CSE promoting Republican (as opposed to conservative) economic values

Citizens for Promoting the GOP a Sound Economy (CSE) now has candidate surveys for House and Senate races for the 2006 elections. The results are searched using a big red map. Just one minor problem: They only list Republican and Democratic candidates. You can easily leave a comment on their site — I did.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

12 Comments
  1. Their survey sucks anyway; the questions are blatantly partisan. There is no way this survey holds any weight in the public’s eye.

  2. The Chairman is Dick Armey. duh. It’s funny to read their own people ripping into them! One person is complaining about coercive government that can’t abide by the constitution, but abortion needs banning and homosexuals need to be dealt with! I love that conservatives are so screwed up that they are pissed with the GOP, but still don’t get it. Typical conservatives, but at least some are going to stay home come November, although I think that will be “fixed” when Bush and incumbent Republicans go and stand in a pulpit the day prior to the election.

  3. OK, I used to work for FreedomWorks/CSE, I’m an avowed libertarian. I support open borders, right to choose regardless of trimester, and gay MARRIAGE (civil unions are discriminatory–although the ideal would be not having the state recognize marriage at all.

    Here’s the deal with the survey: If they’re running it like they did in 2004 (which is likely), they WILL send the survey to libertarians. And those responses will get posted (I know this because I RAN the survey in 2004).

    One Example: http://www.freedomworks.org/capitol_watch/candidate/survey_template.php?can_id=332

    As far as FW goes as an organization: It ONLY deals with economic issues. They have been pushing legislators to pursue libertarian economic reforms like LARGE personal accounts and the flat tax. Although it works within the Republican Party, it makes little sense to bash them since they at least are trying to move in towards the same economic ends but have different means. (more coming)

  4. As far as Armey goes, I also (obivously) disagree strongly wth his position on social issues. But his legacy in Congress has been primarily economic. He worked a deal to close down useless bases (less spending is good), and was a key player in the 1994 takeover of Congress, which was primarily based on economic/small government goals. Lest we forget, it is that takeover that probably allowed welfare reform to happen, and although it was a small step, it was a significant one.

    And look at the board comments. People are complaining about immigration not being included. It is better that FreedomWorks gets its activists to focus on lower taxes, less spending, and social security reform (small steps, but important ones), instead of immigration.

    Also, a number of people in the office are libertarians and voted Badnarik in 2004.

    Bottom line: Fire away at the GOP, Bush, etc. But it doesn’t make sense to blast away at someone because their means are different if you share ends.

  5. Sorry, just a few more words:

    Times FW has gone against Republicans off the top of my head: Medicare Bill in 2003 (even went against Bush and leadership on that one; Armey’s article was noted for causing trouble), Gov. Bob Riley’s tax hike referendum in AL in 2003, CO Gov. Owens’ gutting of TABOR, and opposing Sen. Specter’s plan to create an Asbestos “Trust Fund”.

    OK, I’m done.

  6. Mike,

    I worked with CSE when they had a major role in shutting down the Riley tax plan in Alabama. Don’t forget that your state executive director left the CSE to support the tax increase, and she now chairs the state Republican Party.

    If third party candidates are to be included — why aren’t they on the website? From an outsider perspective, that doesn’t look like inclusion to me.

  7. Because the REAL purpose is so that Republicans can (partially) coopt Libertarians economic issues. And then proceed to do nothing about it. While keeping Libertarians out. That’s what most of these things are really about, the way I see it.

  8. Gordon,

    I’m only saying that we should wait and see if libertarian candidates are added in. That project takes a LOT of data entry, faxing, and phone calls (trust me). It is possible that they are excluding everyone but Dems and Republicans, but I doubt it.

    One way to be really sure: Have libertarian candidates fax in their candidate surveys or email them to the appropriate person. My bet is that they will end up on the site with their responses.

    As far as Twinkle Andress is concerned, you can hardly blame FW/CSE for her personal actions. Some people that work at FW are libertarians, but certainly not everyone.

  9. Mike,

    I used to be a member of the CSE. I’ll add that most people I’ve worked with at a local level are pretty libertarian, too. I dropped the CSE during the 2004 election cycle because it seemed that every letter coming from them was cheerleading for Bush and the GOP. How can a limited goverment organization support the president who has created the greatest level of federal grwoth in history?

    Quite a few LP candidates and campaign staffers read this blog and I’m sure some will be sending in their surveys.