Let’s say you’re a fan of a Superbowl 43 football team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and that the name of the Steelers’ coach is Mike Tomlin. Let’s say the other team’s, the Arizona Cardinals’, coach’s name is Ken Whisenhunt. Let’s also say that the month before Superbowl 43, the Arizona media ran repeated headlines saying what a great coach Mike Tomlin of Pittsburgh is and how lucky America is that Mike Tomlin and Ken Whisenhunt are the two teams’ coaches. If you were an Arizona fan, might you wonder why?

In recent months the nation’s leading Democratic Party newspaper, the New York Times, whose editorial views are well within the Democratic Party’s socialist wing, has had nothing but positive things to say about the New York State Republican Committee’s new chair, Edward F. Cox. Might Republicans have cause to wonder about this?

Why on earth would a socialist Democratic propaganda source be saying that it likes Edward F. Cox?

Dear reader, I propose to you that Republicans and Democrats are like two superbowl teams that compete every year. On one end of the field are the Democratic Party socialists, ham-handed medieval reactionaries, advocates of mid-twentieth century style “planning” whose only solution to the problems of the world is to tax the productive out of existence and reward the welfare cheats on Wall and Broad.

On the other end of the field are the Republicans, supporters of progressive, market-based innovation and spontaneous order. The advocates of ideas that work, not of feudalistic ideas that deceive.

But if the coach of the socialist Democrats praises the Republican coach to the heavens, might we conclude that the teams are not really independent, that something is crooked?

I urge you to determine whether the Democratic Party press and electronic media in your town is supporting Republicans. If so, you might ask yourself, “Why?” “Why are the Democrats supporting Republicans?”

In the case of New York, questions need to be raised about why the new chair of the Republican Committee is being praised by the socialist Democrats, and whether Mr. Cox has been on the receiving end of socialist largesse while an attorney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another election gone by, and it turned out quite well for the Republican Party overall and the Republican Liberty Caucus in specific.

Republicans elected new Governors in New Jersey and Virginia. Neither of the candidates, Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell, was endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus, but we believe they will provide a better vision for their states than their respective opponents.

In Virginia, voters elected State Senator Ken Cuccinelli to the post of Attorney General. Cuccinelli is a social and fiscal conservative, and some RLC members have been offended by his social conservatism. Still, he seems to be one of the few politicians in the state that understands the concept of limited government, and has a voting record consistent with the RLC’s goals. His new position elevates Cuccinelli to one of the most high-level advocates of limited government in the country.

RLC members in Virginia worked hard to help Cuccinelli win the nomination for Attorney General, and many contributed to his campaign directly. Cuccinelli has said that he will not enforce laws he deems unconstitutional. In 2007, Cuccinelli took the time to drive several hours to address a small group of RLC members. View his speech to RLC members at YouTube.

In the RLC’s biggest victory of the night, RLC National Committeeman Dan Halloran was elected to the New York City Council in a Queens district that leans heavily Democrat. Halloran is also the state Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus in New York. He worked tirelessly to become elected and will join just four other Republicans on the 51-member City Council.

The RLC also had some other significant victories in New Jersey and New Hampshire. Incumbent Michael Patrick Carroll, who the RLC discovered earlier in the year, was re-elected to his New Jersey House seat. Perhaps the most successful liberty-oriented politician in the state, Michael Doherty, was elected to an open seat in the New Jersey State Senate. The RLC profiled Doherty in an earlier edition of our newsletter.

In the Granite State, Jim Forsythe led a team of liberty-loving Republicans that successfully helped three candidates obtain victory. Political newcomer Lynne Blankenbeker was elected in a special election to the New Hampshire House, and RLC members Phil Greazzo and Cameron DeJong were elected to Alderman and Selectman positions in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Several non-endorsed candidates with strong libertarian leanings were also successful on Election night, including Kim Rafferty, who was elected to the Birmingham City Council in Alabama, and Shaun Kenney, who was elected to a County Supervisor in Fluvanna County, Virginia. In Minnesota, RLC member Luther Stueland won a position on the Moorhead City Council and Patricia Barnum was elected to the West St. Paul ISD 127 School Board.  Additionally, Lisa Marie Coppoletta has advanced to a run-off in a race for San Marcos City Council in Texas.

Unfortunately, TABOR ballot initiatives — which would tie revenue increases to population and inflation growth to keep spending in check — were defeated by voters in Washington state and Maine. The gay marriage ballot initiative in Maine passed, overturning gay marriage in the state, while voters in Washington state chose to extend rights for gays and lesbians.

The nine victories for RLC-endorsed candidates this fall combined with the five spring victories (in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas) have resulted in a very successful off-year election for liberty-focused Republicans.

Congratulations are extended to all of the above candidates, our other endorsed candidates, our supporters, and the folks that helped our endorsed candidates succeed.

Complete RLC election results are available here.

Republican Liberty Caucus of New York Chairman and National RLC Committeeman Dan Halloran was elected to the New York City Council yesterday — 53 percent to 47 percent over Democrat Kevin Kim.

Halloran ran a tremendous race and was incredibly focused on winning. Dan will represent District 19, the communities of Queens.

Congratulations, Dan!

Prominent right-wing blogger (and apparent closet Bircher) Eric Odom has decided to spend a lot of his time covering the controversial special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District, in which liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava has received the backing of the GOP establishment, and her Conservative Party opponent Doug Hoffman has attracted the support of a lot of the more outspoken pundits on the right and a number of religiously extreme anti-liberty groups like Eagle Forum.

In his latest article Odom makes the peculiar observation:

The race represents a clear message being sent to the RNC. And the message is simple… the liberty movement is not going to tolerate liberal Republicans anymore.

Now, I’m not sure who appointed Odom the spokesman for the liberty movement, but he seems to have forgotten that an essential component of that movement is, oddly enough, support for liberty. In all its forms. Not just the economic liberty of lower taxes, but also the other liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and granted to all people under natural law; liberties like freedom of association, of religion, of speech and of privacy.

I don’t know all that much about Doug Hoffman’s politics. He manages to avoid mentioning most of the tough issues on his website. But I can guess what some of them are by his list of endorsements, which includes a number of groups which can only be considered strongly anti-liberty and even among the greatest enemies of liberty on the political right.

Eagle Forum is certainly the worst of the lot. This group of bigoted biddies is headed up by Phyllis Schlafly. They are in favor of war, torture, abstinence and creationism. They are strongly anti-gay, not only opposing gay marriage, but also actively homophobic and supportive of gay reeducation programs. They’re also against gambling, divorce, pornography, immigration, birth-control, marijuana and vaccines. In my opinion no candidate endorsed by Eagle Forum could ever be considered a “liberty” candidate. Eagle Forum would basically like to turn the country into a totalitarian theocracy. Any candidate who loves liberty should publicly reject their endorsement.

Some of the other groups endorsing Hoffman are nearly as bad: GING-PAC is an extreme religious right group which promotes “family values” and “biblical government” which seems pretty ominous. The National Organization for Marriage is an anti-gay group claiming to be “the preeminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage,” which makes them strongly anti-liberty. Many of the other groups endorsing him are pro-life groups; in itself not a problem, but many of them also promote a religious agenda which includes opposition to gay rights and birth control, and even support for school prayer.

Now, I’m by no means a fan of Dede Scozzafava, but she does at least have a reasonable record on many issues of individual liberty. She’s too supportive of unions and too tied into the New York leftist establishment, but she is relatively fiscally conservative, in favor of gun rights and for cutting taxes. I would never pick Scozzafava as a candidate or encourage a group I was part of to endorse her. But that said, she’s still less anti-liberty than Hoffman is. If his endorsements represent his views, Hoffman is actively opposed to a great many of our basic liberties, while Scozzafava is just another opportunistic moderate-to-liberal Republican who will vote with other Republicans more often than most Democrats will, and certainly more than any Democrat far enough to the left to get elected in her district.

There are some Republicans who claim to be part of or even speak for the “liberty movement” within the party who are not really part of it. They’re just religious fanatics and single-issue social conservatives who pay lip service to the idea of smaller government and want to cash in on the momentum they see growing. Their dirty secret is that they oppose Scozzafava not because of her level of commitment to liberty, but because she’s pro-choice and pro-gay. Nothing else matters to them. They are one of the groups which got us in the mess the GOP is in today, as bad as the neocons and big-business Republicans. They’re statists on too many issues and that makes them enemies of liberty.   They must not be allowed to hijack the liberty movement and drive the party in the wrong direction.

The truth is that liberal Republicans still have more in common with the liberty movement than Democrats or even most socially conservative Republicans, and while that doesn’t mean you should support an uninspiring candidate like Scozzafava, don’t let anyone get away with a big lie like claiming that a candidate like Doug Hoffman, who is endorsed and funded by Eagle Forum and other groups of bigots, extremists and theocrats, is in any way a candidate who supports liberty.

Hoffman may be a conservative, but he’s not a liberty conservative. He’s just another statist who wants to use the power of government to dictate how people live.  He’s not that different from Scozzafava, he’s just bad in different ways.  Don’t waste your time and effort on this pointless contest between two bad choices.  Spend your money and enthusiasm to support the many Republican candidates in other campaigns who are authentic advocates for individual liberty, free enterprise and limited government.

Students for Liberty has taken on the amazing task of organizing seven regional conferences this fall. The conferences bring different types of liberty-loving students together to hear from prominent speakers — many of whom are affiliated with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

This year’s regional conferences have occurred, thus far, in New York, Chicago, Phoenix/Tempe, and Austin. The RLC conducted outreach at three of the four seminars and had official speakers at two out of the four seminars.

I previously reported on the outreach at the first conference, which occurred on October 10. Two RLC supporters helped us table at that event, and two RLC representatives spoke. The most notable of the speakers was former National Board member Dr. Murray Sabrin, who was a contender for U.S. Senate in 2008. Additionally, RLC Northeast Regional Director Dan Halloran addressed the crowd. Dan is running an impressive campaign for New York City Council in a district that trends more conservative than most in the city.

Above: Students at the Chicago Conference weigh the issues.

On October 17 in Chicago, students heard from two RLC representatives: former Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet and former Wisconsin State Representative Terri McCormick (photos below).

Leon participated in a debate with Isaac Moorehouse about how liberty-oriented people can achieve our goals.  Leon argued for the RLC strategy.  Terri McCormick gave a presentation about the political elite versus the grassroots, arguing that now is the time we take our country back for liberty.

On October 24, RLC members conducted outreach at two Students for Liberty Conferences: the Texas SFL conference in Austin and the Southern SFL conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Rising young star and RLC supporter Jared Fuller organized the Winston-Salem conference, and North Carolina RLC members Gloria Lloyd and Dana Mazer tabled for the Republican Liberty Caucus at the conference.  Former Congressional candidate and North Carolina RLC Board member B.J. Lawson was among the featured speakers.  Dr. Lawson gave a speech called “The Economy, Monty Python, and You”:

Meanwhile, RLC National Chair Dave Nalle and Bexar County (Texas) RLC Membership Chair Nadia Gaona reached out at the Texas SFL conference.

Dave observed a general trend that we continue to see to in our small-but-growing movement, noting that “the long-time libertarian activists [in the] audience were eager to stand up and talk proudly about their token political campaigns where they spent no money but got their name mentioned in the local newspaper when they won 3% of the vote.”

Says Dave, “It’s heartening to see the growth of interest in liberty and bringing our government under control, but it’s enormously frustrating to see so much of this enthusiasm misdirected into the political dead end and do-nothingism which still characterizes the Libertarian Party. The truth is that the pissed-off non-intellectuals of the Tea Party movement who come to libertarianism out of expediency rather than intellect have already accomplished more real political change in a year than the Libertarian Party has accomplished in more than 30 years.”

All complaints aside, these events have proven tremendously beneficial to the movement and the RLC has been able to capitalize on the opportunity to reach new young people with our strategy for victory.

The next RLC outreach booths at Students for Liberty Conferences will occur on November 7, when members will conduct outreach at the Philadelphia and Boston Students for Liberty Conferences.  Prospective RLC endorsee, 2010 U.S. Senate candidate from Connecticut Peter Schiff will be speaking at the Boston conference.  Schiff has previously explained the RLC strategy in a poignant way.

We look forward to reaching additional students at these conferences and thank the Students for Liberty for continuing to host these tremendous regional events. Thanks, too, to all of the RLC representatives and volunteers who have helped us at the conferences.

Above: Former Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet makes his points in a debate on strategies to attain liberty in our lifetime.

I just mailed the following press release on behalf of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus:

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, a group of approximately 200 liberty-oriented Republicans around the state, has endorsed Chris Edes, who is running on the Libertarian ticket in Rochester. Mr. Edes was endorsed on October 12 at a special meeting of the New York executive committee. Also endorsed by the Libertarian Party, Mr. Edes will appear on the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

Speaking about the endorsement, Edes said: “I’m pleased to receive the RLC endorsement. The Republican Liberty Caucus is the vanguard of Republican thinking for the 21st Century.”

Mr. Edes aims to bring new ideas to the school debate. He is not part of the political establishment, and so is not part of the Democratic Party’s failed educational policies that respond to political pressure from teachers’ unions and an educational establishment that is encumbered by lockstep political correctness; neglect of basic three r’s education; and a willingness to tax this State out of existence.

As Diane Ravitch points out in her book Left Back: A Century of Battles over School Reform, progressive education and the cumbersome bureaucracy associated with big government have left generations of students unable to perform and a nation that has flagged in the global marketplace.

To find out more information about Mr. Edes’ campaign, visit his website at http://www.vote-for-chris.net.

The Republican Liberty Caucus favors a reduced scope of government in order to permit New York to become more competitive. Future generations will be deprived of freedom and the fruits of economic innovation because of encroaching socialism.

Delegates in New York state have elected Edward F. Cox, the son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon, chair of the New York State Republican Party. You will recall that President Nixon, besides having been involved in break-ins and an improved relationship with China (recall the US/China ping-pong match), was Mr. Inflation. He abolished the gold standard and pressured then-Fed chairman Arthur Burns to reduce interest rates to create a stock market bubble to assist his own re-election. Hence, he was as tightly linked to the corrupt New York City economy as is the Democrat Party and its publicity wing, the New York Times. Morally and politically Nixon represents the worst in the Republican Party.

But should the sins of the father-in-law be visited on the son-in-law? Cox has worked as an attorney with Patterson Belknap, a white shoe law firm in Manhattan. The firm is intimately linked to the Wall Street-and-bubble economy, and so the Democrats are very much in his corner. The Democratic publicity wing describes Cox as “centrist”, which is a very, very bad sign. When the fringe left describes a Republican as “centrist” the smell of co-optation is in the air.

Mr. Cox assumed his post on September 29 and cannot be held responsible for the Republicans’ shooting themselves in the foot in New York’s 23rd Congressional district. The Wall Street Journal reports that the former state chair,  Joe Mondello,  led the charge to nominate a left-wing extremist to run there.  Raquel Okyay has blogged on this depressing race. As an active Republican I cannot support her endorsement for the Conservative Party candidate, though.

Newsrunner publishes a Daily Kos poll that finds that in the Republican 23rd district, the Democrat is ahead.  The Journal seems to claim that Joe Mondello and the Republican County chairs are stupid.  The Republican Liberty Caucus in New York has been discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial which claims about the supposedly conservative Republican 23rd district:

“…party bosses have managed to nominate a rare Republican who could lose: Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, whose liberal record has caused voters to flee to Doug Hoffman, a business executive who is running on the Conservative line. Mr. Hoffman has more than 20% support in the latest poll, which is only a few points behind Ms. Scozzafava, who is only a little behind Democratic lawyer Bill Owens.”

The Journal is inaccurate in describing the 23rd district as all that conservative. First of all, there are a number of higher education institutions in northern New York and they will slant the vote to the left. Second, the former Congressmen, John McHugh, was a loot-and-spend, big government Republican about whom I blogged in May 2007. McHugh was not only corrupt, but he was so “conservative” that Obama appointed him Secretary of the Army. That’s really a sign of conservatism. Their former Congressman was a regular John Locke. After all, he was appointed by Obama.

The question, though, if you care about freedom, is how to get candidates who can help optimize our quest for freedom. Edward F. Cox seems unlikely to be able to do a good job, even if he, as did other Progressive Republican types like George W. Bush, speaks the language of lower taxes and reduced spending.

Ivy League types make bad politicians because they have been indoctrinated in the failed ideas of Progressivism. Cox is a graduate of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Government. I very much doubt he knows the first thing about free markets, Locke or the principles on the nation was based. I very much doubt that he will make a difference with respect to Scozzafava or and will make similar kinds of calls.

There is no question that candidates must market themselves to voters and liberal districts need to be regaled with liberal-sounding candidates. But I would like to see people who are genuine conservatives who win by pandering to liberal voters on the surface, rather than what the Republicans have now, Republicans who are Progressives at heart who pander to the conservatives in the party and expand government when they are elected, not the least of which were George W. Bush and New York’s George E. Pataki.

On Saturday, October 10, RLC members reached out at conferences in New York and Wisconsin.

In New York City, the Students for Liberty held its first of seven regional conferences taking place this fall. Several Republican Liberty Caucus representatives brought literature and the RLC banner to the conference to educate students about the Republican Liberty Caucus message and strategy.

Former RLC Board member, Ramapo College Professor of Finance, and former New Jersey Senate candidate Murray Sabrin addressed the audience, as did New York RLC Chair and City Council candidate Dan Halloran (pictured below).

Paul Sanchez of the soon-to-form Wisconsin RLC affiliate attended the Future Wisconsin Conference on October 10, too, to reach out to interested parties there. Future Wisconsin is an annual gathering of conservatives in Wisconsin.

Said Sanchez, “I was able to meet a number of allies to liberty throughout the day and we received a positive reception.”

“After [we charter our chapter], [we should] hit the ground running [to] network as [much as] possible,” he said. “This should then help us gain experience in other tasks such as supporting candidates on a local and state level. I think the next year should be pretty exciting and look forward to moving on to the next step.”

The RLC hopes to have a presence at upcoming Students for Liberty conferences in Boston, Chicago, Austin, Winston-Salem, and Philadelphia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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