Libertarian Olivier to run against Schwarzenegger

Spero News ^ | Thursday, March 09, 2006 | Spero News

[Manolete]

Art Olivier, small-town mayor and former Liberterian candidate for Vice President, says he's willing to take on the "Governator."

In a press statement Olivier, the former mayor of Bellflower, announced officially Thursday that he will challenge Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor in this year's elections. There have been press reports since January that Oliver was in the running.

[EagleUSA]

Totally token gesture. Until the ultra-liberal legislature of California is cleaned out, the gov will be pretty impotent.

[bill1952]

Totally agree.

As far as a libertarian, rather than a liberal ever being elected to state office, that will happen when pigs fly.

[Iam1ru1-2]

In his own words when he was a vice presidential candidate of the Liberterian Party:

United States Vice Presidential Candidate

ART OLIVIER - Libertarian

OCCUPATION: Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND: Project Manager - Boeing

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: A.A., Design Technology, Cerritos College. Web Development Certificate, University of California, Irvine.

PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL EXPERIENCE: Mayor, City Councilman.

As a Libertarian Mayor, I made sure the taxpayers got their money's worth. Most of what people consider vital government services are paid for by the general budget of their local municipality. These include building and maintaining the city's infrastructure and law enforcement. Your local government is able to do this and more with only two to three percent of the total taxes that you pay.

The Federal budget takes about half of your tax money without providing the things that improve your day-to-day life. The Federal government has a Department of Education that educates no one, a Department of Transportation that transports nothing, a Department of Energy that produces no energy, and a Department of Agriculture that grows no food. Your money is being wasted on these departments that are not authorized by the Constitution and do nothing to improve your life.

Even worse, the Federal government has laws that result in making our communities unsafe.

The biggest threat to the safety of our communities comes from the Federal government's failed war on drugs, making some of our neighborhoods war zones. Because some drugs cannot be sold at the local drug store, criminals sell them in drug houses. And because drug dealers operate outside of the law, disputes are often settled with violence. Only by putting an end to the drug war will we end this violence in our communities.

By having the Federal government follow the Constitution, there would be no need for federal income tax. People would have more of the money they earned to spend at local establishments and parents could afford to spend more time with their children. The end result will be you will have more control over your own life and our communities would be a better place to live.

[Wuli]

So he'll just pull some Republicans, those who tend to the libertarian philosophy, away from Arnold and help elect a Dim. Personally, I would prefer a different Republican than Arnold, but with that not likely, I'd rather see Arnold win.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Totally token gesture. Until the ultra-liberal legislature courts of California is are cleaned out, the gov will be pretty impotent.

Fixed it for you.

[Amerigomag]

Until the ultra-liberal legislature of California is cleaned out, the gov will be pretty impotent.

Only if the executive opposes the process in the legislature.

For the last two years the executive has been abetting the legislative desires. Bigger government, higher spending, high rates of taxation are coming from the executive, not the legislature.

California's legislature majority has been happy to go along with the big tax-borrow-spend gang in the executive. The legislature has even gotten to the point that they oppose some aspect of the executive's largess with public monies. It simply so excessive, its embarrassing, even to socialists.

[EagleUSA]

California's legislature majority has been happy to go along with the big tax-borrow-spend gang in the executive.
-----
Sad and true. At least that is the bottom line, and that is what counts...

[Carry_Okie]

Totally token gesture. Until the ultra-liberal courts of California is are cleaned out, the gov will be pretty impotent.

The majority of judges in California were appointed by Republican governors.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[mugs99]

He has my vote!

[A CA Guy]

Yes, he will shed a few of the votes to benefit the Democrats.
Nothing new at all.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

The majority of judges in California were appointed by Republican governors.

Relevance? The candidate in the article is a Libertarian, not a Republican.

Note also that Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Brennan Jr, Harry Blackum, and David Souter were also appointed by Republican Presidents. Warren was the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee in 1948.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Yes, he will shed a few of the votes to benefit the Democrats. Nothing new at all.

Not his problem that the Republican Candidates and/or office holders have been political whores. If they can't keep their base happy then they deserve to loose their position when that base turns on them.

Of course, then the Pubbies will argue that The "looserdopertarians" can only get the wacko faction of the Republican Party.

Can't have it both ways chap, either the Libertarians are a threat or they are not. If the Republican Candidate must worry about "a few of the votes", then perhaps he shouldn't be the Republican Candidate.

[A CA Guy]

He just wants to get himself noticed.

The most he can do is if it is close between the Democrat and Republican is swing it in favor of the Communist Democrat.

Like I said, we see this all the time from Libertarians and other worthless third party votes or non-votes.
It is all passive backing of the Democrat party or in many cases their stand for recreational drugs.

[Carry_Okie]

Relevance? The candidate in the article is a Libertarian, not a Republican.

You were complaining about liberal judges.

Note also that Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Brennan Jr, Harry Blackum, and David Souter were also appointed by Republican Presidents. Warren was the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee in 1948.

The topic was judges in California. If you want to get subjective about what constitutes liberal or conservative on State courts, that's your business. I doubt there is a clear metric of demarcation across the various levels.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

He just wants to get himself noticed.

He ran for Vice President, so i'd say that your contention is a non-starter.

The most he can do is if it is close between the Democrat and Republican is swing it in favor of the Communist Democrat.

That being the case, maybe the Republicans need another candidate...one who isn't alienating the party base.

Like I said, we see this all the time from Libertarians and other worthless third party votes or non-votes. It is all passive backing of the Democrat party or in many cases their stand for recreational drugs.

The only "worthless vote" is one made for someone percieved as the "lesser of two evils". That the Democratic party, or any OTHER party would passively back the Libertarian candidate is not relevant. They're not voting for him/her.

That the Libertarian Candidate is percieved as taking votes away from the REPUBLICAN candidate says much more about the state of the Republican party in any particular race. If there are that many "druggies" (you forgot to mention the "whoremongers"...people who favour the legalisation of prostitution... in your tired old cannard) in the Republican Party who could be swayed by the Pro Freedom Libertarian stand against useless prohibitionism by the Nanny State, again, what does that say about the Republican Party?

lol.

[A CA Guy]

He ran for Vice President, so i'd say that your contention is a nonstarter.

I read that and could not remember him at all. I'm sure 99.999% of the nation are with me in that.

Republicans don't need another candidate to appease the small libertarian goofs at all. But if there were not social liberals and were indeed conservatives, they would not enable Democrats IMO. We are in an occupied territory in CA, and being there is no appealing super conservative super star that could be competitive, we have Arnold. He is at least electable and far better than the Communist Democrats. The Republicans are not swayed by the druggies of the Libertarian party, you are correct.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

You were complaining about liberal judges.

Yes, and again, who put them there is irrelevant.

The topic was judges in California. If you want to get subjective about what constitutes liberal or conservative on State courts, that's your business. I doubt there is a clear metric of demarcation across the various levels.

As a former Attorney General and Govenor of California, i'd say that Warren was actually quite relevent to the discussion. We have both however, left out the role of the legislature, who must confirm judges.

As for the rest, i make no judgements, the people of California do that through their Referendum process, and the number of them shot down by the court system. Getting rid of obstructionist judges would be quite easy to do, and would not involve expensive and time consuming impeachment proceses. The executive and the legislature simply destablishes the court in question, which is possible under most state constitutions, as well as the U.S. Constitution. (The SCOTUS being a notable exception as i read the Constitution)

[Tall_Texan]

I thought this would be about Sir Laurence Olivier. I was thinking "Dang, those Libertarians are desperate to field a candidate with some name value, aren't they?"

The GOP has Arnold so the Libertarians counter with Sir Laurence. Then the Democrats can turn to Warren Beatty and make it an all-Hollywood campaign.

Yes, I know Sir Laurence is dead and probably not even American but when has that ever stopped the Democrats? They'd put some dead body on the ballot and then just stick his widow in the job.

Too bad for the Libertarians. At least Sir Laurence would have given you some notoriety.