Dede was elected multiple times by Republicans, and had a voting record more conservative than the average Republican Assemblyman. She was chosen by ELEVEN different County GOP leaders in NY. Her “crime” was to favor abortion rights and marriage equality..certainly positions consistent with liberty.

Enter the Alaskans, and Minnesotans, and Donations from the Washington-based NOM, to a Conservative candidate who doesnt even live in the district.

Using semantic gymnastics that boggle the mind, the Conservatives turned the facts on their head and stated over and over that Dede was ‘imposed’ on the local republicans, and that Hoffman represented a grass-roots movement.

No. What Hoffman represents is the scorched-earth policy that Conservative Purists use – and will use- to purge the party of anyone who believes that liberty extends to social and personal issues.

The only way I would agree that having views about how people should live, what they should read, what they should say, or with whom they should associate entail reasons for the RLC to oppose them would be if they additionally see government as a tool for coercing others to live by those ideals. Without that important element, then simply upholding those moral standards doesn’t make any group anti-liberty. And in order to be able to say that their endorsement of a congressional candidate indicates that the candidate is anti-liberty, it must additionally be the case that, not only do they want government to coerce people to live by those morals, but the also want to do that at the federal level. I have looked over The Eagle Forums stances as they express them in the timely topics section of their website, and I see no indication that they want to have federal laws dictating how people can live, what they can read, or with whom they can associate. The only federal level legislation I see that they put much emphasis on that runs contrary to a civil libertarian as well as a free market position is in immigration and trade. But on other things, in issue after issue, I see positions that are decidedly more pro-liberty than what is typical among mainstream Republicans. They even include a section called privacy/databases that looks very libertarian, and surprisingly so, given the caricature you tried to paint of them.

Dave

Not saying we need to urge them to support the Libertarian Party when there’s a decent Republican in a race. But once in a while with special circumstances, we can point to Hoffman and say, “hey, you did it in NY CD 23 in 2009.”

There are some people supporting Hoffman now, like RedState’s Erick Erickson, and even Rush Limbaugh, who before Hoffman absolutely hated 3rd parties. They’re now appearing a bit hypocritical.

And note that I do not endorse Scozzafava in this article. I’m just pointing out that neither candidate is a real supporter of liberty and I suggest spending your time worrying about elections with really worthy candidates you can support – and there are a number of them.

And if you don’t think Eagle Forum is fundamentally anti-liberty then you aren’t famiiar enough with their positions. I won’t argue that they aren’t on the right side of a couple of issues, but the direction in which they want to take the GOP is the directiojn of a moralistic, statist authoritarianism which is as bad (and very similar to) what the left would like to impose on us.

The RLC is big enough for a diversity of opinions and we can work together in those areas where we agree. But I would hope that when any group comes to tell us how to live our lives and what we can read and what we can say and who we can associate with — be it Eagle Forum or the UN — we can agree to oppose them.

I do like the freudian slip in your last sentence, though.

Dave