Reports coming from the Maine Republican Convention this past weekend are that Tea Party activists and Liberty Republicans, who were elected as delegates in large numbers, have outvoted the party establishment and passed an alternative party platform stressing party reform and emphasizing traditional Republican and conservative values.

After their suggestions submitted through the platform formation process were ignored, the delegates on the floor rejected a platform proposed by party leaders which was virtually identical to the party's 2008 platform and then voted on and passed a much more libertarian and anti-government platform which passed easily. Then when it was challenged on procedural grounds it passed again with an even larger majority.

In the preamble they issue a challenge to the corruption of the party system, writing that "Years of neglect have allowed factions detrimental to the core principles of this nation, to entrench themselves in both political parties, and undermine the education of Constitutional principles vital to the survival of the republic." They also stress constitutional values and announce that:

We, the citizens of Maine united by free association as Republicans, dedicated to seeing the principles which brought forth the birth and ascendance of this State and these United States once again made dominant and pledge our unwavering allegiance, not to a political party, but to the Constitution of the State of Maine and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Republican Party is the vehicle through which we seek to better unify and promote those in pursuit of these goals.

The principles upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:

• The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere.
• State sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the States by the constitution.
• National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.
• It is the responsibility and duty, of “We the People”, to educate both ourselves and others; to demand honest elections free of corruption, and to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and loyalty to the constitution."

They then go on to address many specifics, although the platform is relatively short compared to those of other state Republican parties. Their concerns include protecting state sovereignty, national sovereignty, and individual rights, opposing federal interference with free speech in the media, opposing card check and forced unionization, prohibiting public funding for advocacy groups, opposition to cap and trade, ObamaCare and any kind of tax expansion, term limits and other limits on congressional power, and some socially conservative positions including opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Not everyone is happy with the new platform. The state party has yet to actually put it on their website, with the old proposed platform remaining in its place. Dan Billings, former attorney for the Maine GOP, called the new platform "wack job pablum" and "nutcase stuff." Yet the content does not really focus on the kind of conspiracy-related issues, hardcore anti-globalism or other radical agenda items of the Tea Party movement. Most of what it contains is very mainstream and widely supported by Republicans. It's just more specific and less moderate than many insiders would have preferred.

Response has been positive but qualified from party reformers and Liberty Republicans. In a comprehensive examination of the platform, Matt Gagnon of Pine Tree Politics applauds the substance of the platform while criticizing the cobbled together nature of a document essentially written off the cuff on the floor of the convention hall. R. Kenneth Lindell of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Maine commented, "It would have been better if the Platform Committee had done its job and taken the proposals for changes to the platform seriously. The end result would have been better written and more presentable. That said I think that it is a very positive development that activists who are new to the party have been able to succeed where earlier they were simply ignored and dismissed."

Critics on the left have been quick to attack the Maine platform as radical and the product of political amateurism, pointing to the criticism of the Federal Reserve and of globalist groups as "conspiracy theories and making much of the favorable mention in the platform of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Some have been eager to make fun of the conflict between the "teabaggers" and the Maine GOP. Nonetheless, even they admit that this may be a sign of things to come as grassroots activists gain a larger voice in Republican politics.

With state Republican conventions scheduled all over the country in the coming months, we may see more large-scale movements towards a more purist Republican ideology and an ongoing reaction against big government. Even if other state parties don't see outright takeovers of their platforms, they may respond to this grassroots pressure by shifting farther right voluntarily to address the increasingly loud demands of constituents.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine.

This week the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus finalized its list of endorsees for state and national office in the Texas Republican primary on March 2nd. The endorsements are based on recommendations from regional RLC chapters throughout the state. The RLC has endorsed more Congressional candidates in Texas than in any other state.

After reviewing the list, RLC Chairman Dave Nalle observed that “Ron Paul and Jerry Patterson have shown us that liberty Republicans can win state and federal offices in Texas and this year the selection of candidates is outstanding at every level. Texas will lead the way to restoring the tradition of liberty in the GOP.”

This round of endorsements includes only candidates who are in contested primaries. We look forward to great success when they carry on to victory in the general election in November.

Debra Medina, Governor (www.medinafortexas.com)

Tyler Russell, US House District 8 (www.tylerrussellforcongress.com)

Joe Petronis, US House District 10 (www.petronisforcongress.com)

Ron Paul, US House District 14 (www.ronpaulforcongress.com)

Stephen Schoppe, US House District 21 (www.schoppe.us)

George Morovich, US House District 25 (www.morovich.com)

Jessica Puente-Bradshaw, US House District 27 (www.texansforjessica.com)

Dick Bowen, Texas State Senate District 19 (www.dickbowen.com)

Holly Turner, Texas House District 47 (www.hollyfortexas.com)

Ryan Lambert, Texas House District 50 (www.lambertfortexas.org)

Stephen Casey, Texas House District 52 (www.stephencasey.net)

Melissa Goodwin, Judge, Third Court of Appeals (www.judgegoodwin.com)

Mike Barré, Travis County Justice of the Peace District 3 (www.barrefortexas.com)

Grant Rostig, Caldwell County Commissioner Place 4 (www.grantrostig.com)

These candidates represent the best that the Republican Party has to offer this year. They are visionary reformers, dedicated to the principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty. They join hundreds of other RLC candidates around the country who are part of our effort to elect a cadre of new leaders who will guide the Republican Party and our government back to the principles on which the nation was founded and which are embodied in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Information on current RLC endorsees can be found on our endorsements page.
A listing of all current RLC office holders by state can be found on our RLC office holders page.

Governor Gary E. Johnson has been called the next Ron Paul.  He has not yet announced his candidacy for president, but has been widely mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate who reflects the Tea Party’s and liberty Republicans’ perspectives.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

Jim Greer and John Thrasher.

Many readers are aware that Jim Greer, Chair of the Republican Party of Florida, resigned his post and State Senator John Thrasher was appointed to serve in the interim.  Of course, that appointment was created to help secure the position for Thrasher in February, when the actual successor is chosen.

Below is a statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida on recent events in the Republican Party of Florida:

“Several members of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) attended the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) annual meeting January 8th and 9th. With factors such as the recently announced resignation of RPOF Chair Jim Greer, the growth of the RLC, the emergence of Tea Party movements and the influence of the “We Surround Them” (912) groups, we had high hopes for a new direction for the RPOF.

New opportunities were opened with the anger and energy of these activist groups, and the RPOF state committee recognized this with a resolution to encourage county executive committees to reach out to “Tea Party people.” This would have given the RPOF a solid boost heading into the 2010 elections. But they failed to understand that those “Tea Party people” want principled leadership and bottom-up representation, not the party-first top-down mentality currently in place.

At the annual meeting, the RPOF leadership demonstrated that they still don’t get it. Chairman Greer received a standing ovation from party leadership when he exclaimed at the conclusion of his speech, “It’s about the party, party, party”. The cries heard at a Tea Party or grassroots function, however, are for “principles, principles, principles.”

Rank-and-file Republicans are clearly angry over the unprecedented growth of the federal government in 2009. They are also disgusted at our Governor Charlie Crist’s display of support for Obama’s stimulus package. Yet, when Crist addressed the RPOF at the meeting, he stated that “Florida needs to get her fair share,” and added that he would “not apologize for supporting the stimulus.” Such a statement would be met with scorn from the majority of voters of the Republican Party and Tea Party attendees, but was met with a standing ovation by party leadership.

The first person to speak on policy was Jeff Kottkamp, candidate for Attorney General. Kottkamp did not talk about reducing the size and scope of government, cutting spending, or removing regulations and encouraging free enterprise. Instead, he focused his remarks on expanding the Defense and Space industries in Florida. Grassroots Republicans are pleading for leadership that understands the core issues of fiscal responsibility and limiting the size and scope of government, but RPOF leadership offers only promises to protect special interests.

Most discouraging of all, however, was the apparent coronation of Senator John Thrasher to replace Jim Greer as Chair of the RPOF. In much the same fashion Jim Greer was chosen, the word is that Thrasher had been chosen before the conference call announcing Greer’s resignation had even ended. Many in leadership have rallied around Thrasher because of his ability to raise large sums of money, something the RPOF is in need of. What the RPOF needs more than money, however, is to discover its principles and to get candidates who truly understand those principles elected to office.

A Sign of Hope

In spite of the leadership’s general disconnect with the grassroots, there was a significant sign of hope. There appears to be some serious resistance to the leadership-led coronation of John Thrasher as the new RPOF Chair. Sharon Day, who currently serves as national committeewoman for Florida, stated that she too is running for RPOF Chair in the election that will take place at the February 20th special meeting in Orlando. “I’m running to give the RPOF members a choice, because there should always be a choice,” Day said when she addressed the state committee Saturday morning.

The RLC applauds those in the RPOF that are supporting the courage of Sharon Day and others that seek to offer a voice to the rank-and-file Republicans. We hope that more in party leadership will stand against the top-down approach taken by many in the RPOF.”

The New York Republican Liberty Caucus has been ecstatic over the victory of our state chair, Dan Halloran, in his New York City (Queens) City Council bid. This may make Halloran the highest-ranked Libertarian Party elected official (he ran on the Libertarian -LP-  as well as the Republican, Independence and Conservative tickets).

A message for liberty Republicans is that they need to find imaginative hot button issues that respond to the voters. Once in office, then cut programs, waste and corruption.  As an issue,  government cutting appeals to a segment of the population. But this concern needs to be coupled with other, imaginative ones.

Via e-mail, I interviewed a member of  Dan Halloran’s campaign team, Phil Orenstein of Queens, New York, as to the strategies that Dan used in his campaign.  Phil’s remarks suggest that  Halloran won by marketing himself to the Queens voters.  His ability to win emanated not only from his libertarian ideology but also from his understanding of his constituents.

Halloran is a genuine libertarian who won by articulating a message that appealed to Democratic Party voters.  In this he contrasts with the passing generation of Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, George Pataki and George W. Bush, who are Progressives at heart.  The 1988-2008 Republican generation pandered to conservatives during elections but expanded government when elected. Halloran is a libertarian who appealed to Queens voters and so overrode the anti-libertarian New York City media.

Halloran emphasized traditional achievements and traits such as life-long residence in the community (in contrast to his opponent, New York Times-supported Kevin Kim, who had moved to the neighborhood less than a year earlier).  The aggressive support of a popular New York State Senator, Frank Padavan, also helped.

As well, Halloran emphasized cultural and value issues such as immigration that are non-libertarian and perhaps anti-libertarian.  In a democracy, the voters need to be anticipated.  A libertarian who wins by catering to social or cultural issues can still implement libertarian solutions in many areas.  It is a hard balance between morality and moral flexibility, but that is the nature of democracy.  A hard morality with respect to political packaging is not going to be consistent with libertarian victory in a city like New York, where the citizens are subjected to 12 years of ideologically statist indoctrination in the public schools.

In the end, pressing the flesh, endorsements from well-respected sources, and understanding voters’ key concerns were the tactics that won the race.  Orenstein and his colleagues used imaginative Alinsky-like tactics such as storming the opponent’s political rally.   Education of voters alone, the worn tactic of the LP,  will rarely if ever be a winning strategy in a democracy.

Langbert (L): How did you package yourself to be attractive to the voters in the district?

Orenstein: (O): Dan’s campaign stressed his 4 party line endorsements from the Independence, Conservative, Republican and Libertarian Parties and touted the local Fire Marshal’s and Police Sergeant’s endorsements. He highlighted his life long residence in the community in contrast with his opponent Kevin Kim an interloper who just moved into the District last Feb in order to grab a council seat. Dan’s family has been active in district 19 in civic affairs and politics for over 100 years. Also Padavan’s appeal to all voters including Dems played a big part in marketing Dan. Padavan was out 24/7 campaigning for Dan and we always said “endorsed by Sen. Padavan” to prospective voters. Padavan offered his generous coattails which played a big part in the campaign.

L: Were there one or two “hot button” issues?  Were voters frustrated with the candidates or did you create an issue or two?

O: Yes. The big issue was overdevelopment and the increasing loss of American values and culture in the community. Simply put there was frustration with the mass influx of Korean immigrants who fail to Americanize. Korean store signs, Korean language only churches and private schools are proliferating, thus balkanizing the neighborhood. A once bucolic American neighborhood is now being festooned with signs all over in Korean. English is soon to become a forgotten language.  We ran with this issue…and heard the voters’ frustration and buoyed their confidence that Dan will be their Councilman to fight against overdevelopment, and fight to restore American language and values, and “take back” their communities. Of course the Kim campaign, backed up by the media and local politicians, shot back and condemned this approach as racist. Some people bought this line, but much fewer than the long time residents who are dismayed with the changing landscape. Many of these same people were also frustrated with the direction of our country under the Obama admin and especially with ObamaCare. We expressed the need to awaken the voters to take this election very seriously, get out the  vote & take our country back starting with our city government and then go on to Congress in 2010.

L: What was the role of pressing the flesh, meeting voters individually?

O: This was the most important aspect of the campaign IMO. The biggest hurdle to overcome was voter apathy. City Council races notoriously bring out few voters and few were excited with the NYC mayoral race to boot. Anthony Carollo, myself and a few Tea Party folks organized weekly supermarket leafleting campaigns where we met the voters face to face, distributed Dan’s literature and talked to the voters about the issues. This was the hardest, but most necessary grunt work which we did for 2 months of Saturdays and Sundays nonstop. The voters were apathetic and didn’t want to be bothered for the most part, but we kept up the drum beat, and even chanted loud cheers “Dan’s our Man!” at the shopping malls and I believe turned the voter apathy around into excitement and in the end the turnout was good, better than most other districts, I believe. Our passion and excitement for Dan’s candidacy rubbed off on the voters and spread to others as word got out. Senator Padavan and other supporters were constantly campaigning at train stations in the AM and PM. The contrast between the paid campaign workers and Dan’s volunteers was quite noticeable. The climax of the campaign was the last Sunday, Nov 1, when 2 dozen of us crashed the Senator Chuck Schumer rally to endorse Kim at Bay Terrace Shopping Mall. They didn’t know what hit them as we fired back in answer to their religious bigotry, lies and dirty campaign tactics. Even some Kim supporters at the rally told me they wish they had more time to properly vet the candidates and one guy asked me serious questions about what Dan stands for.

L:  Were there specific environmental dynamics (voter frustration with the economy, Obama, etc.) which you believe contributed to your victory?

O: Yes. Many prospective voters who were frustrated with the economy and Obama, became supportive and excited with Dan’s candidacy when we enlightened them as to where Dan stands on the issues: cutting taxes, reduce dependency on governmentt, fight to cut the size of government by 50% by cutting overlapping agencies, fight against fraud and abuse in City Hall, fight for individual liberty, be a dissenting voice on the council, support police and firefighters first, etc.

L: What was the role of building a good campaign support staff?

O: Daryl, Giulliani’s former NY campaign manager, was Dan’s campaign manager. Queens GOP Party leaders were all on the scene. It was disorganized at first with more chiefs than Indians, and no real organized plans. But things got organized, calling lists, speaking engagements, press conferences, etc. were organized and campaign volunteers flowed in steadily and were immediately utilized.

L: Did the New York City media play a role pro or con?

Con. They attacked Dan’s religion making it a political issue, exposing their own bigotry and hypocrisy as the so-called “champions of diversity” The Queens Tribune, the Daily News, Village Voice, New York Post all followed the herd in beating up on a minority whom they thought would take the beating in silence. But they all lost!

L:  What advice would you give to future libertarian candidates:

O: They should capitalize on the frustration with Obama and the state of the economy and the socialist direction our country is taking. They had better know their Constitution and Declaration of Independence backwards and forwards, otherwise the Tea Party crowd and many awakened citizens will have nothing to do with them. Dan knows his Constitution by memory!  Honesty counts, integrity counts, ethics is the key, and sticking to principle and never pandering for votes, is the winning strategy in these Obamanation times. People are looking for leaders of character and principle not sleazy lawyers and political hacks. Those days are over.

Mitchell Langbert can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

2009 is the year of the party purge.

That’s one way of characterizing what has been taking place in the Republican Party as it relates to Republican Liberty Caucus members.

As voters that identify as Republicans continue to plummet to new lows (just 20 percent according to an October ABC/Washington Post survey), some state or local Republican Parties have targeted their most liberty-oriented members (undoubtedly members of the Republican Liberty Caucus) for removal.

An interesting strategy to build the Republican coalition — let’s boot out the Republicans that most value the Republican Party platform!

RLC members in Florida and Indiana — and, now, Tennessee — have been removed from elected positions, or have been targeted for removal.

Last week, the Davidson County Republican Party — representing the largest county in Tennessee — announced an effort to remove Vice-Chairman Matt Collins from his elected position. The Davidson County Republican Party Executive Committee voted 14 to 5 to begin the process to remove Mr. Collins from his position.

Collins is also the Vice-Chairman of the recently formed Republican Liberty Caucus of Tennessee. In response, the RLC has issued a press release defending Mr. Collins.

“This is the third state in the last year in which party insiders have tried to purge grassroots activists belonging to the Republican Liberty Caucus,” said Dave Nalle, National Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Purges also took place in Marion County, Indiana, where RLC member Liz Karlson was removed from her Ward Chair position, and in Florida, where five Republican Liberty Caucus members were removed from the party for criticizing party leadership or opposing candidates with a history of fiscal irresponsibility and raising taxes.

The Republican Party has a tradition of diversity, tolerance, and support for freedom of speech and the right of dissent. The Republican Liberty Caucus is encouraging its members to contact RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Tennessee RNC Committeemembers Peggy Lambert and John Ryder to ask for their intervention in the matter. The RLC press release includes additional contact information for interested parties.

According to RLC Chairman Dave Nalle, “It looks like a weak faction which barely gained control of the county party decided that Matt Collins and his supporters threatened their positions of power, so despite the fact that he has not violated any rules, they decided to override the party members who voted him into office and force him out.”

A Republican Liberty Caucus member from Maine has written several columns on a regular basis that appear at the RLC website.

The columns offer practical advice for current or prospective candidates.

View the columns here.

Dan Halloran, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, has been running for New York City Council for the better part of the year now. But some in the Queens Republican Party are hoping to replace Halloran with another candidate — Paul Vallone — after the Queens Tribune profiled Halloran’s religious faith. According to an article that came out earlier today, “Their choice to replace him is Paul Vallone, who finished third in the district’s recent Democratic primary.

That’s right. Replacing a Republican candidate with a current or former Democrat. This is actually an upsetting trend that I have noticed cropping up in national and state-level politics.

Why are some in the Queens GOP upset with Halloran? Well, he’s engaged in that all American ritual called religious freedom. Yes, Mr. Halloran has chose his own faith, and it’s not a popular one: he’s a practicing Theodist who worships with the pre-Christian pagan faith of Theodism.

Fortunately, it seems that the Queens Republicans are going to make the correct decision and go with their original choice. An article published just a few hours ago, entitled “GOP has faith in Halloran,” says that, “Queens Republicans said they did not believe City Council hopeful Dan Halloran’s adherence to a pagan religion would have any affect on the Auburndale attorney’s bid to fend off Democrat Kevin Kim in the race to replace Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside).”

Score one for freedom conscience and for liberty-loving Republicans. Halloran actually has a good chance of defeating Democrat Kevin Kim, and if he does so he’ll be one of only two or three Republicans serving in elected positions in New York City government.

But back to the trend of Republican establishment leaders selecting current or former Democrats over good liberty-loving Republicans.

It’s happened twice to the most prominent libertarian Republican family, the Pauls: once to RLC Advisory Board member Dr. Ron Paul and once (now) to his son Dr. Rand Paul.

In 1995, the Republican Party, which had gained a majority in the House for the first time in four decades, offered U.S. Rep. Greg Laughlin (D-TX) a seat on the Ways and Means committee if he joined the Republican Party.

In the subsequent congressional election in 1996, Laughlin was endorsed by the Republican establishment, including then-Governor George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and other members of the party from outside the district and the state. Despite this, Republicans in Laughlin’s district still saw him as too moderate, and he faced a primary challenge from former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his 1994 opponent.

Laughlin won the initial primary election with 42 percent of the vote, but by failing to win a majority he was required to face the second-place Paul in a run-off election. Paul defeated Laughlin by a 56-44 percent margin in the runoff election and went on to win the congressional seat.

In an important race for liberty-lovers across the country, Dr. Rand Paul is running to become the junior Senator from Kentucky. Despite having grassroots support and having raised the necessary cash, he has hit a wall called the Republican Establishment — led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and fueled by National Republican Senator Committee Chair Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

Cornyn and McConnell have selected a former Democrat, Trey Grayson, to run for the open Kentucky Senate seat as a Republican. They’ve tried to clear the way for Grayson, but thus far have been unsuccessful in doing so. Grayson is another former Democrat and supported Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992.

Why does the Republican establishment continually insist on backing poor quality candidates who lack principled commitment to the Republican Platform?  Shouldn’t these candidate choices be left to Republican Party voters to decide?

These types of ex-Democrat candidates rarely turn out successful for the Republican Party, as in the case of Laughlin, who lost to Ron Paul in 1996 and has been a lobbyist in DC ever since.

UPDATE: Apparently the potential Halloran replacement nominee (a Democrat-turned-Republican) is now supporting the Democrat candidate for the Queens-area City Council seat — an election taking place in November.

UPDATE #2: Doug Guetzloe, a longtime Republican Party activist and RLC member in Florida, says the following: “Last night the Orange County (Florida)  Republican Executive Committee met.  The Chair is Lew Oliver, the individual who lodged the grievances against both Nick Egoroff and me for ‘violating our oath’.  Last evening Oliver nominated Sarah Rumpf for REC membership. Ms. Rumpf was the campaign manager for Democrat state attorney Lawson L. Lamar last year against our GOP nominee Mercedes Leon. Ms. Rumpf also is supporting Democrat candidate for Orange County Mayor, Bill Segal. Mr. Oliver defended Ms. Rumpf and called out of order a motion from one our Liberty Coalition member David Mack to remove her from the ballot.  Mr. Oliver also threatened Mr. Mack with arrest. Ms. Rumpf was elected to the Republican Executive Committee. Incredible.”

Yesterday the Republican Liberty Caucus issued a press release (pdf) and encouraged its members to contact media outlets to alert them of the outrageous behavior of the Republican Party of Florida and its Chairman Jim Greer towards RLC members and other Republicans who have been the target of a Stalinesque party purge.

These pages have already detailed this story and more news will follow.

RLC members like Will Pitts and John Stevens were punished by the Florida Party did nothing but express personal opinions which were not popular with a leadership which has no tolerance for dissent or speech which doesn’t match their version of political correctness.

The GOP has often been a “Big Tent” with room for diversity of opinion and a respect for the right of free expression, but in Florida under Greer the rules are more like those of the Democrats or the Soviet Communists who believed that slavish subservience to the party was more important than individual rights or diversity of thougth.

Grassroots Republican activists are being punished for their idealism and honest disagreement with the policies which have taken the Republican Party away from its principles of limited government and individual liberty in recent years — selling its soul to special interests, only buying a reduced status as a minority party in both houses of Congress and party registration.

Party leaders ought to be looking to the Republican Liberty Caucus for a new generation of leadership instead of singling them out for punishment for stating truths which are painstakingly obvious.

The Republican Liberty Caucus and our chapters and allies around the nation will continue to press this issue until the national party wakes up and cleans house in Florida.

We will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. We are in earnest, we will not equivocate, we will not excuse, we will not retreat a single inch, and we will be heard.

To view a PDF of the official letter sent to John Stevens from the RPOF, click here.

To view a PDF of the RLC press release on this issue click here.

In Sunday’s edition of The DC Writeup — a web news journal for politically motivated young adults, author Kelse Moen, a recent Emory graduate, wrote about the need for the Republican Party to focus on principles and issues. Writes Moen:

GOP Needs to Focus on Principles, Not Twitter
by Kelse Moen

It’s tough to say who is the most absurd U.S. Senator, but my vote goes to Republican Chuck Grassley, the senior senator from Iowa. The seventy-five-year-old Grassley, you see, has discovered Twitter, and now lonely College Republicans all across the country can tune in for daily bits of wisdom like this:

“End of life debate is deliberate atempt to focus attention away fr cost of Pelosi bill. Instead shld focus on lowering cost of health delivry.”

Of course, Grassley’s rapier wit is not limited to legislative topics. In another “tweet,” picked up by NPR, he fired a hefty salvo at President Barack Obama. “Pres Obama,” twote Grassley, “you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us ‘time to deliver’ on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND.”

Grassley is no Daniel Webster — but neither are any of the other 99 senators. In 2009, one is more likely to find a spark of intelligence among 100 people randomly grabbed off the street than in the Senate cloakroom. But Grassley’s Twitter page is bad even by senatorial standards. I don’t think it is any exaggeration to call it one of the most pointless, inane things to be created by a senator since Meghan McCain.

Grassley’s Twitter page, like Meghan McCain’s career as a political pundit, is driven by the belief that Republicans have been losing elections lately because they haven’t been able to connect with young people, and that all they need to do to win is become hipper and more technologically savvy. This is the mentality that led the GOP to counter Barack Obama’s presidential victory by finding a black man of their own and putting him in charge of their party. It’s what leads to videos like this and to Meghan McCain’s schoolgirl blather about which Republican congressman is the hottest.

This is a harmful mentality to have. It totally bypasses introspection by assuming that the Republicans’ downfall was started by sins of omission, rather than sins of commission, and thus avoids the important lessons that Republicans should have learned from their defeat. In reality, the GOP hasn’t lost the last two elections because they failed to harness the power of Facebook and Youtube, or because the party hasn’t reached out to the hip hop culture, to paraphrase RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

The GOP needs to look at the principles of the Bush years — big government, perpetual war, big business favoritism — and ask whether those are principles worth defending. I hope that the party big wigs realize that they are not, and will return to the creed of the Taftite Old Right, of limited government, anti-imperialism, and traditional morality — in a word, anti-statism.

The political candidates who have gained positive momentum in recent years — Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin — did so because people saw them, rightly or wrongly, as new and interesting. These candidates weren’t hung up on being cool. In fact, Palin’s populism and Paul’s constitutionalism are, by most contemporary standards, decidedly uncool. But those candidates were genuine, unlike Grassley.

Some might say that the tide is already turning on the Democrats, that recent polls, increasingly favorable to Republicans, show that the whole “death of the Republican Party” line was hugely premature. But even if the Republicans do beat Obama in 2012, so what? Victory would come by default, the result of the president’s failures, not of the Republicans’ popularity. We can have a President Gingrich who bombs and bails just as much as Bush did, while government continues to grow. In that case, who cares whether there’s a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office?

Republicans need to realize that their failure was substantive, rather than aesthetic, and that it is their substance, not their aesthetics, that they need to change. But don’t count on them recognizing that. As Chuck Grassley might say, “OMG were so screwd.”