Republican Liberty Caucus

Paul Jacob, a close friend of the Republican Liberty Caucus who spoke at our 2006 national convention in Orlando, was indicted last Oct. 2 on felony charges of violating Oklahoma’s statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of the state. Today he is attending his preliminary hearing in Oklahoma City.

Jacob and his co-defendants — Susan Johnson, president of the petition management firm National Voter Outreach and Rick Carpenter, the proponent of the controversial 2006 initiative that would have set a cap on state government spending that could only be lifted by a vote of the people — pled not guilty.

He released a statement this morning on the case:

“Today, Attorney General Drew Edmondson continues his attack on the right to petition one’s government. We are innocent. We sought to understand and to fully comply with the letter of the law. Indeed, those running the petition drive were advised by state officials and followed that advice.

“Furthermore, the very statute being used to prosecute us is being challenged as unconstitutional. In recent months, statutes similar to Oklahoma’s have been struck down as unconstitutional by two federal circuit courts—the Sixth and Ninth Circuits—in unanimous decisions.”

“Make no mistake: We are here today facing 10 years in prison because we worked for an issue adamantly opposed by the rich and powerful in Oklahoma. The goal of this prosecution is to threaten us and scare Oklahomans away from the initiative process, which gives citizens their best opportunity for real reform.

“But we will not be bullied out of our rights as Americans. We will fight this vicious, politically-motivated assault, and we will prevail.”

Jacob is the former executive director of U.S. Term Limits and current president of the pro-initiative group Citizens in Charge.

Oklahoma’s attack on him is testament to his effectiveness as an activist and should send a chill down the spines of libertarian activists everywhere. For updates on the case, see www.freepauljacob.com.

Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power
• A balanced budget
• Personal liberty
• Strict adherence to the Constitution
• Sound money
• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars
• No nation-building and no policing the world

How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?

READ MORE from Dr. Ron Paul: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track

“It’s gratifying to see term limits continue to spread across the country a city and county at a time,” said Philip Blumel, RLC activist and president of U.S. Term Limits, a Virginia-based advocacy group. “And also that another state affirmed their existing term limits in South Dakota, where over 75% of voters voted to retain term limits on the state legislature.”

“Yes, there is a backlash against term limits in New York and elsewhere,” said Blumel. “But only among politicians and lobbyists. The voters continue to reaffirm their support for limiting political power whenever they get the chance.”

South Dakota (J) – repeals term limits on state legislature.

YES: 87,361 (24.27%)

NO: 272,551 (75.73%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

Memphis, TN (1) – Places a maximum of two terms on the city council, mayor and other constitutional offices.

YES: 177,571 (78.23%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

NO: 49,420 (21.77%)

Shelby County, TN (365) – Places term limits on various city charter offices to match limits on county commission and mayor

YES: 273,107 (78.59%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

NO: 74,409 (21.41%)

San Antonio, TX (1) – Extends term limits for city council

YES: 190,417 (51.6%) TERM LIMITS EXTENDED FROM 4 TO 8 YEARS

NO: 178,611 (48.4%)

Tracy, CA (T) – Places a 2 four-year term limit on the city council and mayor

YES: 12,613 (67.21%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

NO: 6,154 (32.79%)

What’s next for term limits? With Congressional approval ratings at historic lows of about 10%, the focus is turning on Congress. To sign a petition for Congressional term limits, please see www.termlimits.org.

While Obama cannot be expected to be better than Bush, particularly when armed with a Democratic majority in the Congress, his ascendance will necessarily send the minority GOP into a frenzy of finger-pointing and soul-searching. This is healthy and overdue. It should have occurred in 2006. After tonight, the president, legislators and party chiefs who led us into this debacle will no longer receive the uncritical loyalty of the party’s base. New leaders will necessarily emerge, and if history is any indication these leaders will better represent more traditional themes of the Republican Party: lower taxes, less government and a prudent foreign policy.

At some point, the GOP upstarts will be the leaders of a new GOP majority in the Congress. In the 1990s, this process took only two years after the election of Bill Clinton.

Refocused by loss, we may find that today’s election was the first victory for an improved Republican Party of the future. Let’s make it so.

Last weekend I spent a couple of days in Washington, DC at the Defending the American Dream Summit, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. It was a unique experience to be at an event with so many liberty-minded people from all sorts of backgrounds, all united by a desire to bring our republic back to the principles on which it was founded. Although AFP is technically a non-partisan group, I found myself mostly in the company of Republicans who were battered and bruised by the difficulties of the presidential campaign and events of recent days, but above all they remained unbowed and determined not to allow our nation to perish at the hands of reckless government or sacrificed on the altar of greed and irresponsibility.

This conference was the centerpiece of a series of similar regional conferences that Americans for Prosperity has hosted around the country. The idea is to bring together political leaders and the liberty-oriented grassroots to develop a dialog and build a movement to make liberty issues the focus of the political process, especially on the right and in the GOP. The conferences include sessions for bloggers and community organizers, working with groups like the Sam Adams alliance to educate and inform attendees and help them find the resources and learn the skills to be more effective. It’s sort of like a right-wing version of DailyKos’s Netroots Nation conference, which I attended a few months ago.

One of the things that struck me was how many of the attendees were surprisingly young … far younger than the GOP blue hairs who dominate the state parties and younger than the Netroots Nation denizens who average in their mid-fifties. There were students and soccer moms and reformed hippies and a surprisingly large number of African-Americans. It was a diverse and interesting and highly motivated group.

There was a great schedule of speakers, including Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who has earned a career rating of ‘libertarian’ from the Republican Liberty Caucus and was one of the 25 heroic Senators who voted “no” on the Bailout bill. Inhofe spent most of his time talking about the downfall of the global warming movement and talking about sensible energy policy, but he was very impassioned and well received. Also impressive were radio talk show host Herman Cain, TV libertarian John Stossel and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. What surprised me about the speakers was how strongly dedicated to liberty these politicians are. Having heard them speak I understand more than I ever did before that not all politicians are the same and that there are men of principle who are worthy of our support.

Of all the speakers the most impressive was columnist George Will, who gave the keynote address on Friday. Will spoke magnificently, at least partly off the cuff, but presumably stringing together memorized bits of wisdom from past speeches adapted to his audience and the current times as he paced around the stage restlessly, conveying his frustration and anger at Congress and out of control government and the irresponsibility of the American people with enormous enthusiasm and conviction. Will talked at length about the erosion of personal responsibility and the willingness of too many Americans to look for a handout from government instead of helping themselves, pointing out that “more and more Americans are dependent on a government which they are not paying for,” reminding us that while the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes in America, the overwhelming majority of our tax money is spent for the 50% of the population which pays no tax at all. He talked about the fall of communism and fascism around the world and how in many ways with no outside enemies we have become our own worst enemies and drifted away from the values which we once shared. He made the fundamental point which I’ve stressed in some of my writing that our current economic woes are not the result of the failure of the free market as the left would try to convince you, but the inevitable outcome of an overly managed and controlled and dependent economy and of businesses which have lost fiscal discipline and become dependent on government for undeserved support. In his conclusion he said that “capitalism does not just make us better off, it makes us fundamentally better.” Although he was angry and clearly dissatisfied with the current state of the world, Will’s speech was surprisingly inspiring and positive in its overall message.

One event which I didn’t attend at the summit was the rally on the steps of the Capitol to call attention to the bailout and government irresponsibility in general. Busses were available to take attendees directly to the mall, and hundreds turned out for some short speeches and relatively dignified protesting. Congress was not in session, but at least some news media were there to report on the concerns expressed by Americans for Prosperity members. You can get a feel for the rally from the Fox News video presented below.

The Defending the American Dream summit attracted a lot of interesting people. Not the kinds of Republicans which the left holds in their imaginations and certainly not what most associate with the Bush administration. At one point during the closing reception Ken Blackwell began talking about the importance of traditional Republican values and the woman next to me turned and surprised me by smiling and declaring that she was a liberal. I smiled back and acknowledged that I’m one too. It was an enlightening experience. Somehow despite all the pulls and pressures and the mistakes of accepting Dixiecrats and Neocons into the party, there remains a growing core in the Republican party which holds to the values of the party from a century and more ago when the interests of business and the best interests of the people were seen as naturally allied and the philosophy of the Republican party was one of individual liberty, responsibility and prosperity. Some of them might consider themselves libertarians or independents today, but the adherent of those traditioanl values were out in force at the Defending the American Dream Summit.

Well represented within this group were members of the Republican Liberty Caucus, the group within the Republican Party which is working hard to return the party to its classical liberal roots, and which shares many principles with the AFP. Some were there to attend the various breakout sessions and presentations and several were there as bloggers. RLC members in attendance included the following.

Krystle Weeks was there to write reports for her Crystal Clear Conservative blog, which features liveblog-style reports. Krystle is very prolific, so you have to go a couple of pages back to find her posts - she’s written about 20 new articles in the last week. She’s well connected in the Virginia and Washington political community and has a lot of useful insights.

Dr. Bill Smith came up from Arkansas and was writing for his ARRA News Service, which is a very useful resource for conservatives with some insightful critiques of the left. There are some really strong, hard-hitting articles on his site and I’ve added it to my regular reference sources.

John Underwood of the North Carolina RLC was there. I hardly saw him since he was intensely immersed in the sessions and meetings throughout the conference. I did at least manage to get him to slow down long enough for a photo, which is more than I was able to manage with a couple of other RLCers who were at the conference but nowhere to be seen. I also saw RLC member Aakash Raut, who writes at University Blog and is with the University of Illinois (Springfield) Young Republicans. Sadly, he wasn’t around for photo time.

I saw a lot more of David Baumgartner, who is the RLC coordinator for Wisconsin and is working hard on getting his state’s RLC organized and chartered. He’s a very nice fellow who has taken a late-life career shift and is attending law school and expanding his political activism. I suspect he’ll do a great job getting the RLC on its feet in Wisconsin.

With thousands in attendance and a high level of enthusiasm, the Defending the American Dream summit was a great look at where the Republican party and the nation might be going in the next few years. The message was positive, the dissatisfaction with the current establishment in both parties was palpable, and there were not just questions but a lot of good ideas and positive approaches to our current problems being discussed.

A lot of people are talking about change this election. The left would have us believe that the change we need is towards a bigger state and more socialism and that it is embodied in Barack Obama. Yet at the Defending the American Dream summit I saw a remarkably strong movement pushing for a very different and much more positive sort of change. Americans for Prosperity has gone from nothing to an estimated 300,000 members in only two years. As they continue to grow, they are poised to emerge to political prominence in the chaos which is likely to follow after next month’s election. They may not have all the answers, but the folks at AFP and the groups who are working with them do at least seem to grasp the key message that less government and more freedom are the only way to run our country if we want to avoid repeating the errors of the current era in the future.

You can find my full series of five articles on the conference with lots of video interviews at the Republic of Dave.

Adina Cappell, RLC California Chair, urges support of
California Propositions 5 and 11.

——————————————————————-

On November 4, as we cast our ballots for the next U.S. President, Californians will also decide on twelve state-wide propositions. In a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis, the RLC believes that government need to reign in on spending rather than ratify new expenditures. For this reason the RLC California Board of Directors opposes Propositions 1, 3, 10, and 12, each a new bond measure that will increase government funding for high-speed trains, health care, vehicles, and housing loans. According to the RLC California Board, “While some of these proposals are well-intentioned, in the long run they will diminish the quality of life for most Californians, by dramatically increasing our state’s debt obligations.” The RLC California Board also opposes Proposition 6, a proposal that increases penalties for drug use, and Proposition 7, which mandates that companies generate 20% of their power by “renewable energy,” a measure the Board believes will harm California’s already gloomy economic prospects.

The RLC California Board members endorse Propositions 5 and 11. Proposition 5 would decrease criminalization of non-violent, drug users. The measure would diminish punitive and costly incarceration, while allowing a comparatively small amount of funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation. While Proposition 11 is not an “ideal” redistricting plan, it goes a very long way toward preventing incumbents from carving out preferred district boundaries to ensure their own re-elections.

Non-violent drug offenders like Debi Campbell are serving time
in California prisons. Debi is currently in her 12th year of a 20 year
sentence. Is 20 years a just sentence?

The Board was divided about the controversial Proposition 8. While no Board member favored endorsing the measure, some members of the Board prefer remaining neutral on the matter, while others emphatically believe that we should officially oppose it. The RLC blog has previously posted about RLC members working to oppose Proposition 8.

So what will Proposition 8 do, exactly? For the first time, it will create a provision in the California state constitution that mentions and defines marriage. According to Adina Cappell, RLC California Chair, “RLC’ers believe that marriage is a deeply sacred institution, which ought to be considered private and contractual rather than a government-regulated affair.” The RLC California Board contends that, “So long as the government allows financial benefits for marriage, we believe that all individuals should be equally eligible, under the law, to receive such benefits. For these reasons, Proposition 8 concerns most of us.” That said, some RLC Board members are concerned that government recognition of gay marriage might allow individuals to file lawsuits against private organizations and businesses that choose to establish their own policies regarding membership, benefits, and services. In a related example, the California Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling in Benitez vs. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, in which a clinic was found guilty of unlawful discrimination, after refusing to provide fertility treatments for a couple. According to the RLC California Board, “We believe, in the spirit of free enterprise and freedom of religion, that private institutions have the right to maintain policies with which some of us might disagree and find discriminatory, while in the spirit of equal treatment under the law, public institutions should never be allowed to discriminate against any members of society.” The RLC California Board therefore leaves it to its members to read carefully through the measure and to decide for themselves whether Proposition 8 is a violation of equal protection or a proper defense of private property rights.

The RLC California Board chose not to take any official positions regarding Propositions 2, 4, and 9.

Concludes Cappell, “We encourage our members to become involved in supporting pro-liberty candidates and propositions while fighting anti-liberty propositions.” Read the full-text of the ballot measures at
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm.

New California candidate endorsements have been posted at 2008 Endorsed Candidates.

After initially rejecting the bailout package proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives, days later 58 Congressmen changed their vote to approve of the second version. Thirty-three Democrats changed their vote to “aye,” along with 25 Republicans, giving the bill — H.R. 1424 — enough support to pass the House to be signed by President Bush. The bill passed easily in the Senate before coming to the House, with the support of both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Below are the names, divided by party, of those who sold-out the taxpayer for the interests of Wall Street:

Alexander, Rodney [R]
Barrett, James [R]
Biggert, Judy [R]
Boustany, Charles [R]
Buchanan, Vern [R]
Coble, Howard [R]
Conaway, K. [R]
Dent, Charles [R]
Fallin, Mary [R]
Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
Gerlach, Jim [R]
Hoekstra, Peter [R]
Knollenberg, Joseph [R]
Kuhl, John [R]
Myrick, Sue [R]
Ramstad, James [R]
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]
Schmidt, Jean [R]
Shadegg, John [R]
Shuster, William [R]
Sullivan, John [R]
Terry, Lee [R]
Thornberry, William [R]
Tiberi, Patrick [R]
Wamp, Zach [R]

Zach Wamp, Pete Hoekstra, Mary Fallin, Sue Myrick, and John Shadegg all claim to be fiscal conservatives. How a fiscal conservative could vote for the pork-filled bailout proposal is beyond my comprehension. Only one RLC-endorsed candidate — Mr. Shadegg — switched his vote. I am extremely disappointed with Mr. Shadegg.

————————-

Abercrombie, Neil [D]
Baca, Joe [D]
Berkley, Shelley [D]
Braley, Bruce [D]
Carson, André [D]
Cleaver, Emanuel [D]
Cuellar, Henry [D]
Cummings, Elijah [D]
Edwards, Donna [D]
Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
Green, Al [D]
Hirono, Mazie [D]
Jackson, Jesse [D]
Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]
Kilpatrick, Carolyn [D]
Lee, Barbara [D]
Lewis, John [D]
Mitchell, Harry [D]
Ortiz, Solomon [D]
Pascrell, William [D]
Pastor, Edward [D]
Rush, Bobby [D]
Schiff, Adam [D]
Scott, David [D]
Solis, Hilda [D]
Sutton, Betty [D]
Thompson, C. [D]
Tierney, John [D]
Watson, Diane [D]
Welch, Peter [D]
Woolsey, Lynn [D]
Wu, David [D]
Yarmuth, John [D]

According to Zubin Jelveh’s economics blog, the know-it-alls in the media (CNBC, specifically) are now saying Americans are “too stupid” to understand the ramifications of not passing the Administration’s bailout bill.

Unbelievable!

Below are the Republicans who voted for the Administration’s bailout plan. Fortunately, at least eight (Wayne Gilchrest, Ray LaHood, Heather Wilson, Vito Fossella, Deborah Pryce, Chris Cannon, Tom Davis, Barbara Cubin) of the below Representatives will NOT be returning to Congress in November.

Time to boot ALL of the below Republicans from Congress for voting against the wishes of the American people!

SOURCE: LA Times

ALABAMA
Bachus, Spencer
Bonner, Jo
Everett, Terry
Rogers, Mike

ARKANSAS
Boozman, John

CALIFORNIA
Bono, Mary
Calvert, Ken
Campbell, John (surprised!)
Dreier, David
Herger, Wally
Lewis
Lungren, Dan
McCarthy, N.
McKeon, Buck
Miller, Gary
Radanovich, George

COLORADO
Tancredo, Tom

CONNECTICUT
Shays, Chris

DELAWARE
Castle, Mike

FLORIDA
Crenshaw
Putnam, Adam
Weldon, Dave

IDAHO
Simpson, Mike

ILLINOIS
Kirk, Mark
LaHood, Ray
Weller, Jerry (Did Not Vote)

INDIANA
Souder, Mark

KENTUCKY
Lewis, John
Rogers

LOUISIANA
McCrery, Jim

MARYLAND
Gilchrest, Wayne

MICHIGAN
Camp
Ehlers, Vern
Upton, Fred

MINNESOTA
Kline

MISSISSIPPI
Pickering, Chip

MISSOURI
Blunt, Roy
Emerson, Jo Ann

NEVADA
Porter, Jon

NEW JERSEY
Ferguson
Saxton

NEW MEXICO
Wilson, Heather

NEW YORK
Fossella, Vito
King, Peter
McHugh
Reynolds, Tom
Walsh, Jim

OHIO
Boehner, John
Hobson, Dave
Pryce, Deborah
Regula, Ralph

OKLAHOMA
Cole, Tom

OREGON
Walden, Greg

PENNSYLVANIA
Peterson

SOUTH CAROLINA
Brown, Henry
Inglis, Bob
Wilson, Clyde

ILLINOIS
Kirk, Mark
LaHood, Ray

TEXAS
Brady, Kevin
Granger
Sessions
Smith

UTAH
Cannon, Chris

VIRGINIA
Cantor, Eric
Davis, Tom
Wolf, Frank

WISCONSIN
Ryan, Paul

WYOMING
Cubin, Barbara

According to Politicker Arizona, “Ahead of today’s House vote on the $700 billion bailout package, U.S. Rep. John Shadegg is calling for the resignation of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.” According to Shadegg:

“Congressional leadership received less than four hours notice before the Secretary publicly warned of an imminent collapse of the market and announced his bailout plan. Clearly, it was his duty to provide Congress and its leaders time to evaluate this situation, and he failed. The Secretary went public with dire warnings, scaring the nation minutes after apprising Congressional leaders of this problem. That is simply unacceptable.”

“The problems in the market today did not occur over night. In the last six months, Secretary Paulson has insisted that the federal government rescue Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and AIG. Each time, Secretary Paulson assured Congress that it would solve the problem. Obviously, Secretary Paulson has been wrong. The American people can no longer have confidence in him and he should submit his resignation, effective immediately,” Shadegg concluded.

[Editor's note: After this blog post was published, Shadegg switched his vote from opposition to the bailout to support of it.]