Posted on 07/14/2004 10:15:52 AM PDT by Onelifetogive
Saying the Libertarian Party is highly unified around his candidacy, presidential nominee Michael Badnarik hopes disenchantment with the Republican Party and high-profile TV commercials will help him garner unprecedented support in November's election.
Badnarik, who describes himself as "almost everyone's second choice" for the Libertarian nomination, was able to win the party's nod after front-runners Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan failed to garner enough votes at the national convention to win. In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Badnarik says his nomination actually brought the party together. He says both Russo and Nolan are working to get him elected.
"The Libertarian Party is stronger and more unified this year than it has ever been," Badnarik said, "partially because the party did not collapse into factions over the presidential nomination."
A computer programmer and consultant from Austin, Texas, Badnarik says the Libertarians' message of less government intervention – in both citizens' lives and in foreign countries – will ring true for millions of voters this year.
He says he has a three-part plan for getting that message out: "Television, television and television."
"Our goal is to raise $5 million so that my former opponent Aaron Russo can produce the commercials and we can start broadcasting them on prime-time television," Badnarik said.
The candidate plans to run the spots between the dinner hour and bedtime, "not at 2 a.m. on the Home Shopping Network," he explained.
Badnarik, 49, is convinced he will receive a larger percentage of votes than have previous Libertarian candidates for president.
"The political environment this year is different," he said. "I've had both Democrats and Republicans come up to me complaining about their own parties. … We perceive there is a much higher level of discontent than in previous elections."
In 2000, Badnarik says, the "wasted-vote syndrome" was very acute, meaning because the race between Al Gore and George W. Bush was so close, voters felt an obligation to vote for their party's nominee to prevent the other guy from winning. Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party's nominee, only received 350,000 popular votes nationwide. Badnarik believes the "wasted-vote syndrome" will not be so prevalent this year.
The candidate says he anticipates being on the ballot in all 50 states.
Bush's war
Badnarik's chief complaint against President Bush is his invasion of Iraq.
"We don't feel that it's appropriate to send 140,000 troops to Iraq when, after 9-11, we were told over and over again that it was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida that perpetrated that tragedy," he said.
"Libertarians are very strong on defense, and we would eagerly seek out the people who started the attack, but we are non-interventionist, which means as Americans we want to be left alone to live our lives as Americans. And Libertarians feel we should leave other countries alone to live their lives the way they want – even if they don't conform to what our standards might be."
Said the candidate: "We would bring our soldiers home from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible."
Wooing the major parties
When asked why disenchanted Republicans should vote for him, Badnarik replied, "Because the Libertarian Party holds the values that people joined the Republican Party for in the first place."
He noted that Bush has increased the size of government at a faster rate than did Democrat Bill Clinton.
"Conservatives are disappointed with the Republican Party because they keep increasing the size of government," he said.
Badnarik said he also is hoping Democrats will be attracted to his candidacy since the Libertarian Party believes government shouldn't tell people how to live their lives.
"The Democrats feel you should be the person to decide whether you subscribe to Playboy," he said. "They are more in favor of medical marijuana. We basically match the values of the Democrats when it comes to social issues."
'A legitimate political party'
Badnarik says the "next goal" of his campaign is to receive permission to participate in the presidential debates.
To reach that goal, Badnarik wants to raise public awareness of the Libertarian Party through the TV commercials. Once that is done, he feels pressure can be brought to bear so he is allowed into the debates.
"We're presenting ourselves as a legitimate political party with a legitimate platform," he said. "If we can raise enough awareness with the general public, we feel we can justify participation. …
"From my point of view, it is a First Amendment issue," he said. "My personal freedom of speech is being violated if I'm not allowed to participate in the presidential debates."
Badnarik says any candidate who is on the ballot in all 50 states and has a mathematical chance of winning the election should be allowed to go up against Bush and Kerry.
Since Ralph Nader at this point is not on the ballot in any state, he wouldn't qualify for the debates, even though he has greater name recognition than Badnarik.
Open immigration
Badnarik harkened back to the 19th century in emphasizing the importance of immigrants to the U.S., saying he is in favor of "open immigration." Such a system would include lowering the requirements for coming to the U.S. Immigrants would have to give their name and address and possibly a photo, he said, "so we would know who is coming."
"We would welcome anyone who comes to the United States to work hard and spend money," he said.
Badnarik believes if the welfare state – which is financed through "government-authorized theft" – were to be eliminated, that would reduce the incentive for people to come to America to get on the government dole.
Conservative paranoia
What about same-sex marriage? Badnarik believes the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.
"All individuals have the right to contract and to fall in love without whomever they choose," he explained. "It is clearly not a government issue.
"Most people don't know that the first marriage licenses were instituted … to prevent interracial marriages."
He said now, interracial marriages don't raise an eyebrow.
"The current uproar about same-sex marriage is just another form of bigotry," Badnarik stressed, saying the belief that if homosexuals marry society will crumble is "just paranoid nonsense."
The candidate says though marriage is regulated by states, he would, as president, promote Libertarian Party belief about licensing in hopes they would loosen restrictions.
"We want to restore power to the states and the people, as indicated by the 10th Amendment," he said.
Split on abortion
Badnarik explained the Libertarian Party, like the general population, is split on the issue of abortion.
"The official Libertarian Party is pro-choice with the understanding the woman owns her own body," he explained. "However, many Libertarians believe the baby owns its own body. We can't come up with a consensus on when the baby takes ownership of his own body. "It's a question of property rights and who owns the property of this developing baby."
Badnarik says he personally is pro-life: "Until we can come to a better consensus, I tend to err in favor of the baby." He stressed, however, that his view is at odds with the official party platform.
Badnarik refused to say what, if any, religion he ascribes to, citing Article VI of the Constitution, which says no religious test shall be given for political office.
"If I were to answer that, that group of people would be more likely to support me, but others would be less likely to support me," he said.
"I support the freedom of religion of all individuals … so my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the debate."
The presidential hopeful is single and has no children. He has two younger brothers and a set of parents, who all live in the Midwest.
Badnarik's running mate is Richard Campagna, a college professor and lawyer from Iowa City, Iowa. The Libertarian Party chose Campagna separately at the convention to run for vice president.
Badnarik emphasized any voters having questions about the party or his candidacy can visit lp.org.
He is a Libertarian I can vote for.....
I wonder if Republican Party "operatives" are going to try to get him to drop out of the race, and pull a Nader on him... NAWWWWWWWWWWWWWw..
So was Dr. Ron Paul, now a Republican congressman from Texas,(a registration that the Libertarians "wink" at), the Libertarian Party's 1988 Presidential Candidate.
Supports gay marriage.
Looks like he'll be taking votes from the radical left!
Dan
I hope so...
I am a member of the Executive Committee of the local GOP. I am beginning to question the effectiveness of my support of the GOP. As soon as they got some power, they became indistinguishable from the Dims.
My preference would be for there to be a FORMAL (and accepted) movement within the GOP for liberty and restrained government. THERE IS NOT. The leadership punishes those who don't toe the party line.
I was at a small group meeting that featured my local "conservative" Republican. He said that he thought that the Farm Bill (from a couple of years ago) was a terrible bill........but he voted for it, because it was going to pass anyway.
He wins every two years by margins of about 85%-15%. Generally no Dim opposition. Just a Lib.
The idealist in me hates the pragmatism in politics. One bit of unwelcome truth I picked up here was: "Politics is the art of the possible."
Of course, idealism stretches the bonds of the possible.
But one other reality — welcome or unwelcome — is that there are two viable parties in America. Every other body is, at best, a distraction; and, at worst, destructive.
Conservatism has some toehold in one of the parties, and none in the other.
So I work with the one.
Dan
Check out the Club for Growth.
Not all.
Does this group ever target Democrats, anywhere? I'd really like to know. Especially since one would think they would be most opposed to Democrats. I'm assuming they're conservative. Big assumption.
Badnarik, who describes himself as "almost everyone's second choice" for the Libertarian nomination
That's just sad.
"Libertarians are very strong on defense, and we would eagerly seek out the people who started the attack, but we are non-interventionist, which means as Americans we want to be left alone to live our lives as Americans. And Libertarians feel we should leave other countries alone..."
How are you going to "eagerly seek out the people who started the attack" when those people are harbored by nations you refuse to hold accountable? There is no country called Al Qaida. There is no country called Terrorista. There is a country called Afghanistan that harbored "the people who started the attack" and completely refused to cooperate. There is a country called Iraq that allowed "the people who started the attack" to build training camps there. A country called Iraq whose leader was a strong supporter of terrorism. There are hundreds of terrorist groups. Do you think they will all "leave us alone" if we just target one of them? You have to go to the source, the countries and leaders that support and harbor them.
Badnarik says any candidate who is on the ballot in all 50 states and has a mathematical chance of winning the election should be allowed to go up against Bush and Kerry.
Not a snowball's chance...but a mathematical chance.
Such a system would include lowering the requirements for coming to the U.S. Immigrants would have to give their name and address and possibly a photo, he said, "so we would know who is coming."
Well a picture, that's not too much to ask. This would include the Islamic terrorists of course. Oh but wait, if America "stops intervening", then suddenly Islam will forget their eternal mission of taking over and forcibly converting or killing everyone in the world.
The official Libertarian Party is pro-choice
Okay all you Freepers who say they're not. THEY ARE PRO-CHOICE. There is no confusion about where the LP stands on this issue.
Badnarik says he personally is pro-life
So is John Kerry, personally. Just to be sure, I called Badnarik's campaign headquarters to find out if he would fight for the rights of unborn children. In particular, would his Justice Department continue fighting for the Partial Birth Abortion ban. If not, pro-lifers who are truly concerned about the lives of millions of babies shouldn't even consider voting for a man who wouldn't even try to stop the slaughter in any way. His assistant campaign manager doesn't know if he will fight for the pro-life side if elected, but she'll "get back to me".
And this idiot is a Libertarian when he can't even get this right? The Presidential debates are created by an agreement between the parties involved (the organizers and the candidate that they invite). If the organizers of the debates don't want him there, then he has no "right" to be there. It's no more a 1st Amendment issue than if I were to complain that the NY Times infringes on my free speech rights because they won't let me use their printing press and distribution network without their permission.
No wonder the LP is in a decline -- their own candidate has no clue about the Constitution.
I sympathize with your being in that position and realizing those truths. When I emphasize here on FR that the Republicans have become supporters of Big Stupid Government growth once in power, I get the usual 'bot bashing. "Not voting for Republicans is voting for terrorists!" - crap like that.
Hang tough. And try to hold them accountable by making it clear that you will not support those who support continued government expansion. From the dogcatcher to Bush, hold them accountable.
That said...
NOBODY who voted for, or will re-elect ANYONE who was responsible for CFR has any business saying a word about others misunderstanding free speech.
LOL,,good one Dan. But ya can't have it both ways. Either they have such minimal numbers that they are irrelevant or they aren't.
And the idea that somehow Libertarian votes are Republican if not Libertarian is incorrect.
His statement about "personal freedom" struck me as somewhat bone-headed, as well.
It doesn't make any difference who the Libbies nominate, what they are for, or what they are against.
The Libertarian Party is to politics what Scientology is to established religion.....meaningless.
< glances at boilerplate response >
< glances at facts >
Hm... no change.
Dan
And don't forget ... pro-open borders: no screening, no official border, no visas, no waiting.
At some point, the Republicans really ought to return to listening to conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.