Last week, Michelle Darnell, Libertarian for state representative in the 48th district position 1 in Washington and her only opponent, Patty Kuderer, faced off twice at candidate forums, first the PTSA education forum followed by the Bellevue College forum.
Darnell drew cheers from the audience as she proclaimed “vouchers and school choice”. Kuderer discussed extra taxes and more government spending.
The most telling moment was when the audience asked Kuderer about the proposed state income tax. Washington is one of nine states that does not have a personal income tax.
Kuderer tried to avoid the question, and was embarrassed to admit, on record, that a new state income tax would be bad for the district. Darnell has always been against the state income tax.
By the second forum, Darnell’s opponent decided to leave early and abruptly before questions were finished.
Darnell has been endorsed by the GOP candidate for Governor, Bill Bryant, and the GOP candidate for Lt. Governor, Marty McClendon.
Click here to view her campaign website.
Hi Trent Hill. I was actually looking for an old article of yours from thirdpartywatch.com, a site that no longer seems to exist, recently. Is there any way you could contact me? My email is [email protected]. Thanks!
I am busier than usual in my private life, but I admit that I’m burned out. We all worked so hard up until the LP convention, and since then there hasn’t been tons of good news to post. It seemed like the only thing being talked about was how bad Johnson is. I tried to ignore all of that and support him, but even I have given up on him. I can’t handle Weld and his CFR ties and his comment that “he;s running as himself”. What it boils down to is that, even if Gary was doing a good job, he chooses the people around him badly. I don’t need to point out Ron Nielson’s shortcomings or Weld’s, but he’s also got a brute of a handler, Tom Mahan, who viciously attacks people who question anything going on. Even I’m out. I’ll be voting for Jill Stein due to her foreign policy stance, plus she is also sympathetic to a couple of other issues that are important to me.
I’ll help any new writer that wants to get involved, and I keep a good eye on the inner workings here, such as the Open Thread and releasing pended comments. I still love this site and the people here. I’m just sooooo discouraged. Hopefully it’s only temporary.
The site did best when it was indexed in Google News. But yes, that did coincide with a time when more articles were posted, mostly by myself and Paulie. Running IPR is not easy–the main thing is finding a reliable editor and responsible/enthusiastic writers….who aren’t going to be paid. Certain publishers have implemented profit sharing mechanisms, which I think probably helped.
The site seems to expand when more articles get posted. Yet few people want to post them, myself included. And the few people that do want to post articles don’t seem to have a lot of time for it.
Langa,
I hardly ever comment here, honestly. I was a co-founder of the site and then the senior editor and co-owner, before selling the site later. I really only comment when I see someone posting an article that is unfair or not up to the standard that readers have indicated they want at IPR.
By all means, if you don’t like my coments, you skip right over them and ignore them. No skin off my back. Any of the contributors here are welcome to do the same. I’m not an editor or an owner here anymore, just someone who wants to see the site expand.
I wasn’t bullied. Actually, I would like to thank Mr. Hill for providing the excuse I needed to spend less time here, as it was becoming much more time consuming than I had wanted it to be, yet somehow addictive. But thank you for your concern.
I don’t know which is more pathetic: Mr. Brown allowing himself to be bullied by perpetual meddler Trent Hill, or George Dance grasping at straws to defend the LP’s blatantly anti-libertarian ticket.
“than if a Libertarian Party candidate running for a high level office does it.”
Should read, “than if a Libertarian Party candidate for a low level office does it.”
When I said that Bob Barr was with the CIA, it is because Bob Barr was in fact with the CIA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr
From Barr’s Wikipedia profile: ” Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an analyst of Latin American issues.”
“After leaving the CIA, Barr moved to Georgia, where he practiced law and became active in the Republican Party, serving as county chair.”
Bob Barr followed a similar path as the current CIA stooge who is running for President as a “third” party / “independent” candidate, Evan McMullin.
The CIA sends people out to get involved in politics, the media, and other places where they can influence society.
William Weld was on a CFR Task Force called Building a North American Union (note that Heidi Cruz, wife of Ted Cruz, and Goldman Sachs employee, was also a part of this CFR Task Force):
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Weld’s profile from the report: “WILLIAM F. WELD is Principal at Leeds Weld & Co., a private equity investment firm in New York. Previously Mr. Weld was elected to two terms as Governor of Massachusetts (1991-1997), served as Assistant U.S. Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC (1986-1988), and as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts during the Reagan administration (1981-1986).”
Here is William Weld’s profile from the law firm where he works:
https://www.mintz.com/professionals/detail/name/william-f-weld
From the profile: “Bill is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and Washington, DC, and served by appointment of the President on the US Holocaust Memorial Council.”
George Dance said: “Where are the angry denunciations of Darnell as an “opportunist,” a “trojan horse,” and “not a real Libertarian”? The calls for her to be removed from the Libertarian ticket? The letters tracing her ties, however convoluted, to the CIA, the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, and Mossad?”
I have not looked into this candidate enough to comment. I agree with Darryl Perry, and other Libertarians, like the late Harry Browne, that tax payer financed education vouchers can be used as a Trojan Horse to take over private schools, so I am not really a fan of them.
Having said this, as I have stated numerous times, contrary to what some here believe about me, I do not have to agree with a candidate on every detail of every issue to support them. I’d have to do a deeper analysis of this candidate.
I do think that Libertarian Party candidates who run for local and district offices are important, but it is much worse if a Libertarian running for a high level office misrepresents the Libertarian Party / philosophy than if a Libertarian Party candidate running for a high level office does it. Why? Because more of the public will hear the Libertarian Party candidate for a high level office than for a low level office.
If I say that a candidate has ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, as in the case of William Weld, it is because he is a known, current member of that organization. Click the link below, and you will see that William Weld and his wife are both members of the CFR.
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=W
“Darnell drew cheers from the audience as she proclaimed ‘vouchers and school choice’.”
What? a Libertarian candidate advocating education vouchers? Doesn’t she know that the self-described “real Libertarians” or “purists” (those dedicating their time to working against the LP presidential campaign) see this as among the top evils of statism? (As witness, just look at the closest thing they have to a manifesto, Darryl Perry’s 2016 Presidential Campaign Platform, the Education section of which begins: “The Federal Department of Education should be abolished, and *all* voucher programs should be abolished.” [*stress in original*])
Where are the angry denunciations of Darnell as an “opportunist,” a “trojan horse,” and “not a real Libertarian”? The calls for her to be removed from the Libertarian ticket? The letters tracing her ties, however convoluted, to the CIA, the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, and Mossad?
Did the “libertarian Libertarians” this attack on their principles, or do they just need a bit more time to get the anti-Darnell campaign up and running?
I’m not shy, just losing interest. Already had my account for posting articles here removed and probably done in the comments here as well. It was eating up way too much time anyway and I have other things to do. For my parting thoughts, enjoy this Trump Crazy Train video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se3d59EUBWU
Thanks for making the change Brown. I’d hoped you’d rise to the standard, not shy away.
OK fine, you get your wish. I’ll go ahead and switch the picture as you suggested and stop posting articles here, since I am not allowed to have any fun while doing so and have to be nitpicked to death any time I decide to have a bit. Go ahead and build it up further without me. It’s just not worth my time. Enjoy, or whatever. So long and thanks for all the fish. And on a more sincere note good luck to Ms. Darnell and all the other hard working candidates. BTW, maybe if you want to see the site built up further maybe you should post some more articles and/or find some people to do so rather than run those who step up off with the nitpickery.
I care because a regular reader has already found it weird enough to comment, which matched my own reaction. I helped build IPR into what it is today and I’d like to see it built up further, not torn down by writers who don’t take it even a little seriously.
I know what it is, a stretch of a joke and an unfunny one at that. As if LP candidates don’t have it hard enough. Sheesh.
Lighten up, it’s a play on “dominates” in the headline and why are you making a big deal about it? Seems like a pointless discussion. And not that it should matter in the least but why exactly do you suspect that she would care, much less object? Jeez…the silly things some people get bent out of shape about. SMH!
Maybe you should bother the national office next about why they used the word dominates in the headlines and tell them about your suspicions? Or maybe find a different use of your time.
Ok. So why isnt it the pre-view picture? The above picture not only has nothing to do with this story, but I suspect the candidate herself would object to it being associated with her.
It’s already in the post.
How about you just find a picture of the candidate?
It’s a play on the headline LP.org blog used (which I also used here). Although I later noticed that her opponent is probably female (Patty), but should that matter? I can find a lesbian domination image if it’s a big deal.
Article photo doesn’t really make much sense….