Hanging my head in disgust...
$710.96.. The price of freedom.
Posted on 06/20/2004 6:55:30 AM PDT by Undertow
Vin Suprynowicz: Libertarians aim to 'cost Bush the election'
On June 14, the Seattle Times editorialized that the entrance requirements for the tedious, moribund, rigorously stage-managed turn-offs that today pass for our presidential "debates" should be loosened -- but not too much.
The paper's intent was to get Ralph Nader included. The solution? "It's time to reconsider the current format and the lock on presidential debates by the two major parties," the Times recommends.
Right on.
But wait. There still has to be "some cutoff point in voter popularity," the Seattlites immediately added. "Otherwise, George Bush and John Kerry would have to give equal network TV time to Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Walt Brown of the Socialist Party," warned the Seattlites, evidently palpitating from the effect of too much Starbuck's. "If the debates were opened up to such candidates, there might be dozens of them."
The correct level of perceived public support for admission into the debates? Fifteen percent is too high, but 5 percent would be too low, the Times figures. Ten percent would be just right.
"What a bunch of idiots," comments Richard Winger of the San Francisco-based Ballot Access News. "Walt Brown is not gonna be in the ballot in more than three or four states ... the most he can get is six."
Winger is the national expert on this stuff.
"It would be a mistake in my opinion to ever invite Walt Brown," Winger agrees, since "There are four socialist candidates" from the warring branches of the dying movement "and they'll each be on the ballot in a handful of states."
Which means none has even a theoretical mathematical chance of winning the presidency.
If that were the only standard -- ballot status in enough states to theoretically win the White House -- how many candidates would debate?
Five this year, Mr. Winger replies. The Democrat and Republican, Ralph Nader, Libertarian Michael Badnarik, and the nominee of the Constitution Party. "It's conceivable if the Greens are stupid enough to nominate somebody other than Nader, there could conceivably be six, at the outside."
Mind you, if the presence of Walt Brown and David Cobb of the Greens was the price I had to pay for some lively, interesting debates where George Bush and John Kerry had to confront new and common-sense ideas from someone as principled, personable and articulate as Michael Badnarik, an Austin-based computer programmer and freelance lecturer on the Constitution, it's a price I'd gladly pay.
But this "dozens of candidates" stuff is getting to be an awfully geriatric bogeyman.
The Libertarian Party will be on the ballot in at least 46 states, and possibly all 50. Every presidential cycle, the Libertarian Party spends a cool million dollars petitioning for ballot position in enough states to be in position to conceivably win the presidency.
Why don't the handlers of George Bush and John Kerry want to confront someone like Badnarik in a debate? Because he's a personable, intelligent, coherent, philosophically consistent freedom lover.
I don't think George Bush could bat .500 on that list -- though I'll give him "personable." I suspect Sen. Kerry might have a little trouble in the "philosophically consistent" section.
I had dinner with Badnarik and his campaign manager -- City Councilman Fred Collins of the Detroit suburb of Berkley -- last Friday at the historic La Posta restaurant in Mesilla, N.M., just south of Las Cruces.
Fred Collins sets impressively achievable goals for the campaign. He figures if he can raise a few million dollars for TV ads, and place them only in the swing states, he can poll a couple of percentage points for Badnarik and the Libertarians in those states -- and cost George Bush the election.
What's that? Badnarik is just some wing nut who hasn't been proven in the heat of any real political contest?
Actually, Badnarik is a political Cinderella story. A man of modest means, he spent the past year travelling the country, campaigning for the Libertarian nomination, in a '99 Kia Sephia. He and sidekick Jon Airheart, a former University of Texas student impressed with Badnarik's ability to sell the libertarian message, covered 24,000 miles, hitting 36 states. Although Badnarik says there were days when they counted their dollars to see if they could afford a room and a meal and still have enough to gas up and reach the next town, in the process he has gained enormously in poise and confidence as a public speaker.
Badnarik had raised and spent $33,000 as of convention time in Atlanta three weeks ago -- he couldn't afford to stay at the party's upscale convention hotel and instead had to drive in for the candidate debate from a Days Inn across town.
Entering the Libertarian Party convention, Badnarik was running behind late entry Aaron Russo, the former Nevada gubernatorial candidate and producer of the film "Trading Places," who promised to bring a lot more money and drama -- and thus, presumably, press coverage -- to the party's presidential campaign.
Russo was leading after a close first ballot. But if Badnarik campaign manager Collins could persuade radio host Gary Nolan -- running third -- to drop out and throw his support to Badnarik, a coalition of the "Anybody But Russo" forces might just pull off a third-ballot miracle.
Next week: Russo blows the nomination.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." His Web site is www.privacyalert.us.
A) Arrest them, put them in jail or rehab center
B) Legalize it, so they can do it as they freely. Create "volunteer" rehab centers where they can get help (HA!).
Republicans answer A.
Libertarians answer B.
Well, in that case, you need to be sure to get alcohol outlawed then... The fact is that driving while impaired/under the influence is what's illegal, not getting drunk. Do you propose reintroducing prohibition? I'm a strong supporter of tossing the people who are busted for DUI into jail for long sentances. That's for alcohol and/or drugs.
But if DUI is the problem you have here, then why even bother mentioning drugs?
Mark
The word irony is flashing in neon lights.
Hanging my head in disgust...
$710.96.. The price of freedom.
Dane,
Why to you always resort to hyperbole and distortion to argue?
People have been using substances to alter their reality for a long time in this country. It isn't just in the poor neighborhoods and that's just common sense and common knowledge.
You are missing the fact that I DON'T CARE what anyone is using or not using. I am not pushing the issue. I just don't want the cops kicking in my door at 3 AM in a case of mistaken identity, because my first reaction and last act will be to reach for the 20 gage and start shooting.
Exactly. They're *still* harping on the popular vote issue from 2000!
What is so hyperbolic about pointing out the truth that socially Bandarik is just as liberal, probably more so, than Specter.
You really get testy when someone points out the truth to you.
Well to test out your theory, would you mind the house next door to you or even your neighborhood be declared a "do any drug you want to" zone.
Surely you wouldn't mind.
Well, I wouldn't want the house next door to be a waste water treatment plant, or a feed lot either. That's what zoning laws are for. My house is in an area zoned as residential only.
Did my response answer your question? No, not exactly. But then, your response really had nothing to do with the original post either.
I agree that the WOD IS a far greater threat to my life, liberty, and property than is a "pot head or crack addict." You see, there are ways that I can protect myself from them. And if I can't do it alone, I can get together with my community to do so. On the other hand, remember that the government has a monopoly on using deadly force. No Knock Raids, confidential informants (giving unreliable tips), and asset forfeiture laws are not good things.
Mark
A vote against Bush's domestic policies?
Why don't you ask the people who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, what they think of Bush's domestic policies.
Foreign policy overrides Domestic here bud.
If you think our country and your family will be safer from Al-Qaeda with Michael Badnarik as President, go ahead and vote for him. If you honestly believe that we'll be safer with him, I have no problem with you voting your concious.
But if you're going to vote against Bush just because he's not our "perfect" domestic policy leader, then I can't respect that.
The most recent poll I have seen shows Kerry with a 1% lead in Pennsylvania. Bush ain't your perfect guy? Oh well. Would you prefer Universal Health Care? 40-50% tax rates on the people who've earned it? The return of Pre-1994 Welfare?
You want all of that? Then vote for Badnarik, he's your man.
I know that Michael is not against gay marriage. He doesn't believe that the government should have ANY role in deciding who may marry whom. Do you know the history of marriage licenses in this country? When were marriage licenses first issued? Do you that they are racially based?
He is against the Federal Marriage Amendment, as am I. An amendment is the wrong solution to what wouldn't even be a problem if it weren't for the government meddling in our lives to begin with. The government created the problem by creating special rules and tax benefits in a corrupt tax system. Now the solution is just another step in trashing the Constitution and our Republic form of government.
Do you know the purpose of the Constitution? Does a restriction on 'the people' belong in a document that restricts the power of government (or is supposed to be)?
I may be incorrect, but I do believe that Michael is pro life based on his non aggression principles. Abortion violates the principles involved in our founding document.
Second mark(your words),
Did my response answer your question? No, not exactly. But then, your response really had nothing to do with the original post either
Uh yes it did. Ray said that he didn't care that people do illict drugs.
Fine take it a step further and ask his neighbors to make a "do any drug you want zone". Seems that Ray wouldn't mind.
You guys like DUmmies, IMO, really hate the intrusion of the real world.
Oh you mean state legislatures being told by Judges that they can't define marriage. Huh not a very strong states rights sentiment from you Ray. Oh BTW, the Massuchusetts supreme court went over the head of the Legislature. You seem to have an animus towards populary elected legislatures.
Oh BTW, Mr. Bandarak is pro-abortion. He gives the same basic weasle answer all Libertarians do. Abortion splits Libertarians so we will just ignore it and take no position(i.e pro-abortion).
Are you stupid or do you just act that way?
Specter want to enshrine his liberal policies in FEDERAL LAW. And he wants to tax you to pay for it.
Badnarik says that it is up to an individual to live their own life without government coercion, free of government extortion, or benefits at the expense of anyone else.
There will always be gays, unless you are in favor or killing them now and at birth. There will always be women who get abortions unless you are in favor of their executions too. There will always be drugs users unless you are in favor of killing them now or at their next use of 'illegal' drugs.
Specter wants to subsidize and encourage the first two with your tax dollars and subsidize the WOD and punish the last one at your expense.
Please try to stay up to speed.
Who is using liberal like hyperbole now.(Give you a hint Ray, it's you).
Why the animosity to states defining what marriage is. You really don't like the 10th amendment do you.
Ray put your resume into the ACLU. You would fit in well the way you spit untrue hyperbole, IMO.
Instead of capitalizing on this the LP overplayed their hand by pressuring her to run for Governor and threw all their chips behind her instead of encouraging other LP candidates to run on a similiar platform. You hit the nail on the head - the LP is a joke because they spend too much time worrying about drugs and hookers.
Reagan, like the Framers of America's founding documents, was a Christian Libertarian.
He, and they, advocated self-government according to the biblical 'Law of Love', ie: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." [Rom.13:10]
And of course The Framers agreed with the biblical definiton of what constitutes harm to one's neighbor. We have laws against murder, theft, fraud, (marriage is a contract so adultery is fraud, by the way), etc., etc. [Rom.13:9]
So, if there is to be a decent, orderly society where the citizens don't harm one another, people have two choices:
[1] They will be free because they are self-controlled. They choose to be law-abiding. ( INTERNALLY controlled).
[2] They will be lawless. A relativist, a libertine, and an anarchist -- each want to determine for himself what he thinks the definition of love is and what the definition of harm is. Of course those who insist on being a law unto themselves will necessarily have to be externally controlled when they violate the only standard we go by and thus harm their neighbor.
Captain Rabbit: "And yet there are so many conservatives that hate libertarians. As somebody who considers himself between conservative and libertarian, I can't fathom why."
Conservatives and Christian libertarians are one and the same in their basic worldview.
It is not possible to be a conservative and be a relativist (whose ethics have no unchanging standard, but are instead situational). And, of course no conservative could at the same time be a libertine or an anarchist, either --- for the same reason.
"This country was founded on the principle that the American people would be self-governing! Those who wrote the Constitution clearly recognized (and stated openly) the self government applied to the INDIVIDUAL more than it did to the government.
It was pointed out that the Constitution was only suitable to govern a moral people and was wholly inadequate to rule those who were not self governed by a universally recognized moral code.
Long before the Constitution came into existence, William Pitt who was involved in the establishment of Pennsylvania stated:
"Those who will not be ruled by God [self-governed], WILL be ruled by tyrants!"
Our enemies, again mostly domestic, have long recognized and acted upon that knowledge and have been doing everything in their power to destroy what was once the crowning achievement of the Judeo-Christian belief system: the United States of America." ~ Albert Burns
Two terms of Clinton didn't end the republic. Why would one term of Kerry, especially with a GOP Congress?
I don't know why the LP just can't become a wing of the GOP. The GOP has a RINO wing and a Christian wing, surely there's room for a Libertarian wing.
Nah it gave us such great things such as selling military secrets to the chicoms and doing nothing about islamofascism.
What a wonderful thing.
Because libertarians leave out the most important part of the freedom equation that our founding fathers wrote so much about.....morality. Without our self imposed Judeo-Christian morality holding society together and keeping us from preying on each other, we in turn are able to be a free people. When we loose that morality society becomes dangerous and the stronger prey on the weaker in turn government must impose its demands on the society of proper behavior more and more and in the end the cost is our freedom.
Conservative contempt of libertarians is well deserved!
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.