Green Party Candidate Eugene Platt Hopes to Receive At Least 10% Of the Vote In SC 1st District Special Election

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Post and Courier previously profiled all Republican and Democratic 1st Congressional District candidates. This profile is of the only third-party candidate in the race.

 

Published in The Post and Courier
BY ROBERT BEHRE

Compared with the major political party candidates seeking the 1st Congressional District seat, Green Party hopeful Eugene Platt is saying something different.

For instance, he not only is calling for nationalizing health care and ending overseas military entanglements, but he also says he’ll probably lose on May 7.

“To be candid, I’m not expecting to win this election,” he says, “but I’m not expecting to be embarrassed, either.”

Platt, 74, says he will not be embarrassed as long as he gets at least 10 percent of the vote against Republican former Gov. Mark Sanford and Democratic businesswoman Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

That may be an ambitious goal given the shape of the race.

While Platt was included in earlier forums during primary season, he has been relatively invisible in recent weeks, partly because he has not been invited to any candidate forums.

Asked about the snub, he says “not only is it frustrating, but also angering.”

Such forums provide Platt one of his main avenues to introduce himself to voters because he doesn’t expect to raise or spend more than $5,000 on the race.

To read the rest of the article, please go to the following link:

http://voteplatt.com/2013/04/platt-hopes-to-garner-at-least-10-of-votes-in-district-1-election.html

42 thoughts on “Green Party Candidate Eugene Platt Hopes to Receive At Least 10% Of the Vote In SC 1st District Special Election

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I’d be surprised if he got more than 3%. However, I really hope he does reach his 10% goal.

    Why? Because then it would mean assured victory for the liberty friendly candidate I’m strongly supporting, Mark Sanford 😉

  2. Richard Winger

    What is Mark Sanford’s stand on the Defense of Marriage Act? The Patriot Act? The bill to end the federal ban on hemp? Don’t just allege that Sanford is pro-liberty without giving us some examples or evidence.

  3. Stewart Flood

    Does anyone on here other than me actually know Mark Sanford?

    Mark is a social conservative. He vetoed more than 150 (I think it was 158) spending bills in his first term as governor. Great, eh? All but about five or six were overturned by his own republican controlled statehouse.

    Of course when he cheated on his wife, he used state funds to travel (in secret) to South America.

    Very libertarian, eh? NOT!

    Sanford voted in favor of DOMA. He was out of Congress by the time of the Patriot Act, but he would have voted yes along with the rest of the sheep.

    I cannot support any of the candidates running, so I will be staying home and not voting.

  4. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    I’d be surprised if he got more than 3%. However, I really hope he does reach his 10% goal.

    Why? Because then it would mean assured victory for the liberty friendly candidate I’m strongly supporting, Mark Sanford.”

    Who needs enemies when you’ve got “friends” like Mark Sanford?

  5. Sam Kress

    I think Eugene Platt is more liberty friendly on the issues I care about most than Mark Sanford.

  6. Stewart Flood

    I have met Mr Platt on a number of occasions. I cannot specifically recall his position on any given issues, but I do not recall him being what I would refer to as “liberty minded.”

    There are no “liberty minded” candidates in this race, which is why I am staying home.

  7. Rod Stern

    Depends on the issue. He’s probably good on social issues and foreign policy, bad on most economic issues. Sanford is most likely the other way around. So it’s a matter of what is most important to you.

  8. Stewart Flood

    From his website:

    Highlights

    Eugene was an early supporter of Universal Healthcare during his 1990 run for Congress back when almost no one was talking about it.

    He’s been a very vocal opponent of the I-526 boondoggle.

    As an honorably discharged veteran, he has spoken out to criticize the ill-advised military ventures the country has involved itself with, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military action should be defensive only.

    He believes the influx of large sums of money from wealthy special interest lobbyists has had a corrupting influence on the political process and that we need comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit the excessive influence of the priveleged and powerful elite. Corporations are not people and are not entitled to the same rights as living, breathing human beings and the “Citizens United” ruling must be overturned to prevent corporations from buying elections and politicians.

    He believes pollution and climate change are real and must be taken seriously. He supports subsidies to help spur the transition to sustainable energy and improving mass transit and high speed rail.

    The criminal justice system must be completely revamped, focusing on the safety of law-abiding citizens. This new system would feature truth in sentencing, greater parental responsibility for acts of children, a drastically shortened interval between arrest and trial, victim restitution, a more stringent parole policy, and opportunities for rehabilitation. As a State House candidate he called for the State Highway Patrol being increased by at least 100 new troopers to insure the safety of our highways.
    ***
    There is a lot more. He wants more cops, more taxes (supports progressive income taxes), and more government control and intervention.

    The I-526 “boondoggle” that he mentions is the completion of the I-526 loop around the southeast portion of the metro area. We (local citizens) have been forced to pay federal AND STATE gas taxes to fund roads, but they refuse to fund and finish the roads with money we have already had taken from us by force.

    Traffic is horrible. We waste more gas (paying more taxes on it!) sitting in traffic because of the incomplete road.

    Will it take some land (trees) away from James Island? Yes. But if you want to get onto James Island now, the last half mile of road can take you 45 minutes to an hour to travel anytime between 3pm and 6pm during the week. Mornings are just as bad the other way.

    The city “planners” built up James Island, Johns Island and other “Islands” out there, but they make many of us who do not live on James Island suffer with excessive traffic on our local roads (leading to James Island) because of objections from local residents who live on James Island but want US to have their traffic problem!

  9. Rod Stern

    Yes, about what I expected.

    As I said: it’s a matter of what issues are most important to you.

  10. Stewart Flood

    Oh yeah…they added a half-cent sales tax NINE YEARS AGO to go one third each for “green space”, “carta” (our public transportation), and ROADS!!!

    I believe Mr Platt was in favor of the tax at the time. Now he doesn’t want the road.

    I fought against the sales tax — twice. Defeated it in 2000 when it was a one cent increase, but both the democrats and republicans (and all the mayors locally) campaigned for it in 2004 and it passed.

  11. Stewart Flood

    I’m not for the type of planned (aka forced) growth that they do around here, but if they do it and tax you for the roads then they need to build the **** roads with the money they’ve already stolen!

  12. Stewart Flood

    As I noted above, I’m not happy with Sanford either. There are a lot of libertarians in the state who read the newspapers calling him our “libertarian governor” and assume that he is. He isn’t.

  13. Stewart Flood

    Long story…

    The candidate that ran as a libertarian last fall decided that he’d pay the $3K to file and run as a republican. Wasted his money, and he came in next to last getting (in the smaller turnout primary) about 1/4 or 1/5 of the votes he got last fall. He had ~2% last fall, got less than 1% in the primary.

    Total waste of time.

    We had another libertarian (long time member of the party) who had run as a republican and gotten elected a decade ago. Had a really strong libertarian record in office, so the republicans changed his district to kick him out of office. He actually stood up to Sanford and refused to support his non-libertarian programs.

    He ran as a republican, putting a HALF-MILLION DOLLARS of his OWN MONEY into the race. Came in third.

    He would have made a great candidate for us, but he filed and started running in the republican primary (and was doing quite well) long before Sanford filed. Sanford did what he always does: he joined the race late, after all the others had dived in.

    Since we had two actual libertarians in the race, both running as republicans, if one of them had one we would have had about a five day window to make them a fusion candidate and put them on the ballot as both a republican and a libertarian. But they’d have had to win the republican primary first.

    Had either of them decided to just file as a libertarian we would have a candidate on the ballot right now. Big mistake. Really big mistake. Not my decision. I’m just the county party chair.

  14. Mark Axinn

    I agree.

    We don’t usually run to win races, but to get a seat at the table and to bring an alternative voice (certainly not being articulated by Demopublicans) to the debate.

    But being a candidate is very tough: takes time, money and very thick skin. Kudos to those who do it.

    Stewart is right about the current crop in SC: no good choices.

  15. Rod Stern

    On the whole I like Greens better than I like Republicans, and this seems to be no exception.

  16. Andy

    “Stewart Flood // Apr 26, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Long story…

    The candidate that ran as a libertarian last fall decided that he’d pay the $3K to file and run as a republican. Wasted his money, and he came in next to last getting (in the smaller turnout primary) about 1/4 or 1/5 of the votes he got last fall. He had ~2% last fall, got less than 1% in the primary.

    Total waste of time.”

    This is an example of why a pro-liberty person running as a Republican is not always the “silver bullet” that some pro-liberty activists make it out to be. Trent and Krysztof take note.

  17. Sam Kress

    This is an example of why a pro-liberty person running as a Republican is not always the “silver bullet” that some pro-liberty activists make it out to be.

    Amen!

  18. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I’m pro-life, so is Sanford. And to be quite honest, I support marriage equality, but it is definitively not that big issue for me. I could care less that he’s a social conservative. Fiscal and foreign policy issues trump that for me.

    Sanford was endorsed by Keith Blandford, the former-two time LIBERTARIAN PARTY candidate for Congress in this district. He was endorsed by Ray Nash, the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) endorsed candidate in the initial primary. And of course the SC RLC endorsed him as well.

    Sanford’s son said his father would have endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 had his Fox News contract not prevented him from doing so. Sanford is strongly supported by state senator Tom Davis. Davis is a big liberty guy, endorsed Ron Paul in 2012.

    And from what I’ve seen, Sanford’s record in US Congress was good. He was a solid Ron Paul ally.

    I want to promote liberty through EVERY available venue possible, including the Libertarian Party AND Republican Party. And of course through education as well.

  19. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I wouldn’t have minded if an LP candidate had run in this district. In fact, I want more candidates from more parties on every ballot. We gotta end the two-party stranglehold.

    HOWEVER, some Libertarian ran against Justin Amash in 2012, OF ALL PEOPLE!!!! What the fuck was his reasoning behind that? Thank God his race didn’t change the outcome of the election.

    Unless there are people here who don’t consider Amash to be a libertarian…well ok, he’s not perfect. But quite possibly he is as close to Ron Paul as there is in the House. Also, Thomas Massie is excellant, he’s just as good IMO.

  20. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @25

    Correct. Liberty candidates running as Republicans usually don’t win. HOWEVER, the Libertarian Party has elected ZERO state legislators (since 2000 that is), congressman, senators.

    For the GOP side, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, are pro-liberty. I like Walter Jones and Steve Stockman as well (Stockman has CP connections and even voted for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 IIRC). That’s 4.

    There are quite a bit of pro-liberty state legislators who are Republicans. AT LEAST 50 endorsed Ron Paul in 2012.

    And there is a pro-liberty senator, Rand Paul. Yes, I like Rand. Shoot me 🙂

  21. Rod Stern

    “I could care less that he’s a social conservative. Fiscal and foreign policy issues trump that for me. ”

    For me it’s social issues and foreign policy, and he’s pretty crappy on both, while Platt is decent on both.

    I think economic issues matter too, which is why I would rather have an LP candidate in the race, but it’s the least important of the three for me.

  22. Richard Winger

    Don’t forget, minor party candidates can influence policy without winning elections. When minor parties start polling enough votes to tip the outcome, major parties are forced to change their policies at least somewhat in order to woo those voters back.

  23. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @31

    I agree with that. I just said I don’t understand when LPers run against libertarian Republicans like Amash. IIRC there were LP candidates against Ron Paul too, several times.

  24. Rod Stern

    Eugene Flynn ran against Ron Paul. Mr. Flynn is an immigration lawyer, open borders is his top issue. Why wouldn’t he run against an immigration restriction supporter?

  25. Deran

    Even though I am very socialist, when I am given the chance to vote for any thord party or independent candaite, I do. I’ve voted for Libertarians, Constitution Party, Green, even a bolshie now and then. So I do not understand people that say they support breaking the political duopoly then turning around and either not voting at all, even when there is a third party or independent option, or voting for a Democrat or Republican!

  26. Rod Stern

    I’m with Deran. I like Libertarians better, but I’ll take a Green over a Republican any day of the week and three times on Sundays.

  27. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @33

    Well I guess that was a good reason then for Flynn to run. I’m still torn on the immigration issue myself. I don’t know if I’m quite ready to accept open borders and amnesty yet.

  28. Rod Stern

    I didn’t say you have to accept it; we can discuss that issue if you’d like. I did say that someone who thinks that’s a primary issue could be justified in running against Ron Paul. It sounds as if you agree.

    I looked up http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Thomas_Massie.htm : border of libertarian, conservative and moderate.

    Strongly opposes:
    Abortion rights

    Favors:
    Expanding the armed forces

    No opinion recorded on many important issues.

    I’m not seeing why Libertarians should stay out of that race, either.

    “He endorsed Ron Paul” doesn’t sound like much of a reason. All kinds of different people from Stormfront racists to hardcore LP anarchists to Rev. Chuck Baldwin to some fairly conventional Republicans to some left wing progressives I know endorsed Dr. Paul.

  29. Stewart Flood

    An “endorsement” from a candidate who got…oh…about 200 votes…

    Meaningless. Yes, Keith Blandford endorsed him. But it is AGAINST THE BYLAWS for any of us who are party officers (Mr Blandford is not one) to endorse a candidate of another party.

    I expect Sanford to win. If he does, he’ll have the seat for the next thirty years (unless he runs for president in 2016 or 2020 and I suspect he will).

    So once again we enter a period where running someone in the first district is a waste of time. We get someone who certainly votes the correct way on some issues, but does NOTHING to extend libertarian positions.

    Someone said above that they don’t have a problem with a social conservative. A social conservative supports the government in your bedroom, as well as continued criminalization of victimless “social crimes” that are currently on the books.

    Remember, it is STILL ILLEGAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA to live with someone if you are not married. It is STILL ILLEGAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA for a white woman to marry a black man. Not sure why, since white men are allowed to marry black women.

    Of course they don’t enforce these laws, but they are still there.

    So no, I can’t support social conservatives.

  30. Rob Banks

    OnTheIssues.org sources all of their quotes and positions for candidates. Not seeing much else from Massie’s own issues page; it does say he opposes marriage equality, which OnTheIssues had him down as neutral on, so that’s a point against him.

    Another point against him is his strong stance against migration freedom. He also apparently supports at least some foreign aid.

    I certainly hope both the Libertarians and Greens run candidates against him.

  31. Rob Banks

    Someone said above that they don’t have a problem with a social conservative. A social conservative supports the government in your bedroom, as well as continued criminalization of victimless “social crimes” that are currently on the books.

    Exactly. I have a huge problem with social conservatives and defenders of the military-industrial complex.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *