Yesterday the Vermont State Senate considered Senate Resolution 17, relating to problems associated with underage consumption of alcohol.

The resolution, drafted by Vermont Democrats, was extremely pro-liberty in that it criticizes a “one sized fits all solution” and champions the states’ ability to deal with the issue of alcohol consumption differently. Vermonters have been debating lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.

Since this was only a resolution, it will not change the law, however it will be forwarded to the Vermont congressional delegation because it passed by one vote! The resolution concludes, “[T]he Senate of the State of Vermont urges Congress to authorize the states to address the problems associated with underage consumption of alcohol by obtaining waivers from federal law to avoid triggering federal funding penalties.”

Vermont’s legislature is a lot like that of Massachusetts, with very few Republicans even existing. Many of Vermont’s Republicans tend to be more libertarian-leaning, which is evidenced by two Republicans voting with the 12 Democrats to pass the resolution by a single vote.

Senators Kevin J. Mullen and Vincent Illuzzi were the two courageous Republican lawmakers who voted with the Democrats.

Mullen is from Rutland, owns the Finger Lakes Drive-In, and has been a member of the Senate since 2003. Prior to that, he served in the Vermont House since 1999. He has held a plethora of different leadership positions in Rutland.

Vincent Illuzzi (pictured) has represented the Essex-Orleans Senate district since 1980. He was first elected at age 27, the youngest person to be elected at the time. He’s also the Essex County State’s Attorney.

Congrats to Senators Mullen and Illuzzi!

From the California Independent Voter Network:

“You read that right. Legalizing marijuana for recreational use by adults has more widespread support than President Obama’s administration. Pot legalization is also more popular than the recent health care bill that passed in Congress and has higher approval ratings than our handling of the Global War on Terror…

On page four of AP/CNBC’s poll report, respondents were asked if they thought the U.S. should treat marijuana and alcohol similarly. 44% thought that marijuana shouldn’t be treated any differently than alcohol, while another 12% even wanted less strict rules for marijuana than for alcohol- making a whopping 56% in favor of pot legalization.”

Read how marijuana legalization ranks against Obama’s approval ratings, our handling of the War on Terror, and the number of Americans who support the new health care law here.

The Republican Liberty Caucus National Board confirmed the following endorsements at our Board meeting yesterday.

The endorsed candidates include: Brett Gaspard (District 69) and Tim Fairfield (District 78) for State Representative; Cathy H. Flaig (Boone County) and John Riley (Spencer County) for Judge Executive; Peter Garrett for Campbell County Commissioner; and Cindy Arlinghaus Rich (Incumbent) for Boone County Property Valuation Administrator.

These endorsements are in addition to our previous endorsement of Dr. Rand Paul for U.S. Senate in the May 19 Kentucky primary. Good luck to these candidates!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia has endorsed Michael McPadden’s campaign for Congress in District 5.

The district is vast, conservative, and rural and is currently represented by Thomas Perriello (D). Mr. McPadden is locked in an 8-way primary which will end when Republican primary voters decide who to nominate to face Perriello in November.

Michael McPadden is a leader, a military veteran, and a father. He has been married for 30 years and has a distinguished career. At his website, McPadden explains, “Our campaign has a few core principles that we will never compromise on … Our vision is liberty; Our philosophy is the Declaration of Independence; and our model for government is the Constitution.”

McPadden’s issues page explains that he supports individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and the rule of law. How refreshing!

Former Rep. Virgil Goode, a longtime RLC favorite, would be proud of a candidate like Michael McPadden. The Virginia RLC is, too, so we’re supporting his bid to win the June 8 primary.

Dave Nalle is leading by example.

Mr. Nalle, Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus, has been appointed Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party in Austin, Texas.

Congratulations to Dave! Let’s get more of our Republican Liberty Caucus leaders elected to state and local Republican Party posts to change the direction of the Republican Party.

With the Indiana primary rapidly approaching, the Indiana Republican Liberty Caucus (INRLC) has issued several endorsements in 2010.

The complete listing can be found here, and includes John Hostettler for U.S. Senate and two incumbents for State Senate, Mike Delph and Greg Walker.

Two challengers for U.S. Congress were also endorsed: Eric Olson in District 1 and Kristi Risk in District 8.

Additional endorsements include State Senate challengers Jim Tomes, Brian Jacobs, and Shawn Olson. Mr. Olson is a charter member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He’s running for State Senate in northwest Indiana.

For State Representative, the RLC endorsed incumbent Cindy Noe, who represents a district just north of Indianapolis. Challengers Art Anderson, Duane Beals, Steve Davisson, Brett Loyd, and Robbin Stewart were also endorsed. Mr. Davisson lives in Washington County and has been active in the Republican Liberty Caucus for quite a few years.

RLC members across the country wish these Indiana candidates good luck in their upcoming May 4 primaries.

Steve Davisson (2nd from left) and family. Mr. Davisson is running for State Representative in Washington County and was endorsed by the Indiana Republican Liberty Caucus.

In late February, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Michigan had its annual meeting, which featured guest Governor Gary Johnson. Here are a few photos from that event.

The Minnesota RLC held its Convention on April 12. Here are several photos from that event:

The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus has endorsed two former Members of Congress in their respective runs for U.S. Senate in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D) decided to retire this year, leaving Democrats to hope that Blue Dog Brad Ellsworth can win statewide. Because of where Ellsworth is from in the state and the political climate, Republicans in Indiana would be best served to select former Congressman John Hostettler to face him in the upcoming May primary.

Hostettler’s main primary opponents are State Senator Marlin Stutzman and former U.S. Senator Dan Coats. Stutzman is fairly competent on the issues, but seems to take a more interventionist position on foreign policy in contrast to Hostettler. The other problem with Stutzman is that he will not be able to rival Ellsworth in the General Election in southern Indiana. Senator Dan Coats is a moderate, not a conservative or a libertarian. He would not be the best candidate to capitalize on the angst and frustration expressed by conservative voters in 2010.

Which brings us to Hostettler. He’s not a perfect candidate, as he opposes a Balanced Budget Amendment and term limits, supports a closed border, and is too conservative on most hot-button social issues (but doesn’t usually believe the federal government should be involved). Perhaps his most significant vote was his 2002 vote to oppose the War in Iraq. He said at the time, “Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a pre-emptive military strike at this time.”

Hostettler favors the dissolution of the Department of Education, and voted against the No Child Left Behind Act because he believes education is a state matter. He also voted against most federal health care bills with the view that health care is a private or state matter. He maintains that many federal environmental laws and regulations infringed on individual property rights. He is active in promoting issues of freedom of religion and expression. He supported repeal of the estate tax, capital gains tax, and marriage tax penalty. Hostettler was recently endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul, and his supporters are having a MoneyBomb tomorrow.

Let’s hope Hostettler wins the upcoming primary and sends Brad Ellsworth back to southern Indiana.

The Republican Liberty Caucus also endorsed Pat Toomey for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. Toomey’s Republican primary opponent is Peg Luksik, who is affiliated with the far-right of the Republican Party. His general election opponent will likely be Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Spector.

Pat Toomey is a former Congressman who upheld his term limits pledge in 1998 to only serve three terms. While in Congress, Toomey voted to reduce the capital gains tax, to eliminate the estate tax, to cut small business taxes and to eliminate the marriage penalty. He publicly opposed the stimulus package passed in 2009 and supports a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Toomey takes a libertarian position on Roe v. Wade, believing it should be overturned and returned to the states. That position, however, seems to contradict his support for an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He also has a poor record on drug law reform (having voted against medical marijuana for DC) and foreign policy (having supported the Bush Administration’s War in Iraq).

Pat Toomey would be a competent and pro-liberty Senator for Pennsylvania.

This article is a Republican Liberty Caucus exclusive by Wes Messamore. If you like what you’re reading, please check out my blog.
————-

As a huge fan and supporter of Rand Paul’s father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, I was thrilled to learn that his son was considering a U.S. Senate run for what would turn out to be an open seat in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Months ago, when Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign wasn’t yet a campaign, just a fledgling exploratory committee by a “long-shot” candidate from Bowling Green, Kentucky, he still managed to win an online poll at a Kentucky news website. When I heard about that online poll at a Ron Paul message forum, I turned out with a thousand other “Paulians” and voted for Rand.

Living just an hour away from his headquarters, I had a chance not very long thereafter to meet with Rand personally, and during our conversation, someone mentioned his poll victory. Rand- with his characteristically dry sense of humor- shrugged and said that would be fantastic if he was running to win the Internet’s vote… he’d be Kentucky’s next Senator for sure.

His point was well-made. Much of Rand Paul’s early support predictably surged from young, web-savvy, libertarian-leaning activists who supported Rand’s father Ron Paul. While their support was welcome, it would have been hardly enough to get Rand Paul where he is today.

Now Rand leads all his major challengers in state-wide polls, is closing in on $3 million in funds raised, and has the endorsements of big names like Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, and Reagan PAC. How did Rand Paul’s campaign manage to gain so much ground, putting it in striking distance of electoral victory?

Because my grandma supports him. The secret to Rand Paul’s success is not that he resonates with people like me, but that he resonates with people like my grandmother. I’m a young, enthusiastic libertarian Republican; she’s a traditional, conservative, Reagan Republican- and Rand Paul’s message speaks to her.

Originally from Oklahoma, my grandmother has lived in the Bluegrass State now for longer than I have been alive. Her father was a staunch Democrat and all four of his children, including my grandmother, became Republicans during the Reagan years, when the two parties experienced a major realignment.

She started listening to Rush Limbaugh during the Clinton years- and still does. She loves Glenn Beck, she voted for Bush both times, and she even has a crush on Dick Cheney (but you didn’t hear it from me). She thinks and feels like most Kentucky Republicans do about what’s best for her state and what’s best for the country.

Rand was right those many months ago when he implied that kids like me who supported his father are a poor barometer for his success in Kentucky’s upcoming U.S. Senate election. It is not the Internet that will sweep him to victory, but Kentucky’s registered Republicans like my grandmother- the perfect barometer for Kentucky opinion.

The Paul family message of fiscal conservatism, strict constitutionalism, and principle over party has reached beyond the Internet and college campuses, and swept into the hearts of the people who were inspired by the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, and that’s why he will win.

Rand Paul will be the next U.S. Senator representing Kentucky. Not because I support him, but because my grandma does. And when he gets there, he may just be the one of the very best Senators this country has ever had.

Many Ron Paul supporters find themselves at odds with the Republican Party over the issue of American involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ron Paul they believe that wars of occupation and nation building are unconstitutional and they cannot understand why Republicans who claim to share their belief in the Constitution support those wars.

They make the same mistake that Ron Paul himself did when he attacked Rudy Giuliani over this issue in the first presidential debate of 2008. They make themselves look anti-Republican and even anti-American because they do not understand the perspective of many traditional Republicans or the basis on which those Republicans find themselves supporting these wars.

Then the battle-lines are drawn up and both sides become entrenched in their ideology without trying to understand each others' perspective. The Ron Paul supporters become convinced that traditional Republicans are a bunch of pro-war "neocons" and more mainstream Republicans get the idea that Ron Paul supporters are radical, anti-American peaceniks, when the truth is that neither perception is even close to accurate.

While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason.

They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government.

Despite its inherently irrational nature, this would be an understandable and even excusable position for them to take if the government of the United States were, in fact, the government which we are supposed to have under the Constitution and if the government still followed the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers. If that were the case and the government entered into a war, then it would be impossible for that war not to be undertaken justly and it would be traitorous to oppose it.

Most Republicans act on the assumption that we still live under a government which operates legitimately and constitutionally and that is the basis for their outrage with those who oppose the government's actions. They are not awakened to how far we have drifted from legitimate, American-style, constitutional government and they are still acting on the mistaken assumption that we have the government which we ought to have and that its actions are legitimate on that basis.

So if you are a Ron Paul style constitutionalist, don't make the mistake of calling other Republicans "neocons" or warmongers just because they defend the nation's actions even when you believe those actions are wrong. From their perspective that makes you a traitor and an enemy of the Constitution, because all they see is that you are attacking the Republic, not the reasoning behind your actions.

You can't change the perception that the government is good by attacking the government because those who still believe the government is good will turn against you. It's kind of a catch-22 situation.

You need to convince them not that our government is bad, but that the government we have is effectively not our government at all. You can do this by laying out for them what government ought to be under the Constitution and then let them see for themselves the shortcomings of government as it is compared to government as it should be.

The fact that the Democrats are in power also presents a valuable opportunity, because Republicans of all varieties are willing to believe that Democrats and their policies are evil. So if you go after big government and its excesses as products of Democrat policy you can get your foot in the door very easily.

It's a short trip from condemning the actions of Obama and the Democrats to realizing that those actions are wrong even when they are the actions of Republicans. Patriotic Republicans who would never question the actions of their government under other circumstances will quickly change their tune when they are perceived to be the actions of Democrats or even of Republicans who are acting like Democrats.

Before you can even begin to discuss the war with them you need to lay this sort of groundwork and make them aware that our government is no longer operating on Constitutional principles. That is where you really disagree and once you resolve that disagreement by educating them, then the secondary issues of war and nation building and the tyranny of the security state will become ones on which you will soon find common ground.

When they understand that you are defending the Republic as it ought to be rather than attacking the Republic as it is they will understand that you are allies, not enemies.