Georgia U.S. House candidate runs as Bull Moose

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Loren Collins, a write-in candidate for Georgia’s Fourth District U.S. House seat, has declared he is the candidate of a revived Bull Moose Party. In a statement, he said, “The Bull Moose Party is intended to stand as a refuge for economically conservative Democrats, socially liberal Republicans, classic liberals and libertarians.”

The newspaper writes, “Collins said he and other Bull Moose ‘stand foremost for liberty, a principle often forgotten in this year’s political campaigns.’ The candidate acknowledged that in Georgia, the Bull Moose might be a party of one. ‘But I believe it’s growing,’ Collins said during a telephone interview.” Faye Coffield and Jacob Peralso have also qualified as write-in candidates for the seat.

9 thoughts on “Georgia U.S. House candidate runs as Bull Moose

  1. Andy Craig

    Setting aside the well-deserved “yet another libertarian ‘political party’ consisting of a few blogs” mockery, does this guy know anything about what the original ‘Bull Moose’ Party (aka the Progressive Party) actually advocated? It was formed by TR because the other two parties weren’t big-government *enough* for him and other “progressives” who believed that gov’t-appointed experts should run society rather than allowing individual freedom.

  2. G.E.

    It was formed because the bankers could not get th Fed enacted with Taft as president, and T.R.’s run was a guarantee that Wilson would win.

  3. Jimmy Clifton

    Wonder if this guy has any connection to Thomas Bentley, who has run for President multiple times under the National Progressive (Bull Moose) Party.

  4. G.E.

    Really, Andy?

    Let’s see: The precursor to the Federal Reserve Act was proposed while Taft was president, and the Democrats would not back it. FACT.

    Theodore Roosevelt was backed by many of those bankers who wrote the Federal Reserve Act. FACT.

    There was no way that Taft could win with T.R. in the race. He finished third as a sitting president, for God’s sake. FACT.

    Wilson’s victory was guaranteed with T.R. in the race. The Democrats supported the Fed Act when their president did — similarly to how the Democrats supported NAFTA to support Clinton. FACT.

    Yes. It’s “tinfoil hat” to think that powerful interests support candidates on the basis of the legislation they’re likely to get passed.

    Uh, no.

  5. Andy Craig

    It’s not “tinfoil hat” to think banking interests threw their support behind one candidate or another based on political calculations. That’s perfectly plausible. It’s tinfoil hat craziness to say that was what the election was all about, and that TR and the Progressive Party were actually motivated by this secret conspiracy. It simply wasn’t. There were many other issues at play that had a much larger role in deciding the outcome.

  6. G.E.

    Andy – I didn’t say that T.R. and the Progressive Party were motivated by anything other than megalomania (T.R.) and a love for socialism (the Progs). I said that the financial interests that funded T.R.’s campaign did so to help ensure the passage of the Fed. What? You think it wasn’t really a big deal to them and it was only one of many issues? Puh-lease. It was THE issue.

  7. Andy Craig

    Yeah, a big banking law was THE issue to the bankers who, along with many others, financially supported the candidates. It was not THE issue to the candidates themselves or the voters.

    I’m no defender of the Fed, but conspiratorial ravings do more to undermine the argument against the Fed than any economist.

Leave a Reply

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