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

No matter what your opinion of Ron Paul happens to be, it is impossible not to notice the energy his ideas have generated among young people over the last several years. Largely unknown outside of his Texas congressional district prior to his 2008 presidential run, the ideas he has espoused for decades have recently grown by leaps and abounds among the under-40 crowd. One would think this might be of particular importance to the mainstream conservative movement, as many of their most energetic and intellectually curious younger members have been joining the liberty movement en masse since 2008.

The current Republican leadership can either embrace this change and correctly view it as the wave of the future, or it may simply dismiss it and attempt to put off the inevitable.

It would be wise counsel for them to come to terms with the truism that that correct ideas will always outlive the man. The ideas that are taking on a life of their own seem to have caught the establishment portion of the Republican Party off guard. The hegemony many of those in elected leadership and media formerly possessed allowed them to monopolize the definition of what is and is not inherently “conservative.”

In the recent past, it often seemed like large swaths of the so-called conservative media existed solely to squelch pockets of independent thought that cropped up among its members. Anyone questioning one Republican policy or another was written off as some sort of “liberal” or “kook.” For the better part of the last decade, many conservatives were repeatedly told that the most indefensible actions by those in charge were somehow “conservative” so long as it was done by a Republican. But, by gosh, if the other party did the precise same thing, well, they must hate this nation. Massive invasions of civil liberties, foreign nations, and individual sovereignty—wow, where do I sign up? Obviously this was not the response these sort of actions engendered among the majority of younger Americans.

Long unquestioned by listeners and audiences, this shtick had begun to grow old. Thankfully, its formerly slow erosion has been sped up by the Internet and Tea Party movement. The terms of the debate have begun to be redefined as millions of conservatives, whether supporters of Ron Paul or the liberty movement in general, are no longer content to be dismissed when they have the slightest objection to Republican policy.

Many in the younger generation had rapidly grown weary of defending the actions of the previous administration on their college campuses to countless dissenters. Though the worldview of these dissenters might have been liberal in nature, they at least caused some critical thinking to be done regarding what largely turned out to be more than thorough contradictions and brazen hypocrisy. Sensing something was off about denouncing socialism while cheering on candidates who showed no real aversion to federal interference when it suited their agenda, many of these younger people were drawn to the message of a candidate like Ron Paul.

The notion that fidelity to the Constitution was something that withstood party or public opinion resonated, acting as a breath of fresh air after years of doublespeak and government expansion. The demand for this has only increased now that the same problems with government have continued unabated through the first two years of the Obama administration.

Considering the fact that, according to CNN’s exit polling, Republican presidential nominee John McCain received less than one-third of the 18-29 year old vote (which comprised 18% of overall voters), finding a way to tailor their message in a manner more appealing to the younger generation would seem like a logical venture. However, for a party and broader movement that is still more likely than not to cheer Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney at public events, one must conclude logic and not offending the average voter’s intelligence are apparently not on the front burner. Seemingly, party loyalty at all costs is still the flavor of day in many parts of the conservative movement; this explains the large resistance to Ron Paul and the liberty movement.

And this movement does have a high mountain to scale. According to recent polling data from Public Policy Polling, only 13% of Republicans hold an unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush, underscoring the degree to which party loyalty is still trumping independent thought despite the heroic efforts of many factions in the Tea Party movement. But the numbers in this same poll bear out what other surveys have indicated, showing that Ron Paul’s popularity among 18 to 29 year olds is nearly twice what is found among other age groups.

For now, owing largely to the lower turnout numbers among this age bracket in primary and general elections, the Republican Party can still get by with ignoring such developments. Many will still be happy to, with head firmly planted in sand, pull the lever for the next generic Republican without the slightest bit of hesitation. But not for much longer; their efforts to continue marginalizing the liberty movement are becoming progressively less successful.

The liberty movement will expand in proportion to the speed at which Republicans begin to realize the minimal difference between the Bush and Obama administrations. Sooner or later this will reach critical mass, eating away at enough of their base as these voters constitute more and more of the electorate. Instead of the current policy of ridicule, Republicans might want to act faster at changing their tune; at some point down the road enough of these enterprising young voters might become so disillusioned so as to make it too late for such an about face to occur.

Whether the candidate of choice for liberty-leaning conservatives happens to be Ron Paul or not is not the point of these observations. The intention is to alert Republicans that that the erosion among young voters will keep up the longer they hold on to Bush-style big government conservatism and reject pleadings to return to the traditional limited government movement.

It’s hard to believe, but the RLC celebrated its twenty year anniversary over the weekend with its biennial Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention and outreach effort at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The activities began on Wednesday evening when RLC’ers Dave Nalle, Aaron Biterman, George Primbs, Shelby McCurnin, and Julian Babbitt set up the CPAC outreach booth. On Thursday, the day began bright and early with Republican Liberty Caucus outreach efforts at CPAC. This marked the first RLC outreach efforts at the conference in almost a decade.

Dave Nalle brought impressive RLC literature, pins, and t-shirts to distribute to attendees. RLC’ers used the World’s Smallest Political Quiz to help attendees identify their political leanings. Throughout the two-day conference, members and supporters of the RLC wore “I am the RLC” stickers and RLC pins to express unity and shared commitment to individual liberty and limited government.

Some RLC members attended speeches by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Governor Gary Johnson, and events hosted by those three leaders of the libertarian Republican movement. On Thursday evening, both Johnson and the Pauls had their own respective events. On Friday, both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson spoke before CPAC attendees and were well received. On Saturday, the straw poll results from the CPAC conference were announced, with Ron Paul placing first with thirty percent and Gary Johnson placing third (after Mitt Romney) with six percent.

Clearly the momentum at CPAC has shifted over the past two years. The RLC is pleased with the inclusiveness of the CPAC event and is very excited about how popular the liberty message is with CPAC attendees. Congratulations to Dr. Ron Paul for placing first in the CPAC straw poll for the second year in a row!

On Saturday, Republican Liberty Caucus members from across the country — over 125 liberty activists from more than 30 states — gathered to attend the RLC National Convention. The day opened up with a presentation on libertarianism from an expert on the topic, Cato Institute Executive VP David Boaz.

After Mr. Boaz answered questions, a panel about the Tea Party’s relationship to Ron Paul and libertarian ideas ensued. The panel, moderated by Corie Whalen and including former RLC National Board member Dr. Murray Sabrin, columnist Todd Seavey, Ron Paul campaign veteran Joe Seehusen, and Tea Party organizer Chip Tarbutton, was well very timely considering the possibility of both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson running for President in 2012.

Also in the morning session, Christopher Doss of the Leadership Institute gave a presentation about communication skills and a group of RLC members who are active in their local Republican Parties discussed how to form RLC state chapters and influence the party organizations.

One highlight of the day was the panel of current and former elected liberty Republicans. The panel featured three former State Representatives, Ken Lindell of Maine, Terri McCormick of Wisconsin, and Jamie Callender of Ohio, as well as New York City Councilman Dan Halloran (see photo below).

Congressman Justin Amash, the second youngest member of Congress and a fan favorite of RLC members, met with RLC delegates while discussing the current Congress during the lunch session. Representative Amash is cautiously optimistic. World famous Professor Randy Barnett, the most notable intellectual critic of the Obamacare health law, presented his ideas related to “The Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party,” which centered on Salmon P. Chase.

The afternoon sessions focused on civil liberties, privacy, the War on Drugs, foreign policy, how to run a winning campaign, and constitutional reforms. Panelists discussed voting methods like Instant Runoff Voting, ballot access laws, term limits, recall, and initiative & referendum.

Gary Johnson won the 2012 RLC Presidential Straw Poll with 45 percent of the vote to Ron Paul’s 38 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich received five percent and other candidates totaled ten percent.

The recommended Bylaw, Statement of Principles, and Rule changes were adopted without modification — with one exception: Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 6 was modified to the following wording: “Any membership may be suspended or revoked by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the Caucus or the applicable Chartered State executive committee for just cause, which may include malfeasance in office, misappropriation of funds, misrepresenting the positions of the Caucus, or conduct which reflects poorly on the Caucus, or conduct which reflects poorly on the Caucus. Any member suspended or revoked by a State charter organization shall have the right to appeal to the National Board of Directors within 90 days, and the National Board of Directors shall render a decision within 90 days of notification.” Delegates added a statement defending Personal Liberties to the RLC Statement of Principles.

The following individuals were elected to positions on the RLC National Committee: Dave Nalle (TX), Chair; Aaron Biterman (VA), Vice Chair; Jason Hellenberg (FL), Secretary; Matthew Nye (FL), Treasurer; and Ed Lopez-Reyes (NH), Bill Westmiller (CA), and Corie Whalen (TX) were elected At-Large Board members. Regional directors will be selected by state RLC chapters within 30 days after the Convention. Alternate Board members elected included Aleq Boyle (GA), Shelby McCurnin (VA), Jeff Palmer (NC), Erik Setzer (FL), John Underwood (NC), and Eric Wall (FL).

Delegates adjourned until dinner. The dinner portion of the Convention was particularly exciting. The co-keynote speakers were Peter Schiff, who gave booming yet pessimistic predictions about the future, and Governor Gary Johnson, who outlined what he did in New Mexico. Both speeches were very well received and showed the different styles of the two speakers.

Veteran RLC member Cliff Thies presented “Bye, Bye Miss American Pie” as “Bye, Bye Miss Liberty Bye,” which prompted an audience sing-along. And Laura Crockett, a longtime RLC member from California, presented a very special pictorial history of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Convention award winners included: Aaron Biterman (Virginia RLC), Chairman’s Award for Service; Laura Ebke (Nebraska RLC), Outstanding Activist; Michael S. Murphy (Wisconsin RLC), Activist of the Year; and the New Hampshire RLC, Most Successful State Chapter of 2010.

After dinner, Convention attendees were joined by Campaign for Liberty members and other assorted liberty activists at Baileys Pub in Ballston (Arlington) for a reception hosted by the Virginia RLC. The after-party featured Governor Gary Johnson playing RLC’ers in checkers (and apparently winning!) and was attended by commentator and columnist Jack Hunter.

Twenty years. Fifty states. One goal: Liberty. The Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention was the place to be on Saturday. Some additional Convention photos can be found here. Thank you to Republican Liberty Caucus delegates and officers as well as our generous sponsors — each of whom did their important part to make the Convention a tremendous success.

State Representative Ritch Workman, who was endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus in his initial campaign for State House in 2008, is working to eliminate stupid laws from Florida’s books. Workman, of Melbourne, is on a mission to obliterate illegalities buried in state law — like smoking clove cigarettes, coasting down hills in neutral, and unmarried couples living in cohabitation or “open adultery” — even if he doesn’t believe in them.

The second-term legislator’s repeal run started in November when House Speaker Dean Cannon told him he wanted to leave office with fewer laws on the books than when he started. Then Gov. Rick Scott made reducing state regulations a top priority, according to The Miami Herald.

Workman, a 37-year-old mortgage broker, asked the local Republican Liberty Caucus (of Central East Florida) to mine the Florida Statutes — five books and an index — for targets. He whittled down the group’s suggestions to seven bills and also gave away a few to colleagues.

(Photo at left: Steve Lindsley, Secretary of the Central East Florida RLC, has been working with State Rep. Ritch Workman to on the repeal effort. Steve is pictured with Gov. Gary Johnson in the photo at left.)

With Republicans holding vast majorities in the House and Senate in Tallahassee and with a liberty-friendly Governor, it’s a good bet there will be fewer Florida statutes on the books at the end of the legislative session.

Laurence Vance, a columnist who posts at LewRockwell.com, has a new piece up in which he provides a not-so-thoughtful analysis regarding his views about the Republican Party in general and the Republican Liberty Caucus in specific. This is his second write-up about the RLC this month. I’m pleased that we’ve caught his attention.

Mr. Vance received a postcard from the Florida chapter of the RLC inviting him to attend the recent Florida RLC Convention in Kissimmee.

Vance’s first criticism is that the RLC postcard he received said that Republicans “won big on libertarian themes”. I am not involved in the Florida RLC chapter and therefore did not pen that language (and I would have chosen alternative language), but winning in politics can take a variety of forms. Perhaps the Florida RLC was talking about candidates running campaigns on libertarian themes — as new RLC-endorsed State Rep. Glen Bradley of North Carolina did.  His campaign theme was “Restore the Constitutional Order” and he featured the RLC logo at his campaign hub. Mr. Bradley was just one of many newly elected RLC-endorsed state legislators.

Or perhaps the author of the postcard was talking about ballot initiatives with libertarian themes, such as the anti-Obamacare measures passed in states like Arizona and Oklahoma and the medical marijuana initiative passed in Arizona. Still, there are other measures of successful libertarian themes in the Republican Party, such as the push for state sovereignty by elected Republican legislators, the anti-TSA resolution championed by Republican legislators in New Jersey, the legislation to decriminalize pot possession sponsored by a Republican legislator in Virginia, and the “Health Care Freedom” bills that many states are pursuing with Republicans taking the lead.

Some of this legislation has been successful, some will be in the future, and other items will fail. The legislation that fails will do so because there aren’t enough liberty-loving Americans serving in public office — which the RLC is working to change through retail politics.

In referencing the “liberty wing of the Republican Party,” which was mentioned in the Florida RLC postcard, Mr. Vance claims that the liberty wing has only one member: his hero, Ron Paul.

Mr. Vance likes one politician, but no others.

I’ve noticed that trend in the Mises economic circles.  All politicians and both political parties are evil, the story goes, with one exception — Ron Paul.

What makes Ron Paul different?

He was elected — that’s what separates him from the rest of the crowd.

To be elected, he had to participate in the political process, something Mr. Vance says he explicitly opposes.

In my e-mail response to Mr. Vance’s original blog entry from January 3, in which he initially made the claim that the “liberty wing of the GOP” was made up of one person, I cited examples of other elected officials who make up the liberty wing of the Republican Party:

—–Original Message—–
From: Laurence M. Vance
To: aaronjbiterma
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2011 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Your post about the Republican Liberty Caucus

who are the current and former elected officials?

Subject: Re: Your post about the Republican Liberty Caucus
Date: 1/4/2011 2:41:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: aaronjbiterma
To: lmvance

Governor Gary Johnson
Congressman Justin Amash from Michigan
City Councilman from New York City (Dan Halloran)
County Commissioner from Maryland (Cindy Jones)
State Representatives from Maine, Maryland, Ohio, Wisconsin

The elected officials I mentioned in the e-mail to Mr. Vance are just some of the decent liberty-loving folks who will be attending the upcoming RLC National Convention. The list excludes a plethora of legislators who were just elected in November and who have been serving as loyal libertarian Republicans for many years, such as State Senator Sam Slom of Hawai’i and State Senator Bob Hedlund of Massachusetts.

Mr. Vance chose to ignore the information I provided to continue his hero-worship instead.

I admire Congressman Ron Paul just as Mr. Vance does. What freedom-loving American doesn’t?

But there is a point where hero-worship becomes counter-productive, and Mr. Vance illustrates the point quite well:

He opposes participation in electoral politics and instead believes that writing for LewRockwell.com is going to change the direction of our country.

If Congressman Ron Paul is as wonderful as Mr. Vance says he is (and I believe he is), then why aren’t we all working to find more principled people to run for office and win?

Well, some of us are. Others would instead prefer to get paid to write articles.

Laurence Vance needs to work on his persuasion skills.

I’m a longtime libertarian, and his efforts have only dissuaded me from wanting to associate with the purity club that is LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute.

Mr. Vance expresses that he has treated the RLC fairly. He then falsely claims that the Florida RLC endorsed Ron Paul for President in 2008 (not true) and goes on to say that the Florida RLC website is out of date (also not true). He commends the “hardcore” members of the Florida RLC who have written to him in the past (presumably, these members met his litmus test) and then goes on to criticize their choice of State Senator Mike Haridopolos as a speaker at the recent Florida RLC Convention (who did not meet his litmus test).

Unlike the intellectual elitists (and racists and homophobes) who write for LewRockwell.com — sitting in their comfy computer chairs criticizing the masses who do not agree with every tenet of their ideological platform — the Republican Liberty Caucus is working to change the makeup of the Republican Party. So it’s a friendlier place for liberty advocates. So the policies in our country can change dramatically for the better. And to engage folks who may not agree with every libertarian idea but are open to the prospect of learning more about libertarian principles.

Whoever added Mr. Vance to the mailing list of the Florida RLC chapter would be well advised to remove him. Vance neither understands (nor cares to understand,) nor agrees with the mission of the organization — and the RLC Statement of Principles doesn’t jibe with his rigid purity test.

Readers interested in hearing a substantive response to Vance’s claims about the Republican Party should register to attend the 2011 RLC National Convention on February 12 in Arlington, Virginia.  Professor Randy Barnett will give a speech entitled “Rediscovering the Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party.”  At the same time, we’ll be celebrating 20 years of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Anyone can run for office, including those of us who have deeply-held libertarian convictions. The idea that the liberty wing of the Republican Party is made up of one elected official — a lie stated and repeated by Laurence Vance — should be expunged from our discourse.

And the politics of hero-worship should be purged from the libertarian movement so that we can recruit, support, and elect libertarian-minded citizen leaders who are in the same mold as Ron Paul.

After all, it was Congressman Paul himself who said, “We must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.”

We have about a week to mobilize opposition to Mr. Reince Priebus, frontrunner for RNC National Chairman.

So take five minutes of your time to review the below information, write a polite letter to your RNC Committee members (or ALL of the members), and then forward this message to others who care about our principles.

I received this note from someone in Wisconsin yesterday: “Having experienced the power exercised by Priebus to reject my application to join the Marathon County GOP, I can testify fist hand to how tyrannical a party he would run if in charge at the RNC level. It would be catastrophic for the RNC for him to get the chair. He must be stopped.“

Who can stop him? The grassroots, that’s who. Here are some reasons to oppose Mr. Priebus. Below you will also find a sample letter, RNC Contact Information, and related links of interest.

1) The election results in Wisconsin had little to do with Reince Priebus. Wisconsin’s economy suffered under a long period of Democratic control. Voters — led by the 60+ Tea Party groups in the state — were ready for a change. Priebus happened to be in the right place at the right time. Check the 2008 election results in Wisconsin and you’ll see why Priebus had little to do with the 2010 results.

2) Mr. Priebus is not loyal to anyone except Mr. Priebus (and Paul Ryan). This is evidenced by the fact that Michael Steele appointed Mr. Priebus to an important, high-profile post in the RNC, yet Mr. Priebus repaid his friend/ally by stabbing him in the back. This type of behavior does not seem like that of a leader.

3) Mr. Priebus’s employer actively supports Obamacare and has lobbied to receive federal stimulus funds for its clients. Erick Erickson at RedState as well as numerous other authors have exposed Priebus’s support for Big Government. Priebus himself admits he supports REAL ID, a national identification program that will expand surveillance and government power.

4) Mr. Priebus is not qualified to be National Committee Chair. In 2004, he lost his bid for State Senate. In 2007, he became Wisconsin GOP Chair and happened to lead the GOP to success in the 2010 election.  The 2008 election was a disaster for the Wisconsin GOP — also under Priebus’s leadership. He became a lawyer in 1998. Look at the other candidates for RNC Chair and you’ll discover why Priebus’s resume just doesn’t add up.

5) Mr. Priebus does not support the Tea Party. He will use the Tea Party to his own benefit, but there is no evidence that Priebus has shared values with the Tea Party.

6) Mr. Priebus will change Republican National Committee rules to strengthen GOP party bosses to the detriment of primary voters and Tea Party activists. Priebus supports a top-down approach where party bosses decide which candidates should receive support rather than a grassroots, bottom-up approach where voters decide which candidates have earned their trust.

7) Mr. Priebus believes in a GOP “unity pledge” and hopes to use his authority to boot out those who disagree. “A Republican must believe in something,” says Priebus. I don’t think we should leave it up to Priebus to decide who should and should not participate in the Republican Party.

8.) Mr. Priebus re-directed Wisconsin GOP donor monies to his favorite candidates, a clear misuse of donor money. Two candidates for Governor and US Senate in Wisconsin (Scott Walker and Ron Johnson), despite having GOP primary opponents, were endorsed at the 2010 GOP Convention by party insiders — four months prior to Wisconsin’s primary. Wisconsin has a tradition of allowing primary voters to pick its nominees. Under Priebus, this system fell apart — to the detriment of grassroots conservatives and Tea Party voters whose candidates were not given support by party insiders. The establishment candidates selected were given over $700,000 in monies directly sent to the state GOP. Can a state Republican Party redirect money directly to candidates in a contested primary without consent from its donors?

9) Mr. Priebus is not a good spokesman for the Republican Party. His performance in the RNC debate was lackluster and awkward. The audience barely responded to a word he said.

10) Mr. Priebus is the choice of the political establishment — the same people who got our country and our party into this mess. Look who is supporting him.

11) Mr. Priebus will use RNC money to lobby for REAL ID, a de facto National ID card that many states have already opted out of. He admitted this in the ATR/DailyCaller RNC debate.

12) Mr. Priebus is an unapologetic advocate of pre-primary State Party and potentially National Party endorsements. This policy will strengthen party bosses and disempower grassroots activists and Tea Party voters. It also will increase the likelihood that non-conservative establishment candidates will be chosen in GOP primaries, and, as a result, General Elections.

Sample Letter

Dear RNC Committee Member,

Thank you for your service to our party. As an active GOP voter and contributor, I am asking you to oppose Reince Priebus for RNC Chair.

I am very concerned about the consequences of electing Mr. Priebus. We need to maintain the broad political spectrum support that we have gained in the past year through the Tea Party movement. Mr. Priebus is an establishment Republican who would unnecessarily marginalize the Tea Party and grassroots conservatives. His performance in the recent RNC Debate showed not only that he isn’t concerned about grassroots conservatives, but also that he could potentially embarrass the party as its representative. Additionally, a litmus test to be a Republican is absolutely unnecessary at such an important time for our country.

I also urge you to look into his record in Wisconsin. Yes, there were electoral victories, but could the over 60 grassroots Tea Party groups and the right climate (Democrats controlling every level of government, resulting in job loss and overregulation) have been more of a factor than anything Mr. Priebus himself did? The 2008 results in Wisconsin, when Mr. Priebus also served as Chair, were not impressive by any stretch. You’ll also find that his resume pales in comparison to the other candidates for RNC Chair.

The rule changes Mr. Priebus oversaw as GOP Chairman disenfranchised Wisconsin Republican primary voters and the GOP’s pre-primary endorsement did not sit well with the Tea Party groups in the state. As you know, Tea Party groups communicate with each other and once the word spreads, Priebus is going to do more damage to the RNC than his talents are worth.

Mr. Priebus is the wrong choice for the RNC and for grassroots conservatives — especially the Tea Party. We need to capitalize on the gains we have made. Let’s focus on cutting taxes and spending and putting our constitutional principles into practice. A top down approach for the RNC will not achieve our goals — not now.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cordially,
[YOUR NAME]

RNC Member Contact Info.

(Note: Some of this contact information may be outdated. I apologize in advance.)

AK Ralph Seekins
AK Debbie Joslin
AK Randy Ruedrich
AL Paul Reynolds
AL Hon. Bettye Fine Collins
AL The Hon. Mike Hubbard
AR Jim Burnett
AR Reta Hamilton
AR Doyle Webb
AS Te’o Fuavai
AS Hon. Su’a Schuster
AZ Bruce Ash
AZ Sharon Giese
AZ Randy Pullen
CA Shawn Steel
CA Linda Ackerman
CA Ron Nehring
CO Hon. Mark Hillman
CO Lilly Nunez
CO Dick Wadhams
CT Hon. John Frey
CT Pat Longo
CT Chris Healy
DC Tony Parker
DC Betsy Werronen
DC Bob Kabel
DC Ron Kaufman
DE Laird Stabler III
DE Priscilla Rakestraw
DE Tom Ross
FL Paul Senft, Jr.
FL Sharon Day
FL John Thrasher
GA Alec Poitevint
GA Linda Herren
GA Sue Everhart
GU Peter Ada
GU Mary Torres
GU Jesus Torres
HI Jonah-Kuhio Ka’auwai
HI Brennon Morioka
HI Miriam Hellreich
IA Kim Lehman
IA Steve Scheffler
IA Matt Strawn
ID Blake Hall
ID Cindy Moyle
ID Norm Semanko
IL Pat Brady
IL Demetra DeMonte
IL Andrew McKenna
IN James Bopp, Jr.
IN Dee Dee Benkie
IN Murray Clark
KS Mike Pompeo
KS Helen Van Etten
KS Amanda Adkins
KY Mike Duncan
KY Gail Russell
KY Steve Robertson
LA Ross Little Jr.
LA Ruth Ulrich
LA Roger Villere Jr.
MA Jody Dow
MA Peter Torkildsen
MD Louis Pope
MD Honorable Joyce Terhes
MD Alex Mooney
ME Rick Bennett
ME Jan Martens Staples
ME Charlie Webster
MI Saul Anuzis
MI Holly Hughes
MI Ron Weiser
MN Brian Sullivan
MN Evie Axdahl
MN Ron Carey
MO Lance Beshore
MO Ann Dickinson
MO Doug Russell
MP Mary Lou Ada
MP Edward Tenorio
MS Henry Barbour
MS Cindy Phillips
MS Brad White
MT Errol Galt
MT Betti Hill
MT Erik Iverson
NC David Lewis
NC Ada Fisher
NC Linda Daves
ND Curly Haugland
ND Sandy Boehler
ND Gary Emineth
NE Pete Ricketts
NE De Carlson
NE Mark Quandahl
NH Wayne McDonald
NH Phyllis Woods
NH John Sununu
NJ Ginny Haines
NJ Tom Wilson
NM Pat Rogers
NM Rosie Tripp
NM Allen Weh
NV Joseph Brown
NV Heidi Smith
NV Mark Amodei
NY Lawrence Kadish
NY Jennifer Saul
NY Joe Mondello
OH Bob Bennett
OH Jo Ann Davidson
OK James Dunn
OK Carolyn McLarty
OK Gary Jones
OR Solomon Yue, Jr.
OR Donna Cain
OR Vance Day
PA Bob Asher
PA Christine Toretti
PA Rob Gleason, Jr.
PR Hon. Luis Fortuno
PR Zori Fonalledas
PR Hon Carlos Mendez
RI Hon Joe Trillo
RI Hon Carol Mumford
RI Gio Cicione
SC Glenn McCall
SC Cindy Costa
SC Karen Floyd
SD Dana Randall
SD Mary Jean Jensen
SD Karl Adam
TN John Ryder
TN Peggy Lambert
TN Chris Devaney
TX Bill Crocker
TX Borah Van Dormolen
TX Steve Munisteri
UT Bruce Hough
UT Enid Greene-Mickelsen
UT Stan Lockhart
VT Hon. George Schiavone
VT Susie Hudson
VT Robert Roper
VI Holland Redfield II
VI Lilliana Berlardo De O’Neal
VI Herbert Schoenbohm
VA Hon Morton Blackwell
VA Mrs. Kathy Terry
VA Pat Mullins
WA Jeff Kent
WA Fredi Simpson
WA Luke Esser
WV Jim Reed
WV Donna Lou Gosney
WV Mike Stuart
WI removed
WY Hon. Diemer True
WY Jan Larimer
WY Diana Vaughan

Related Links:
– Current RNC Whip Count: Priebus Has 33 Endorsements (1/7)
– RedState.com’s Erick Erickson is Concerned About Priebus (1/3)
– RedState.com: The Priebus of Disaster (1/3)
– Wisconsin Tea Party Group Opposes Reince Priebus (12/6)
– American Spectator: Priebus’s Employer Helped Clients Get Federal Stimulus $ (12/15)
– BigGovernment.com: Priebus Was Terrible in the RNC Debate (1/5)
– Rep. Paul Ryan: Priebus is “front-runner” in race for RNC (1/6)
– Connecticut GOP Chair Opposes Priebus (12/31)
– Reince: Foe of Tea Party Movement? (12/30)
– Jon Stewart Mocks Reince Priebus (1/4)

In yesterday’s DailyCaller/ATR Republican National Committee candidate debate, the five candidates were asked a question about what sort of non-conservative issue position a candidate could have which would cause them to not be welcomed as a Republican.

Candidates Ann Wagner (Missouri) and Maria Cino (New York) both gave more general answers about how candidates should uphold all the party’s core beliefs. Candidate Saul Anuzis (Michigan) was a bit more open to differences — though he said that a prospective GOP candidate should be with the party 80 percent of the time or more.

The most interesting answers came from RNC Chairman Michael Steele (Maryland) — seeking a second term — and presumed front-runner for the job, Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.

Steele said: “I would agree with all of that, but I would also say having done the job for two years and recognizing that this country is much bigger than we think it is sometimes, and it runs a lot deeper with its passions than we like to believe on a host of issues. I see the job of the chairman as the standard-bearer is to, one, uphold that platform, yes, but to recognize that everyone who comes into this party will have some problem with this platform. So your responsibility and your opportunity is to work with them and help them if they want to be active, if they want to assume leadership, then they’ll have to come to understand the importance of these principles and what they mean. But we cannot be a party that sits back with a litmus test and excludes, and the national chairman cannot go into a state, ‘You’re less Republican than you are, therefore I will not talk with you and only talk with you’. That is not the Republican Party that I joined at 17 years old. And it will not be the Republican I lead over the next two years. Trust me.”

Priebus said: “Well, I think that being the standard-bearer for the Republican Party has to take into account that our country’s in great peril. As I said before we’re about to walk off a fiscal cliff. And I think that the RNC chairman ought to take a chance and promote that conservative platform every time that he or she has an opportunity to do it. Because right now, just without anything Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi did this past two years, normally it costs about 19 cents on every dollar made in America to run the federal government. Without anything that they’d done, it will cost, by the time my son who is five years old is my age, it will cost 40 cents for every dollar made in America, to run this country. And if we don’t have a chairman who understand that being a Republican means something, that if you’re pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-G.M. bailout, pro-AIG, well you know guess what, you might not be a Republican.”

Reince wants to decide who is and who is not a Republican.

The problem with Priebus’s stated position is that — if a party litmus test is imposed by the powers that be — those who do not fall in line will simply be removed. Presumably that would also include removing or disenfranchising many Republican Liberty Caucus members throughout the country.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons the Wisconsin RLC came out against Reince Priebus the day after he made his announcement.

No thanks, Mr. Priebus.

For Immediate Release: June 24, 2010

Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas Calls on Party Leaders to Address Problems with Anti-Gay Platform Planks

CONTACT: Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas
(512) 656-8011

AUSTIN, TX – At the state Republican convention earlier this month, Texas Republicans opted to abandon the Republican tradition of respecting the Constitution and protecting individual liberty and privacy rights by adopting a platform which includes planks attacking the civil liberties of certain Texans.

The platform advocates policies which would make it a felony to perform a same-sex marriage in Texas, which would re-criminalize sodomy and which would take away the rights of gay parents in custody cases. These proposals are contrary to the values of most Texans and run counter to the Republican tradition of vigorously defending individual liberty.

The Republican Liberty Caucus strongly opposes the Texas GOP platform’s anti-gay and anti-liberty planks. We call for the state party to take action to address this problem. While it may not be possible to repeal or change the party platform, the state leadership should issue a clear statement that the platform is non-binding and does not represent the core, shared beliefs of Texas Republicans or of our candidates.

In a year in which we are looking forward to extraordinary opportunities for a great slate of Republican candidates in Texas, it would be a terrible mistake to shackle them to a platform which will alienate many potential supporters. This platform will weaken the party at a time when a strong coalition of Republicans and independents is needed to stop the radical agenda of Democrats in both Austin and Washington.

“We need to focus on keeping the government out of our pocketbooks; especially in Texas,” said Texas RLC Chairman, Joey Dauben of Ellis County. “There are far more pressing problems for the GOP in our state to worry about. While I personally disagree with same-sex marriage from a Biblical perspective, marriage is a contract between individuals and God, not with the government. If we want government out of our wallets and our boardrooms, we should also keep government out of our churches and our bedrooms.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus believes that cutting government spending is more important than wasting our limited resources on policies that open Texas to lawsuits and treat some citizens in a different manner than other citizens. Texas RLC members believe divisive social issues should be put on the back burner and instead the focus should be on solving real problems.

We call on the state party to send a clear message to voters that the this platform does not represent the highest ideals of our party and that as a party we support individual liberty and equal rights for all Texans.

–30—

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas advocates constitutionally limited government, individual liberty and traditional Republican values. It is part of a nationwide organization which shares those goals and has local organizations in almost every state. This year the RLC has endorsed hundreds of candidates nationwide, including Rand Paul (KY), John Dennis (CA), Peter Schiff (CT), Mike Lee (UT), and Nikki Haley (SC).

For more information on the Texas chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, visit http://www.rlctx.org. For information on the national RLC, visit http://www.rlc.org.