The RLC will NOT be meeting on Tuesday March 1st at the Fairfield Inn and Suites. Instead we are encouraging all of our members to attend WOKVs 2011 Political Hob Knob for city elections on Thursday Night, March 10th from 5-7PM at the Hyatt Regency Riverfront. The event is free and open to the public. Candidates for mayor, sheriff, City Council and other positions have been invited and there will be a large crowd of attendees whom we can reach with the RLC’s message. Impact Jax will conduct a straw poll featuring all candidates which will be counted by the Supervisor of Elections Office. Recently the RLC was featured on a First Coast News segment (View Segment Here) and therefore it is important that we continue to get our brand and our message out in front of people. Having our members attend this political Hob Knob event is an excellent way to do that.

Here is the plan.

Date: Thursday, March 10th

Time: 5:00PM – 7:00PM

1. Arrive at the Hyatt Regency Riverfront and enter through the front doors (Side facing the St. Johns River)

2. Look for RLC Representatives who will be stationed near the front entrance with RLC Lapel Stickers, Election Information & RLC April Meeting

3. Walk the Hob Knob and talk to people about the candidates we support and what the RLC is about

4. Following the Hob Knob – Join other RLCers at Chicago Pizza at the Jacksonville Landing for Food & Drinks

RSVP on FaceBook: Facebook

RSVP on Meetup: Meetup

It’s time to elect Regional Directors!

Regional Directors are elected to the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus following the National Convention. The Regional Directors are an important link between the State Charters and the National Board.

The four Regions are (* indicate Chartered state):

• Eastern Region: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine*, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire*, New Jersey, New York*, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island*, Vermont, West Virginia and the District of Columbia*.
• Southern Region: Alabama*, Arkansas, Florida*, Georgia*, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi*, North Carolina*, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee*, Texas*, Virginia*, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
• Midwest Region: Illinois, Indiana*, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota*, Missouri*, Nebraska*, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin*.
• Western Region: Alaska, Arizona*, California*, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah*, Washington*, Wyoming and Guam.

Important Dates:
Nominations Open:  Sunday, 2/27/2011
Nominations Closed:  Friday, 3/4/2011
Ballots Issued to Officers: Saturday, 3/5/2011
Voting Closes: Friday, 3/11/2011
Results Announced: Saturday, 3/12/2011

Contact:
RLC National Secretary, Jason Hellenberg (hellenberg.jason@gmail.com)

###

Regional Directors are the State Charters representative and voice on the National Board.  A Regional Director should create a good relationship with all of the State Charters in their Region, and give monthly reports on the Charters in their Region.  They should also work with State Coordinators in their region to help a Chapter become formed and functional.

Candidates for Regional Directors shall be Regular Members in good standing. Candidates may be nominated by another Regular Member, or may ask to be considered. Nominations shall be made to the National Secretary by the nomination deadline.

The Officers of Chartered states will be issued electronic ballots listing the candidates. The electronic ballot shall be returned to the National Secretary by the specified deadline, no less than five days from issuance.

Candidates have been registered, they may write a two paragraph candidate summary that will be distributed in the electronic ballots. It is advisable to have an email address included so you may be contacted directly for inquiry.  Candidate summaries must be received by the close of Nominations.

The electronic ballots will counted and reported on within two days of the election deadline. The results will be mailed to the State Officers, and be posted in multiple electronic locations.

Please send all nominations directly to hellenberg.jason@gmail.com.  Social Media/eGroups will not be searched for nominations.

###

Colorado is a state that is ripe for a Republican Liberty Caucus chapter. Earl Bandy, an activist and RLC member in the Denver area, has set a meeting for members of the Colorado RLC on Saturday, March 12 at 10:00am. Members and interested parties will meet in the Lone Tree room of the Lone Tree Library at 8827 Lone Tree Parkway, Lone Tree, CO 80124. We will review a proposed set of bylaws, share our vision for RLC Colorado and lay the ground work for a successful convention in early April.

If you would like to renew your dues or join the Republican Liberty Caucus, you can do so at www.rlc.org/join-the-rlc/.

We will need to have ten dues paying members to sign our chartering application. At RLC.org you will also find the national bylaws and the RLC statement of principles among other worthwhile material.

During the scramble for victory in Republican primaries, one of the most oft-repeated assurances each candidate attempts to make is their commitment to pro-life principles. Leaving aside a few socially liberal Northeast states, most Republican races consist of candidates offering reassurances that they will stand by these convictions and take steps to implement them once in office. While the track record is spotty at best when it comes to making progress in this department, it certainly is an issue that any candidate seeking to distinguish themselves as a conservative attempts to set the record straight on.

And this is admirable rhetoric. Protecting defenseless life is one of the few primary justifications for the institution of government, so a worldview that seeks limits on abortion does not conflict with a firm belief in smaller government. Though there could be a robust debate over whether this should be handled at the state level as many murder cases are, or at the federal level by way of constitutional amendment, seeking ways to curb abortion is nothing to be scoffed at. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed 50% of Americans describe their views as pro-choice, so this remains a touchy and divisive issue which ends up falling largely along party lines.

With the trend of evangelical Protestants joining the Republican party that began as a trickle in the 1970s before morphing into a full blown stampede in the 1980s, social issues like abortion became much more of a deal breaker within the party. This cycle became complete in 2008 when John McCain received upwards of 80% of the evangelical vote in many states, a percentage crossing north of 90% in some. And considering most of these voters are salt of the earth, hard working, church-going individuals, dissecting their voting patterns is vital to seeing where the heartbeat of America is during any given election period.

But there is a subtle danger posed when being pro-life is seen as the primary distinguishing trait of a conservative candidate. For example, if an issue such as abortion becomes the sole reason a conservative votes the way they do, this opens up the sorts of opportunities seized by Southern Democrats like Gene Taylor, Dan Boren, Heath Schuler, and Chet Edwards through the years. If it becomes the sole focus, traditional conservative values like constitutionalism and governmental restraint can become secondary, if not outright ignored.

It can also work for fiscally liberal Republicans who actually possess little commitment to smaller government, as demonstrated by the presidency of George W. Bush. No matter how much federal spending and entitlements expanded, defense of his alleged conservatism would always center around the claim of “well, but he is pro-life.” The fact that nothing ever gets done on this issue no matter the makeup of Congress might lead perceptive observers to wonder if it is little more than a political football, something Republicans running for office can always tease voters with. “Just re-elect us one more time, and we will close those abortion clinics once and for all” is seen as sufficient bait to maintain political power.

If it holds true that being pro-life translates into a more broad based commitment to limited, decentralized government, then looking at the relative economic freedom of countries with more restrictive abortion laws should reflect this. But these two are not necessarily synonymous. Venezuela, a country ruled by the iron-fisted Hugo Chavez and which grants its citizens minimal economic liberty, also happens to heavily curb access to abortions. Though its Catholic leanings influence this, it shows no correlation between views on social issues like abortion and those held regarding economics. Further evidence that a country’s willingness to curb abortion access is entirely unrelated to opening up other freedoms for its inhabitants is present. Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, and Argentina boast some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, but according to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom rankings published by the Heritage Foundation, these countries were 11th, 48th, 68th, and 138th respectively.

This is not to say that individuals can hold pro-life views while subsequently desiring governmental non-interference in the economic sphere. The majority of conservatives certainly hold to these convictions simultaneously. But neither necessarily dovetails with the other, something many libertarians are quick to point out. Strongly desiring to legislate against aggressive action towards an unborn child is a worthy devotion to have, but confusing this for a well-rounded conservative philosophy can cause confusion. Labeling this candidate or that “staunchly conservative” based merely on a laudable pro-life stance can lead to the election of officeholders that hold little else in common with their constituents aside from this one position.

As evidenced by the economic freedom of nations like El Salvador and Argentina, one could have a full blown statist orientation while accordingly holding pro-life views. Conservatives must be more cognizant of this next time they go to the ballot box to act on the empty words of a cynical politician. Blind faith that platitudes promising to protect the liberty of the unborn will somehow translate into the guarding of the freedom of the born has proven to be unfounded.

Since 1991, the RLC has kept our dues rate at the same amount without adjustment. At the 2011 RLC National Convention, delegates approved a set of changes to the Bylaws, Rules, and Statement of Principles of the organization which included an increase in the minimum dues to become a member of the RLC.

Minimum dues for a regular member of the Caucus will be $45 after March 31. The new dues schedule is as follows:

• Regular: $45 (was $30)
• Premium: $75 (was $50)
• Sustaining: $150 (was $100)
• Patron: $350 (was $250)
• Benefactor: $750 (was $500)
• Roundtable: $1500 (was $1,000)
• Student/Military: $30 (was $20)

Chartered state chapters of the RLC will be advised that they need to modify their Bylaws to conform with the $45 regular dues and $15 dues sharing amount, effective April 1st. Boilerplate chartering rules (bylaws) in the state chapters will also need to be modified to conform with this dues adjustment.

Those who joined the RLC prior to April 1 at the previous dues amounts will still be considered paid members until their membership expires.

While Republicans in The Badger State Have Finally Gained a Backbone,
Some Wisconsin Teachers Have Failed Their Students

by Aaron Biterman

Recent protests in Wisconsin have captured the attention of residents in that state and anyone paying attention to politics nationally. Governor Scott Walker, elected in November after many years of total Democrat control, proposed what he calls a budget repair bill to close the $3.6 billion shortfall. The legislation, which has support from large majorities of the Republican-controlled House and Senate, will significantly curb the collective bargaining rights of public employees in the state and would require most government workers to contribute to their pensions and health care premiums.

Specifically, if passed, state employee wage increases will be in conjunction with inflation such that employee pension contributions will rise to 5.8% of each employee’s salary, health insurance premiums will rise to 12.6% of their total premium, state workers could opt out of paying union dues after current contracts expire, and union dues could no longer be collected automatically.

Governor Walker says that these items are necessary to prevent furloughs while also reducing the $137 million deficit, but the Wisconsin Educational Association (WEA) and President Obama claim that Walker is using his political power to take away worker rights while reducing union power in the state. Of course, as the 2012 election moves closer, Democrats nationwide are concerned about Wisconsin – a key swing state – and rightfully so. Democrats receive 65% of union contributions while Republicans receive roughly 1%; roughly 34% is given to non-partisan causes.

The WEA and the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers have a combined annual revenue of nearly $30 million, according to the Center for Union Facts. Additionally, while nearly 10% of private school teachers are fired due to poor performance annually, less than two percent of Wisconsin teachers are let go as a result of inadequate performance. This is because Wisconsin public school teachers are virtually untouchable after three years of service, after which they receive tenure.

Now Wisconsin teachers have taken to the streets of Madison to protest the budget-balancing act of their newly elected governor. Meanwhile, the 14 Democrats who are members of the Wisconsin State Senate decided to leave their state and their constituents to block the Walker budget repair bill. By hiding out in Illinois, the Senate Democrats have blocked the 20 votes needed to obtain a quorum because Republicans only have 19 State Senate votes to pass the bill.

Ironically, from 2006 to 2010, when Democrats controlled the legislature and governor’s office, the same Democrats who fled their state also spearheaded controversial legislation that Republicans were not able to block, including, but not limited to:
▪ State borrowing of nearly $1.5 billion despite an unemployment rate less than the national average;
▪ Raising taxes to the tune of $900 million on cigarettes, hospitals, oil companies, and real estate in 2007;
▪ Raising taxes with a $1.1 billion tax package in 2009 which broadened the corporate tax base, increased the top personal income tax rate, reduced the capital gains tax exclusion, and increased hospital taxes; and
▪ Each of these tax hikes was in conjunction with increases in spending.

In these examples, Republican lawmakers chose to show up and make their arguments in opposition to the Democrat majority. They did not flee to another state as the 14 Democrat State Senators have.

This brings us back to the sad truth about the Wisconsin union protests: Many teachers have left their students behind for their own self-interest.

That’s right; some teachers in Madison and Milwaukee have skipped school to enhance their own wages despite the fact that 90% of black fourth-graders in the state are not proficient readers, thereby making them last in the nation in this demographic group according to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. In 2009, 19% of Wisconsin high school students failed to qualify for service in the U.S. military as a result of their poor scores on the Army’s Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Student achievement in Wisconsin is disparate with mediocre results, yet some teachers had the nerve to leave their students in the dust to picket at the Capitol for days at a time.

When it comes to teacher quality, Wisconsin’s results are even worse than its student achievement rates. The National Council on Teacher Quality gives Wisconsin a “D” (with “F” meaning a total failure) in four out of five categories from its 2009 “State Policy Yearbook.” The state fails to deliver well-prepared teachers, expand its pool of teachers, identify effective teachers, and remove ineffective teachers. Specifically, the study concluded that Wisconsin “fails to make evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations” and “lacks an efficient termination process for ineffective teachers.”

The essential truth about the budget repair bill is that teacher union bosses across the country are watching Wisconsin. They know that if a Democrat-leaning state like The Badger State reduces the special privileges of its state employees, they could lose tens of thousands of forced dues dollars, some of which are earmarked for the campaigns of politicians like President Obama. States like Alabama, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia are considering following Governor Scott Walker’s lead on this issue to nip their budget shortfalls in the bud, too.

Freedom of association is a constitutional right and workers should be free to come together to organize. By the same token, teachers who don’t show up to class, legislators who run to another state, and doctors who write false sick notes should be held accountable. Thank you to Wisconsin’s teachers who continue to show up for work. These are the teachers that Wisconsin students can look up to as examples. Those who are not showing up have embarrassed themselves and their profession, and that’s the sadness in the Wisconsin union uprising.

Assuming the budget fix moves forward, there are some positives in the situation, too: the budget may finally balance, other states could follow the Wisconsin model, and a much-needed discussion about the special privileges that union power wields for public sector employees will have entered the public cognizance. We owe a debt of gratitude to Governor Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature for their collective backbones.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Aaron Biterman is a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and is a certified teacher in The Badger State. In 2007, he moved from Wisconsin to Virginia, where he currently resides. He is an Advisory Board member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party and is Vice-Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

This is a very brief rebuttal to LewRockwell.com/Campaign for Liberty author Anthony Gregory’s blog post entitled “Republicans as Bad as Ever.” Gregory opines:

“On war, the most important issue. In the tenth year of a ridiculous, illegal, and completely counterproductive war of aggression, Justin Amash, a Michigan freshman Congressman with some libertarian leanings whom I was told to keep an eye on, joined the 97% of his party in the House voting against a completely reasonable and moderate plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

As an aside, this alone would have saved $100 billion a year. Another epic fail from the Tea Party.”

Congressman Amash, the second-youngest member of Congress and a keynote speaker at the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention, defended his vote as follows:

Here’s the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that. Instead, it cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-NY-08) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal. His word cannot be the final analysis for a new Rep., and it wouldn’t have been if I didn’t have 600 other amendments to review. I voted no. “Present” is for genuine procedural concerns.

Mr. Gregory made the same mistake that his LewRockwell.com colleague Laurence Vance made when Vance criticized the Republican Liberty Caucus in January. Mr. Gregory doesn’t understand how Congress works in the same way that Mr. Vance had little knowledge about the goals of the RLC. (Since then, Mr. Vance has learned more about us and even featured my article about Paul Ryan at his blog.)

A simple suggestion to those in the liberty movement: Please understand the topic you’re writing about before sharing your opinion. This will make you much more effective when trying to convince audiences of an opinion.

And, another suggestion: It’s more important to focus on the more than 400 members of Congress who do not share *any* libertarian principles than the 30 or so members who are actively working to preserve our country.

The politicians endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus are working to save our nation.

Let’s spend less time scrutinizing their votes and more time trying to either persuade or boot out the 400 politicians in Washington (and countless Administration bureaucrats) who have little concept of individual liberty or limited government.

At the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention in Arlington, Virginia, elected officials from across the country made the case for political participation among students and activists in the liberty movement.

Congressman Justin Amash, in his short speech to delegates, spoke positively about the Republican Liberty Caucus, saying …

“In 2005, I wasn’t involved in politics in any substantive way. I had never really thought about running for office. I began looking for organizations that shared the beliefs I had — and that’s when I came across the Republican Liberty Caucus. And, really, it’s what’s started my move toward running for office.”

Listen to more of our elected liberty Republicans below. Please join or get involved (or both) in the Republican Liberty Caucus today.

Congressman Justin Amash – Part 1

Congressman Justin Amash – Part 2

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 1 (Dan Halloran)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 2 (Jamie Callender)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 3 (Terri McCormick)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 4 (Mix)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 5 (Mix)

Governor Gary Johnson – Part 1

Governor Gary Johnson – Part 2

Brief Video History:

The Republican Liberty Caucus is one of many elements within the general libertarian movement, focused on the specific objective of bringing the Republican Party back to the principles of individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise. The Caucus embodies the unique strategic vision of working within a major party to achieve liberty. Although we share our basic principles with many other libertarian groups, we welcome constitutionalists, classical liberals, tolerant conservatives, and free market advocates who support our objectives.

The movement finds its roots in the ideals of the founding fathers, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but also in the writings of many pre-revolutionary political thinkers. The Caucus is the result of the activities of several organizations that were active in the 1980s, but the concept of developing libertarian principles within the GOP could be traced back to the 1964 Presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. Although he labeled his position as “conservative”, he espoused the “classical liberal” principles that we champion today.

Goldwater’s defeat discouraged his supporters, who tended to gather in the Young Americans for Freedom [YAF] in the late sixties. David Nolan, a Chairman of the Colorado Young Republicans, founded the Libertarian Party [LP] in 1972. Many libertarians abandoned other efforts to participate in the LP during the early years, while many prominent LP officers and candidates have left the party to join the RLC effort.

Dana Rohr- abacher

The earliest libertarian to gain standing within the Republican Party was Dana Rohrabacher. Historian Sam Konkin III says Rohrabacher was “the most successful and most beloved libertarian activist,” critical to the development of YAF, the Libertarian Alliance, and the Society for Individual Liberty [SIL] in the late 60s and early 70’s.

“There would not have been a libertarian movement without him,” says Konkin. With the financial support of David Koch (later an LP Vice Presidential candidate), Rohrabacher twice ran unsuccessfully for the GOP con­gressional nomination in Southern California. Later, he worked as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and was subsequently nominated by the GOP and elected to the 42^nd Congressional District of California. His early years earned him ‘libertarian’ ratings in the RLC Liberty Index, but he has recently tended toward a more conservative philosophy.

Roger MacBride

Roger MacBride, heir to the Laura Ingalls Wilder estate (“Little House on the Prairie”), may have been the first candidate to explicitly describe himself as a “libertarian-Republican” while he served as a Vermont GOP Assemblyman and ran for Governor in 1964. As a GOP Presidential Elector for Nixon in 1972, MacBride cast a rebel ballot for the LP Presidential candidate, John Hospers. MacBride gained the LP Presidential nomination in 1976, but later returned to the Republican Party and was critical to the early formation of the RLC.

Dr. Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul was strongly influenced by Austrian economists and advocated clearly libertarian positions after his election to Congress in 1976. He served as a Texas GOP Congressional Representative until 1984, when he was defeated in a race for U.S. Senate. He joined the LP as their Presidential candidate in 1988, then returned to Congress as the 14^th District Republican Representative in 1997, where he continues to serve. Dr. Paul has served as Honorary Chairman of the RLC and has earned the highest lifetime rating of any federal representative in the history of the RLC’s Liberty Index of Congress.

There were at least three precursor organizations to the RLC, from which it derived most of its early membership: the Libertarian Republican Alliance [LRA], founded by Joe Gentili, Larry Penner and Gerry O’Brien in Brooklyn, New York in 1972 with Professor Clifford Thies of Virginia as a prominent member; the “Radical Caucus” of the LP, which included Murray Rothbard and Williamson ‘Bill’ Evers of California (who was active in the Bush Administration), which evolved into the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee [LROC], founded in 1988 by Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris, and Colin Hunter.

The LRA disbanded in 1981, in light of the growing successes of the LP during that period. The “Radical Caucus” members split from the LP, but failed to develop a viable organization. The LROC group developed a large mailing list and supported several Republican federal campaigns in California. Efforts to expand the organization nationally were not successful.

Vernon Robinson

The first use of the name “Republican Liberty Caucus” was by a group of libertarians supporting the election of Republican Art Pope (a former LP member) to the North Carolina State House in 1986, recalls Alan Turin. Organized by Stan Ayeres, the group included Bobby Eberle, Vernon Robinson (a successful State House candidate in 1988 and a recent GOP candidate for Congress, both with RLC support and endorsement), and a dozen others. According to Eric (Dondero) Rittberg, Ayeres credited Robinson with suggesting the name. For a time in the late 1980s, the North Carolina RLC was listed as a state chapter of the national LROC organization.

Although LROC was active for seven years, publishing “The Libertarian Republican” newsletter with Reason Magazine advertising, participation dwindled and the founders pursued other interests when Hunter withdrew his financial support. (Raimondo and Garris now operate the popular AntiWar.com website.)

Early in 1990, at a meeting of a group of Florida LROC members at a Young Republicans Convention, including Phil Blumel, Tom Walls, Eric Rittberg and Rex Curry, who agreed to develop a national RLC organization. Alan Turin and Curtis Dietrich joined the group shortly thereafter and it was initially listed, with North Carolina, as a state chapter of LROC. A few months later, Rittberg says he obtained the complete list of 450 LROC members and agreed with Ayeres to make the RLC an indepen­dent national organization.

Other LROC members, Fred Stein of New Jersey, Alan Lindsay in Texas, Earle Smith of Georgia, Norm Singleton (now Legislative Director for Congressman Ron Paul) of Pennsylvania and Gene Berkman of California were among the first RLC State Coordinators. Lindsay operated an RLC national office in Texas for several of the early years.

Dr. Cliff Thies

On April 6, 1991, Roger MacBride invited Turin, Alan Lindsay, Eric and Barbara Rittberg, Rex and Susan Curry, as well as Tim Condon, to his Naples, Florida estate to formally organize the national RLC and plan for a “coming out party” at the National YR Convention in July 1991. MacBride agreed to fund the RLC newsletter “Republican Liberty” and to head an RLC “Council of Trustees” with Clifford Thies and William Hunscher as members. Michael Holmes of Texas was recruited as Senior Editor of the newsletter and RLC Treasurer. At that July meeting, officers were elected, including Chair­­man Rittberg, Vice-Chairman Thies, Sec­retary Norm Singleton and Treasurer Mike Holmes. Other National Committee members were MacBride, Wainwright Dawson, and Richard Duprey.

Throughout the 1990s, Clifford Thies served as Chairman, Mike Holmes as Treasurer, and Rob Booth as Secretary.

Other RLC Chairs include Roger MacBride in 1992, Ron Paul in 1995, Chuck Muth in 2000, Douglas Lorenz in 2002,  William Westmiller from 2004 to 2009 and Dave Nalle from 2009 to present. Many others have been long-term members and made major contributions to the RLC national and state-level organizations.

The first RLC newsletter can be found online here and a video overview of the history of the RLC can be found here.

Republican Liberty Caucus National Conventions

Above: Original RLC members Rex Curry, Roger MacBride, Eric Rittberg, Alan Lindsay, and Alan Turin.

A few weeks ago I received an unexpected call from Senator Olympia Snowe’s outreach coordinator inviting me, as Maine RLC Chair, to a meeting with the Senator. Also invited were representatives from other conservative organizations including tea party activists, constitutional conservatives and libertarians. Guests includes representatives from the Maine Legislature and the Republican State Committee.

The meeting was on neutral ground in a hotel conference room in Augusta. Ten of us sat around a rectangular table with Senator Snowe and two aides at the head of the table. The common thread was that all the participants represented factions of the Republican Party that were either critical of Senator Snowe’s moderate track record, and in some cases outright hostile to the Senator. The meeting was clearly an effort to reach out to the “right wing” (although, as a libertarian, I reject that label) of the Republican Party.

Senator Snowe began the meeting by thanking us for attending and stating that she wanted to have an open and frank discussion of issues facing the country as well as hearing criticism of her own voting record in the U.S. Senate.

Wow! That was certainly a bold thing for her to do given the ideological demographic of the room. What followed was a very civil yet frank discussion of the big issues facing the country. Olympia Snowe is one of the most seasoned and skillful politicians in the country. Her skills shone as she defended her record. She spoke extensively about some of the truly beneficial work she has done for the State of Maine: saving the Domtar paper mill in eastern Maine, saving the Kittery naval shipyard and consistently working to bring Federal funds to the state. There is no doubt that a good deal of her political success can be attributed to her excellent constituent service work.

Senator Snowe ably defended her voting record on health care. Some in the room thought that her support in committee for Obamacare was a decisive vote. In fact it wasn’t, and she made that clear. She explained that she had voted for the bill in committee in exchange for a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the legislation would be open to Republican amendments when it reached the Senate floor. Reid broke his promise, she said. Snowe insisted that she is not only opposed to Obamacare now, but that she supports full repeal of the law. A recent vote of hers has actually borne that promise out.

At one point in the meeting when Snowe was accused of “voting against Republicans” we saw her become somewhat emotional. She recounted the time when her husband John “Jock” McKernan was the Governor of Maine. He was in the midst of a government shutdown resulting from a standoff with the legislature over workers’ compensation reform in the late 80′s. Then-Congresswoman Olympia Snowe was on the phone with her husband and she could overhear shouts and insults from protesting State employees who had been admitted to the state house by then-Speaker John Martin. Snowe commented that she and Jock felt that they were not supported by many Republicans at the time.

Olympia Snowe also defended her vote for TARP (the 2008 financial bailout bill) arguing that the country was at the edge of an abyss. She went on to announce that she would be sponsoring a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget as well as a higher threshold (3/5 vote) to raise taxes. The balanced budget amendment sat well with the invitees in the room.

What fell flat, in my opinion, were some of her answers to questions that should have been predicted from that crowd. Snowe seemed puzzled by a suggestion that the recent food safety bill was unconstitutional because it affected farmers who don’t sell their produce across state lines. Snowe even boasted that she was able to include a provision that farmers with revenues of less than $500,000 would be excluded. What about the potato farmer who brings in $500,001, but doesn’t ship one French fry outside of Maine?

Some in the room questioned the Senator’s membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and even asked if she supported George H. W. Bush’s reference to a “New World Order”. At that point we were getting into some really esoteric conspiracy theory territory. Nevertheless one would expect the Senator to at least understand the context of the comments and be able to respond appropriately. It really seemed to me that she was flummoxed (although she might have been just carefully considering the question). In fact I found myself in the awkward position of having to explain the issue. I also made clear my view that while there is a real threat to our constitution from those who would undermine US sovereignty with globalism, that wasn’t what Bush 41 was referring to in 1991. I would think that someone on her staff would have briefed her about this stuff before going into a meeting that included devotees of the John Birch society.

The genesis of this meeting was clearly a concern by Olympia Snowe’s political operation that she may be facing a primary challenge (we now know that she is) to her upcoming reelection effort in 2012. Snowe has long been seen as a thorn in the side of the “right wing” (again, as a libertarian I exclude myself from that label) of the party. It would be one thing if she were simply a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. That would certainly be okay with me and other libertarians. Her real problem lately has been on the fiscal conservative side of things. I refer specifically to the elephant in the room. The elephant that was never acknowledged at this meeting. That is the Obama stimulus bill. The gigantic budget-busting $800 billion attempt to stimulate the economy in early 2009. Senator Snowe was instrumental in the passage of that bill. The Tea Party movement was a direct reaction to the Stimulus bill, Obamacare just threw fuel on the fire.

Over her career, Olympia Snowe has certainly been a moderate, but a moderate with a libertarian angle. Every year the Republican Liberty Caucus ranks members of Congress on the Nolan chart-inspired Liberty Index. The Liberty Index ranks members of Congress on a pro-liberty voting index equally weighted between social issues and economic issues. Sen. Snowe has consistently scored above 50% on both axis. In fact, most recently she scores in the conservative quadrant with a better record on economic issues than social issues. That record has always earned Olympia Snowe support from me in her previous election campaigns. The question I struggle with now is whether her vote for stimulus was a deal breaker in the next campaign.

I wanted to keep RLC membership informed of this development. We should certainly make time to discuss it during our upcoming Maine RLC Leadership Conference — which is scheduled for April 23, 2011 in Augusta, Maine.

Ken Lindell
Chairman, Maine RLC