Posted on 07/24/2002 2:46:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
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
Sigh... this would be such a great thing to have here in New Jersey. If only, if only.
Too bad we don't have more people in Congress like Mr. Paul -- if anything, "Dr. No" seems to have integrity, which in government, is certainly a good thing.
Maccabee-AJB attended the 2001 National RLC Meeting in Las vegas (fourth picture down, blue shirt) on this page.
Oh. I get your game...
RINO as defined by sane, literate, and rational republicans:
n. 1. acronym for Republican in name only; 2. A member or officeholder of the Republican Party who does not share the political beliefs of the Republican Party; 3. A liberal or non-conservative Republican
RINO as defined by tpaine:
n. 1. Any person affiliated with the Republican Party who disagrees with tpaine's percieved political positions.
In other words, your definition of a RINO and the real definition of a RINO are fundamentally inconsistent with the inconsistency occuring on your part. I think that about covers it.
As for the RLC, I suppose you are welcome to join our organization if you like, but I would recommend that you investigate the true meaning of conservative and libertarian political beliefs and evaluate your own political positions in light of them before doing so. Otherwise you need to reevaluate whether or not your personal political leanings tend to align you with the general political consensus of conservative organizations such as RLC and NFRA among others. From what it appears based upon your postings here they do not.
It is interesting a pro-abort such as yourself would mention Ron.
He's pro life, you know. But that would make him a "RINO" in your irrational mindset where an accusation of failing to be a "real conservative" seems to accompany your response to practically anybody who disagrees with you on issues such as this and others. Not that you understand what that term means in the first place...
Are you not the one who pinged me here and followed up by baselessly questioning my conservative credentials? Answer that and then tell me who you think is obsessed.
One should not get into the business of picking specks out of the eyes of others when he has a log sticking out of his own. In light of your recent charade regarding the questions I posed to you over issues of morality, it would seem that that your position qualifies as an extreme example of the above.
As for the article, what specifically do you wish to know about my opinion? Do you ask if I want to get RINO's out of elected office? If so, I need only note that I have been actively pursuing that goal for the last five years in Texas.
I do not completely agree with the characterization of the Texas slate this year as ready for the fall or preferable to the alternative. The governor Republicans nominated is a tax and spend mohammedan-loving politically correct "hate crimes" legislation supporting RINO. The rest of the statewide non-judicial ticket is made up of eithern incumbents and establishment get along crowd types, except for Land Commissioner nominee Jerry Patterson - the only true right winger in the bunch. The judicial ticket is both good and bad - two major RINO incumbents are on the ticket, but we did manage to knock off one of our RINO governor's pro-abort "moderate" appointments to the state supreme court in the primary and replace him with a conservative. So I guess that's my take on the article.
it pretty obvious that I have a 'base' in asking it.
Even delusional persons find what exists immediately before them in their minds to be obvious, no matter how absurd it is to the rest of us. Your "base" constitutes nothing more than the fact that I disagreed with your goofy positions on morality and specifically abortion. Since basing a conclusion on something that is itself irrational leads to an irrational conclusion, your assertion is baseless.
You appear to be obsessed.
Is that what you tell everybody who responds to your posts when you ping them? I don't believe that I have done anything more than that, which hardly qualifies as an obsession in the normal understanding of the word given by sane and reasonable persons. Then again, you are neither.
Are you not the one who pinged me here and followed up by baselessly questioning my conservative credentials? Answer that and then tell me who you think is obsessed.
Seeing that you will not answer the question, it pretty obvious that I have a 'base' in asking it. -And yes, I pinged you here, exactly for that reason.
You appear to be obsessed. - 36 by tpaine
-----------------------------
Seeing that you will not answer the question
One should not get into the business of picking specks out of the eyes of others when he has a log sticking out of his own. In light of your recent charade regarding the questions I posed to you over issues of morality, it would seem that that your position qualifies as an extreme example of the above.
Misdirection. - Our previous arguement has no bearing here.
As for the article, what specifically do you wish to know about my opinion?
It's not an 'article', it is the official position of the RLC. -- You loudly pass yourself off here as a conservative republican, and I would like your position on their position.
-- A simple enough request, which all your bafflegab bull to date has not answered. - Can you?
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.