national Republican Party. We have been disappointed too many times. Take note that the key event that caused the formation of the Libertarian Party was the August 15, 1971 declaration of wage and price controls by the sainted Republican Richard Nixon.
I would be interested so know how the RLC rates Bob Barr.
A bulwark against Clintonism, Rep Barr also was behind
the effort to keep petition-sanctioned issues off the ballot
and out of the decision-making sphere of the voter. If he
is targetted for removal, I would be curious to know.
I can't answer that. But I would doubt it very much. I have always liked listening to him. However, we disagree on some things.
Also, I have no information concerning those petition-sanctioned issues you mentioned. Never heard anything about that before.
There was a petition sanctioned vote in D.C. in 1998 asking, in a non-binding way whether the people wanted medical marijuana to be legal.
Rep Barr was responsible for a bill in Congress that forbid the counting of those votes. It took ten months and a prolonged court battle to get the vote results. (It passed.)
Barr, a good reliable pro gun guy is a hysterical drug warrior. Makes no sense to me but creates a problem for the voters in his district.
Still, until the RLC gets some exposure well beyond the bounds of FreeRepublic and various libertarian magazines, I have serious misgivings about its ability to exert force on the Republican Party to give up political favors and return to the Constitution. If a nationwide poll were conducted on the subject, I would estimate that twice as many Americans have at least heard of the Libertarian Party than the Republican Liberty Caucus.
And despite some of the juvenile antics Libertarians have pulled, a few have actually been elected to office from time to time. They did not have to kiss a senator's butt to get there, either, as far as I know.
Don't misunderstand. I wish you guys and gals the best. I'm sure you have honorable intentions. Certainly an infusion of liberty-minded blood into the carcass of the ol' gray elephant won't hurt.
It's just that I believe in politics, as in many other things, you sometimes have to use both the carrot and the stick to get the desired results. As Republicans, you are pretty much committed to supporting the party's nominee, as repugnant as he may be, on the (fallacious, IMHO) presumption that, some day, your guy will win the primary and all the RINOs will be giving their time and money to his campaign.
This kind of thinking is right up there with the ultimate political rationalization: the lesser of two evils.
With a third candidate, either a Libertarian or a member of the Constitution Party or even an Independent, the voters can -- and sometimes do -- kick the RINO right out of the ring, never to be heard from again, to my great delight. (Whatever happened to Slade Gorton, anyhow?)
Barr didn't return a phone call seeking clarification of how Congress might square the murder of an election with America's image as the very model of the modern major democracy. But why should Barr call back? He doesn't have to explain himself to city residents. They're not his constituents. They're nobody's, at least nobody with formal power on the Hill.
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.