Free Republic

Exactly. And all it takes is for a court to assert that since war is violence, then pro-war speech is an incitement to violence. I know, it sounds stupid, but how many really stupid judgments has the Ninth Court spewed out over the past decades?

The legal system in this country is based off of case law, which is all about previous rulings. If this judgment against Phelps proceeds sucessfully through the appeals system, then that makes it that much closer to the idea that pro-war rallies might be considered illegal.

And what happens when the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals decides that a pro-war rally can be considered an incitement to violence? All it takes is someone to make the leap that if War=Violence, then promoting war is inciting violence.

Do you really think that sort of thing is that big of a stretch from previous rulings?

Definitely Janice Rogers Brown...

Yes, it would be a hell of a fight in the Senate, but she is everything that conservatives and libertarians have been asking for ages. She understands the Constitution, and treats it as the law of the land rather than just a collection of suggestions...

I'd like to see debates, but last I heard, Jones was refusing to allow any debates... Something should be done about that...

JohnnyZ, Let's try to be marginally polite, ok?

Not that stuff. That's what a CAMPAIGN MANAGER does, not the candidate.

No, the campaign manager may organize campaign efforts, but the campaign itself is about the personalities that get behind it.

I've never seen a heated televised debate consisting of campaign managers... It's about the candidates. And people don't give money to campaign managers, they give money to candidates. Finally, people don't show up at a rally because they like the organizer, they show up because they like the message and the speakers.

I don't want to sell a good campaign manager short, but I don't know of anyone who is capable of polishing Bill Jones to the point where he is appealing enough to make people want to get off the sofa and go vote.

That's what the Recall was about, taking a message that had little financial support and little support from the political establishment, and working to build it from there. People listened to Howard, felt the energy that Howard brought to the Recall effort, and decided that it was an effort that they were willing to be a part of.

People want to feel like they are a part of something again. They want a candidate that excites them, and drives them to believe that things can get better. Can anyone honestly say that about Bill Jones???

But the first time you listen to Howard speak, you realize that there's something different there. He's motivated, he's exciting, and he's committed to the very ideals that will get people off their sofa and to the polls. That's why Howard will win.

Perhaps it's telling that one of the only people on this thread who's defending Bill Jones is doing it with the disclaimer of:

BTW, I am not a Bill Jones fan. When I look at the CA GOP bullpen, I'm really disappointed right now.

I personally AM excited by Howard's campaign. He's an energetic speaker, and really motivates the grassroots. If the U.S. Senate race can motivate the activists, then there will be an incredible trickle-down effect throughout the state.

Good point about Jones opposing the recall... I remember when he stated that he wasn't going to help the recall, but that he would consider running for Governor if other people went and did all the real work first...

I don't trust a politician that doesn't have enough passion to get out and get his hands dirty. Jones is the worst of both worlds, he's aloof like the rest of the "country club" type of Republicans, but doesn't have their money to be able to run a real campaign.

If you use the silly qualification of only voting for people that you think are electable, then why don't you just vote for Boxer? She's already won that senate seat twice...

Personally, when I go to the polls to vote, I vote for the person who is most likely to support the values that I agree with. And Bill "Tax Increase" Jones is NOT that man.

Howard Kaloogian has always been a consistent tax fighter, has always been a consistent friend of liberty, and I see no reason to play down his experience. Hell, Kaloogian worked to get Gray Davis recalled. Jones couldn't even make it through the primary to face Davis back in 2002...

Third place finish for Jones doesn't exactly sound "electable" to me...

Doug

** BUMP **

Mark me down for a major "Recall the Doofus" PING!

And I always thought that great poets had to be tormented liberals...

Then again, there's bad poets like Maya Angelou who is a tormented liberal...

Either way, great job Fred!

How about if I try my hand at haiku?

money politics
a governor gone corrupt
lose the gray

And my car will be even more noticable with 1000 new CA-RLC flyers taped to it as I drive down the road... Ok, you can probably only tape about three or four to my little car, but...

GOPPunk is just upset that I never let him drive the convertible while wearing a chicken suit.

p.s. I'm glad that RightOnTheLeftCoast didn't have GOPPunk proofread his new flyer... Geez...

Ping !

I would be interested so know how the RLC rates Bob Barr.

The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus has endorsed Bob Barr, and Barr has signed the RLC's Liberty Compact. He has been a good vote on most liberty issues in the U.S. Congress, and has spoken at a previous RLC convention.

The only problem with Barr is that he does tend to be a little authoritarian on a couple of issues, which has caused the Libertarian Party to target him for removal. His primary opponent is Congressman John Linder, who is also a good vote on liberty issues. The two have been forced to run against each other because of the redistricting in Georgia that was done by a democrat controlled legislature.

Note that the Georgia chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus has endorsed Linder...

Douglas Lorenz
National Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus

Hello everyone...

I'd like to join in this message thread and answer a few questions and concerns.

First, there are people who have become disenchanted with the Republican Party over the lack of commitment to the principles of liberty. To this concern, I have to agree.

If the Republican Party in general were committed to smaller, less intrusive government, then there would be little need for the RLC. If our government believed that protecting individual liberties was more important than using government force to implement personal agendas, then most of us would not feel the concern that motivates us politically.

However, this is not the way the Republican Party is right now.

Many Republicans do believe that it is acceptable to use government force to accomplish "noble goals". Many Republicans do not see taxes as a drain on individual productivity. Many Republicans do find little wrong in exchanging liberties for perceived safety.

This is why we need the RLC.

The Libertarian Party is a failure. No third party has the ability to make a difference from outside the system, at least not at this time. It's foolish and inefficient to try to create a complete political party structure out of the chaos that is the LP. It is, however, possible to force the GOP, at least part of it, to be libertarian.

And that is what we are here for. We have seen that libertarians can be elected to office when they run as Republicans. As this movement grows, we will get more recognition, and more individuals who see that it is possible to win as Republicans will run.

Can we change the Republican Party? I believe so. It is not a quick process to change something that large, and that entrenched, but every day we are winning battles. Already a number of states can point to legislators who are clearly libertarian in ideology, but won as Republicans.

And at some point in the future we will reach that critical mass where there are more of us in the Republican Party than those who are not friends of liberty. That is what we strive for right now.

So, consider this: The Libertarian Party has been around for three decades now, and their idea of success at the national level is to get someone elected to a school board in Nowhere, Idaho. The Republican Liberty Caucus has elected members in state legislatures throughout the country, a number of leaders elected to national office, maintains activists at all levels of the Republican Party, and we've only been around for the past decade.

So, which is more successful, and which is the better tool for restoring liberty?

Douglas Lorenz
National Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus