Wisconsin RLC Chairman Michael S. Murphy is setting a good example for RLC members in his state and for state chapters in other parts of the country.

Gaining Election

Murphy was recruited by GOP members to run for South Branch Chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party earlier this year, which is the most populated of the six branches of the county Republican Party structure.

In late January, Murphy won election uncontested after it became clear that he was going to win even if the establishment put up a candidate against him. Murphy and Vice-Chair Alfredo Rios joined several pro-liberty allies on the Milwaukee County GOP Committee and, together, have been able to change some minds of members. For example, the Republican Party of Milwaukee County’s main page features a link to Ron Paul’s Facebook Fan Page and headlines an article by Thomas Sowell.

The Unwritten Rule

Last year, Murphy helped expose an unwritten rule that Wisconsin Republicans and Wisconsin Democrats have been upholding for many years. His efforts brought attention to a rule that was not previously known by Republican Party registrants or members.

The agreement is that incumbent Members of Congress will not campaign against each other. The agreement is between all Members of Congressional delegation. In Wisconsin, there are three Democrat incumbents and five Republican incumbents, none of whom will mention each other by name (except in a positive light) in the 2012 election cycle as a result of this unwritten agreement.

The absurd agreement is one of the reasons that RLC-endorsed candidate for Congress Dan Sebring, who ran against Democrat Gwen Moore, did not receive party support for his campaign in 2010 — despite that Sebring was the Republican nominee in the race.

Prior to November, an incumbent member of Congress had not lost in the state in over ten years and only four Members of Congress had lost in The Badger State in the last 28 years.

Participating in the GOP Process

Wisconsin RLC Chairman Mike Murphy, who received an award for his efforts to lead the state RLC chapter at the 2011 RLC National Convention, focused on bringing light to the “Unwritten Agreement” between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians in Wisconsin.

As Chairman of the South Branch of the Milwaukee GOP, Mike Murphy introduced and passed a resolution condemning and disallowing the elected Republican members of Congress to participate in a sweetheart deal with Democrat incumbents.

Shortly before the Milwaukee County GOP Caucus, the Milwaukee County Resolutions Committee shot down Murphy’s resolution. Murphy took the resolution to the floor for delegates to hear. After explaining the “Unwritten Agreement”, he received support from delegates and even from members of the Resolutions Committee who previously discarded the proposal. The resolution was agreed to by the Milwaukee County GOP body.

On Saturday, March 26, the 4th District Republican Party will also consider the resolution. Murphy anticipates it will pass.

Erasing the Unwritten Rule

Two separate entities — the 4th Congressional District GOP and the Milwaukee County GOP — will be recommending Murphy’s resolution to the State Republican Party Resolutions Committee. Of course, having two GOP groups supporting the resolution will strengthen its appeal.

The state GOP Convention will occur on May 22 in Wisconsin Dells, at which time the State Resolutions Committee will consider the proposal. If passed by the Resolution Committee, the proposal will be listed in the state GOP program for delegates to consider. Should the Resolutions Committee not adopt it, Murphy will introduce the measure from the floor so delegates will have a say on it.

Republican pols like Jim Sensenbrenner should not be protecting Democrat pols like Gwen Moore.

Patriots like Mike Murphy lead by example and show other liberty-minded activists the path to success to restore liberty in the Republican Party.

Gwen Moore, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Paul Ryan have a deal.

Cautioning that the federal dollars in your wallet could soon be little more than green paper backed by broken promises, RLC-endorsed freshman State Representative Glen Bradley of Youngsville wants North Carolina to issue its own legal tender backed by silver and gold. He introduced a bill that would establish a legislative commission to study his plan for a state currency. He is also drafting a second bill that would require state government to accept gold and silver coins as payment for taxes and fees.

If the state treasurer starts accepting precious metals as payment, Bradley said that could prod the private sector to follow suit — potentially allowing residents to trade gold for groceries. “I think we’re in the process of inflating a dollar bubble that could be very devastating. The idea is once the study commission finishes its work, then we could build on top of the hard-money currency with an actual State Tender Act that will basically [issue currency] in correspondence to precious metals stored in the state treasury.”

Bradley predicts that world events could soon prove him prescient. “I don’t necessarily believe [the Federal Reserve] is about to collapse right now,” said Bradley, 37. “There are still a few things they can do with qualitative easing to sort of extend their survival. It’s just a question of how long. Right know we have a lot of sovereign debt going to China and Japan. When that debt stops being purchased by foreign countries, that currency is going to flood back onto American shores, potentially creating hyperinflation and bursting the currency bubble we have coming in Federal Reserve notes today.”

Mr. Bradley, a self-employed computer technician and former Marine, attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest until he could no longer afford tuition. While he has not taken any in-depth classes in economics, Bradley described himself as a devotee of the Austrian School, a branch of economic thought that originated in Vienna and was influential before World War I.

A strict Constitutionalist, he has also introduced bills to exempt North Carolina agricultural products and firearms manufactured in the state from federal regulation as long as they are not sold or exported across state lines.

Bradley’s bill has yet to attract any co-sponsors among his fellow Republicans. The office of House Speaker Thom Tillis declined to say whether the Republican Party leadership supports Bradley’s proposal to create a state currency. His bill has been referred to the House rules committee, where legislation is sometimes sent to die. “There are a lot of diverse opinions and diverse views in our caucus,” said Jordan Shaw, Tillis’ spokesman. “I don’t think we’re going to forecast what will happen.”

Thanks to the Raleigh News Observer, DrudgeReport.com, and libertarianrepublican.net for covering Rep. Bradley’s legislative proposal.

This weekend, Republicans in California gathered for their 2011 GOP Convention in Sacramento. Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California hosted their Convention on Friday night and participated in numerous activities throughout the weekend at the state GOP Convention.

On Saturday, the RLC-CA hosted a straw poll at its booth at the CAGOP Convention at the Sacramento Hyatt. Participation in the straw poll was limited to convention delegates, party activists, and registered Republican voters.

Republican Congressman and RLC Advisory Board member (and past Honorary Chairman) Dr. Ron Paul of Texas won the 2012 Presidential straw poll with 17.8 percent of the vote. Complete results of the straw poll can be found here. Learn more about the Republican Liberty Caucus of California here.

MSNBC and the Sacramento Bee both covered the RLC straw poll, as did the local news media in Sacramento. Congratulations to the California RLC for drawing attention to liberty principles!

(Photo: Ron and Carol Paul with RLC members in Texas.)

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida has developed a 2011 legislative agenda for its members to pursue.

The agenda, based on the RLC Statement of Principles, will be put into action as Florida RLC’ers attend the annual Lobby Days at the Capitol in Tallahassee today.

The Florida RLC’s legislative agenda is an excellent model for other state RLC chapters to follow and implement.

1. Restore Our Constitutional Rights
_______________________________________

• “Sovereignty of the State”: Joint resolution proposing the creation of Section 28 of Article I of the State Constitution, to assert the sovereignty of the state and refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal mandates. Support SJR1438/HJR1103
• “Intrastate Commerce Act”: A statute which provides that all goods grown, made or manufactured in Florida and sold within Florida shall not be subject to the authority of the Federal government. Support SB1478
• Scope and Exercise of Federal Power to Regulate Commerce: Urge Congress to honor provisions of U.S. Constitution that limit scope & exercise of federal power to regulate commerce. Support HM577
• Exercise of Federal Power: Urge the Congress of the United States to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power. Support SM358
• Health Care Freedom Act: Creation of S. 28, Art. I of State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. Support SJR2/HJR1
• Ban Red Light Cameras: Many studies show how unsafe intersections become after installation of red light cameras, with a dramatic increase in the number of crashes and serious injury. These studies also show cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light to increase violations in order to generate revenue. Outside the safety issues raised by installation of these cameras is the constitutionality of the systems. Our Constitution says citizens have a right to face their accuser, yet their accuser in this case is a machine. Support SB672/HB4087
• Repeal REAL ID Act: In 2008, the Florida Legislature enacted the REAL ID Act as 4 of 47 sections in a DMV bill. The law required citizens to produce an enormous amount of personal papers to either obtain or renew a Florida driver’s license. This personal information are then seized by the state and scanned into an accessible database. The REAL ID law was forced on the states by the Congress in violation of the US Constitution’s 10th Amendment and violates the Florida Constitution’s 4th Amendment “Right to Privacy”.
• Open Carry: Allow concealed-weapons-licensed gun owners to openly carry their weapons. Support SB234/HB517
• State Jurisdiction: Limit gun regulation to the state and prohibit all local governments from passing or enforcing gun rules and regulations. Support CS/SB402/CS/HB45
• Doctor Prohibition: Prohibit physicians from asking patients about gun ownership. Support SB432/HB155

2. Repeal Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations
_______________________________________

• Online Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems: Eliminates provisions directing DOH to create & administer statewide septic tank evaluation program. Support SB168/HB13
• Florida Climate Protection Act: Repeal provisions for Cap & Trade regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities. Support SB762/HB4117

3. Cut Spending and Protect the Taxpayer
_______________________________________

• Smart Cap: Amend Florida’s constitution to limit revenues collected by state government to the amount collected the previous year, plus an annual adjustment based on a combination of population growth and the rate of inflation. Any funds in excess of the limits will be placed in the state’s “rainy day fund” until that fund reaches 10 percent of the prior year’s total budget – at that point, the Legislature must vote to either provide tax relief or reduce property taxes.
• Stop High Speed Rail/Sun-Rail: The total cost of these rail projects will be devastating to our economy and the tax increases needed to operate the rail projects will take more money from the taxpayers. Spending billions on 1800’s rail technology such as Sun-Rail is a big mistake at a time when the Florida Legislature has to make cuts to essential services. We oppose state funding of rail projects.
• Pension Reform: Generous public pension benefits promised a decade or more are now placing significant burdens on many local budgets and although the state pension system isn’t in as bad shape as some other states, it is time to address it now before it does become a problem in the near future. The Florida Legislature should enact common sense reforms such as moving employees into a 401K style defined “contribution” plan. It is reasonable for the state of Florida to require government employees to contribute a portion of their salary into a retirement plan. Florida is currently the only state that does not have this requirement. Support SB1128/SB1130/HB1405
• Medicaid Reform: Our current Medicaid program is estimated to cost $20.2 billion this year, approximately 30 percent of our states budget. Sustaining a program that has been over-expanded, combined with new and expensive mandates from Washington from threatens to throw our state into further deficits and requiring more cuts to essential services. Support SB1972
• Property Insurance-Reduce Risk to Taxpayers: With Citizens Property Insurance becoming the primary insurer of property in Florida, the Florida taxpayer could be on the hook for billions of dollars if a hurricane of any significance hits Florida. Insuring Florida properties with state dollars will lead to huge debts, and all taxpayers will bear responsibility for that debt. Consumers in Florida would be served best by laws that attract new capital into the state; competition serves consumers better than regulation. Support SB1714/HB1243

4. Term Limits
_______________________________________

• Congressional Term Limits: Urge Congress to propose to states amendment to U.S. Constitution to limit terms of office of members of Congress. Support HM685.
• Do not extend Florida legislators’ term limits: We believe term limits are the only way to prevent elected officials from becoming entrenched and beholden to special interest groups. We implore you to leave the current term limit for legislators in place. Oppose SJR 300/HJR 207

Learn more about the Florida RLC at www.rlcfl.org.

Earlier this week, freshman Texas state Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) has filed two bills to try to counter the threat of the TSA in Texas airports. One bill would ban airport body scanner in Texas. The legislation already has 18 co-sponsors from both parties. The other bill would make sexual contact with airline passengers by TSA agents a state felony.

David Simpson was endorsed by the RLC last year. He also spoke at a RLC meeting in November.

The bill, HB 1938, makes it a civil penalty for anyone working in a locally owned airport to install or operate whole-body imaging equipment — “including a device that uses backscatter x-rays or millimeter waves, that creates a visual image of a person’s unclothed body and is intended to detect concealed objects.” The penalty is capped at $1,000 per day per violation.

Simpson may also have the backing of U.S. Congressman John Carter of Texas, a member of the U.S. House Appropriations and Homeland Security committees. “On Thursday I met with U.S. Congressman John Carter to discuss strategies for stopping the federal Transportation Safety Administration’s implementation of unconstitutional and unreasonable searches of U.S. citizens as a condition of travel,” Simpson wrote in a blog post.

The bill is supported by the Travis County Republican Party, ACLU-Texas, and the Austin-based Texans for Accountable Government. Co-authors so far include: Reps. Jose Aliseda (R-Beeville), Leo Berman (R-Tyler), Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont), Allen Fletcher (R-Tomball), Dan Flynn (R-Vann), John V. Garza (R-San Antonio), Larry Gonzales (R-Round Rock), Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City), Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land), Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), Jason Isaac (R-Dripping Springs), Jim Landtroop (R-Big Spring), Jodie Laubenberg (R-Rockwall), Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), Debbie Riddle (R-Houston), Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), and James White (R-Hillister).

The resurgent interest in constitutionalism and sound economics within the Republican Party has been an encouraging sign. The debate within the conservative movement has advanced in a healthy direction thanks to the prodding of the Tea Party. Whether these moves by politicians were genuine or done out of pure survival purposes is still an open question, but the fact remains that the rhetoric has changed substantially during the post-Bush era.

One of the most demonstrable shifts has been the manner in which Republicans discuss the very institution of government. Our founders, in their rich understanding of private property and desire to zealously guard the liberties of the new nation’s citizenry, spoke of government in generally unflattering terms. While recognizing its presence in some restrained form was required, it was looked at as little more than a necessary evil. The notion of an income tax, federal welfare programs, corporate subsidies, and a fiat currency would have been abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution. In their minds, the main reason for a central government was national defense. The idea of government becoming a charitable institution was an aberration, as this was correctly viewed as the function of churches and individuals.

George Washington summed up these views when he stated that “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” As recently as Ronald Reagan, our nation had a president who was well read in free market concepts and at least made an effort to relay these concepts to the country he served. “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem,” the fortieth president famously said, strong words to a country that had become comfortable with New Deal and Great Society programs. But this reinforced a crucial point that conservatives forgot in the following years. The Ayn Rand and Jeffersonian view was banished, and government became something to be adored and used towards one’s own ends. It became the solution instead of the problem to many beltway Republicans, and they paid for it dearly in ensuing elections.

The philosophies of our current presidents reflect the attitudes a majority of Americans have come to hold toward government. During the Bush years, the force of government ceased being viewed in negative terms by Republicans, and instead was embraced. If one was unaware of the history and aims of conservatism, words spoken by men like Reagan and Goldwater would have seemed downright foreign in the initial years of this new century.

Unfortunately, it took a president like Barack Obama and a movement like the Tea Party to finally wake up a critical mass of conservatives. Not only is the government viewed as the solution by the Obama administration, it is touted as the savior and embodiment of all things virtuous. The combination of coercive force and worship of the state became embraced to a degree which even exceeded the previous administration, revolting millions of Americans who value the concepts of self government. Let us hope that eloquence and slick productions are no longer all it takes to make Americans forget that a government operating outside of the bounds of the Constitution is not their friend, but instead a fierce foe.

Barry Goldwater, icon of the post-World War Two conservative movement, summed up the genuine conservative’s mindset when he said: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”

We know the conservative movement will never quite embrace the Obama version of rampant statism. But despite this, they had come pretty close in recent years, and are left with a major decision to make: will they settle and continue down the path of Bush-style, big government conservatism, or do they finally return to their Goldwater roots and begin stripping down the state to its constitutional size?

In essence, they must decide once and for all if government is a source of reason, or instead just a cleverly crafted form of brute force.

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.

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

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